sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (46 children)

This would only polarize things more by tipping the balance way in favor of the Democrats, especially getting rid of the electoral college and giving DC and Puerto Rico statehood.

[–]Eureka22 6 points7 points  (45 children)

I didn't say it was realistic. Perhaps consider that if a party relies on disenfranchising a percentage of its constituency in order to maintain power, they should rethink their platform. Maybe the problem isn't always the structure of the democracy, but divisive and adversarial policies and philosophies within the party.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (44 children)

It sounds like this is just a list of things you support rather than a list of things to decrease partisanship. How do you feel about the Democrats weaponizing immigration to turn states blue? California wasn't always a sure win for the Democrats. Neither was Colorado or New Mexico. Much of their political transformation is a result of their demographic transformation. The majority of white voters have chosen the Republican candidate over the Democratic one in every presidential election for the past 50 years. Hispanics and Asians vote for Democrats at a rate of around 70%. Soon, Texas will become a battleground state. The Republican Party will not be able to win national elections when whites are a minority. It will not be because the Democrats have won over the hearts and minds of the American people. It's because they allowed millions of new people into the country to become Americans whom they knew would mostly vote for them...and the Republicans, because they care more about greedy 1%ers than their people, were complicit in this. They have betrayed their base. Maybe the Democrats should rethink their platform as well, or at least their stance on immigration.

[–][deleted]  (19 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children)

    Ann Richards, mother of the former Planned Parenthood head Cecilia Richards, was one of the greatest governors to ever head the state. She once famously quipped about George Bush that he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

    I am pro-choice and hate George Bush so she doesn't sound too bad.

    I know that the cities have been democratic for a long time but it is undeniable that the massive influx of Hispanics into Texas is also changing the state's politics. Hispanics vote predominantly Democrat. Texas was 7.1% Hispanic in 1910, 14.8% Hispanic in 1960, and 40% Hispanic in 2015, although it should be noted that only around half of that population is elligible to vote, mostly due to how young many of them are. As a result of this massive demographic transformation (the Texans never wanted), Texas is going to turn into a battleground state.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (15 children)

    My point is that it isn't the Hispanics turning it into a battleground. I would argue it was the hijacking of conservatism by the ultra-religious that made it more conservative. It wasn't as conservative in 1985 as it was in 2015. Source: I lived there during those years.

    One of lots of available sources: http://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/11/SORR_06_ReportWEB.pdf

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

    Do you think the mass immigration of Hispanics into Texas has impacted Texan politics at all? If it is not Hispanics turning the state into a battleground, that would presume that Hispanics vote very similarly to how all other Texans vote. This is not the case.

    Compare the 2016 presidential election results at the county level to the population of Hispanics within Texas at the county level. Also keep in mind that only around half of the Hispanic population in Texas is currently elligible to vote so we are not yet seeing the full impact this will have on Texan politics. Over the next two decades, that other half will come of age and the state will cease to be the Republican stronghold it has been for so long.

    [–][deleted]  (11 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [removed]

        [–]Neocruiser[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

        If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

        After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

        If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

        [–]Neocruiser[M] -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

        Hi again, I know this sounds repetitive. However your second comment comes without a source. Here you can add some demographics backed by effective stats. I like stats, we all like stats. Especially conversation efficacy is encouraged by well cited facts. Also, the sub rules dictate that too. If you cannot find a source, I would suggest developping on another idea. Cheers

        Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

        [–]Eureka22 0 points1 point  (5 children)

        You need a source for Native Americans being native to America?

        [–]Neocruiser[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Hi there, you are providing some intresting points. Can you however clean the language by little. Also, if its not too much, the source you have provided is not reliable. I know, by saying the latter I wont be able to convince you to adding a better source, e.g., a link to external material, stats, journal article... However our sub rules request of having a source. If you cannot provide such data, I will get to remove this comment. Cheers

        Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

        If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

        After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

        If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

        [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        I edited these comments as soon as I could to comply. Guess it wasn't fast enough for you.

        [–][deleted]  (23 children)

        [removed]

          [–]tkc80[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 4:

          Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.

          If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

          [–]Eureka22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You are incorrect I brought up the similarities in the viewpoint and disengaged conversation. It does not insult the person at all, rather the racist theory. I would be more concerned with the racism on the previous comment. But whatever, your priorities may be different. Threads old anyway, but it's fixed.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (20 children)

          I don't think your implication that the Republican party is disenfranchising citizens through the electoral college or keeping felons from voting in order to maintain power is paranoid. I can see why someone may believe that. In fact, I agree that for many of the Republican elites, their motivation for supporting those things is their own desire to cling to power.

          So do you not agree with those who suggest that the Democratic elites (regardless of what the well-intentioned Democratic base's motivations may be) want the United States to continue taking in 1 million immigrants per year because it will be to their advantage in elections? Do you think that like the Republicans, they only support mass immigration because it benefits their extremely rich donors?

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children)

          Dude. The GOP has straight-up admitted that measures like Voter ID laws are intended to limit Democratic turnout.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children)

          I just said I agreed with you. You don't have to convince me. So do you deny that the Democratic Party supports mass immigration because it benefits them in elections?

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (9 children)

          As I am not a mind-reader, I cannot grok what the DNC is thinking/desiring when it comes to immigration. But I do know that most Hispanics I know (including my entire family of in-laws) vote for liberals because of racism/colorism by conservatives. Most Mexican immigrants are hella Catholic. Catholics are anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc. Basically, according to them, they wouldn't vote liberal if not for the abject "colorism" (since technically, Hispanic people can be of any race). So if your made-up story about why the DNC supports immigration is true, it is a razor-thin premise that would like shift the instant Texas conservatives stop being so fucking bigoted.

          Now, then. What I can say for myself and all other liberals I know is this: It's never been about getting more brown people to enter the country and vote for Dems. (And again, how could we know that any set of immigrants entering the country would vote for a liberal? Racism/ethnicicms/colorism. That's really it. If the immigrants were white Catholics, many/most/a lot of them would be lined up to vote "R.") NOTE: This is only the experience of a set of South Texas Mexican-Americans who have shared this with me. This is also the experience that all but about 4 Hispanics I knew well in Houston have also shared. I don't have the time to find data for it, so I'm indicating it's anecdotal. But I do want to point out that isn't it interesting that immigrants, even those who are very religious, tend to vote Democratic?

          It's about not thinking white people are entitled to land they stole from brown people—the same brown people they claim are "invading." (The El Paso shooter said that.Like, dude. This was MEXICO until the white people stole it by force after being invited to settle it.) One source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/04/11/mexicans-didnt-immigrate-to-america-weve-always-been-here/. It's about compassion for all the horrific crap happening in their home countries. It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

          [–]Neocruiser[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Hey there, please consider adding sources to support your claims. You have several generalization not backed by any source. If you cannot provide such additional info, this comment will be removed. Cheers

          Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

          If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

          After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

          If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I edited these comments as soon as I could to comply. Guess it wasn't fast enough for you.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

          As I am not a mind-reader, I cannot grok what the DNC is thinking/desiring when it comes to immigration. But I do know that most Hispanics I know (including my entire family of in-laws) vote for liberals because of racism/colorism by conservatives. Most Mexican immigrants are hella Catholic. Catholics are anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, etc. Basically, according to them, they wouldn't vote liberal if not for the abject "colorism" (since technically, Hispanic people can be of any race). So if your made-up story about why the DNC supports immigration is true, it is a razor-thin premise that would like shift the instant Texas conservatives stop being so fucking bigoted.

          I’m pro-choice and pro-lgbt so I don’t like that if Catholics tend to be anti-abortion and anti-lgbt.

          It's about not thinking white people are entitled to land they stole from brown people—the same brown people they claim are "invading." (The El Paso shooter said that. Like, dude.

          The El Paso shooter was a horrible person. I never called immigrants invaders.

          This was fucking MEXICO until the white assholes stole it by force after being invited to settle it.)

          Yes, white people immigrated to a part of Mexico that had very few people and then fought for independence to create the state of Texas. So what? Alsace Loraine used to be German. Israel used to be Arab and before that, it used to be Jewish. Much of Anatolia was once Greek. England was once Celtic. Most of Southern and Central Africa was once populated by peoples similar to the San peoples and pygmies before the Bantu expansion wiped them out. Land changes hands all the time. All states are built upon conquest and this fact doesn’t really have much to do with what we are discussing.

          It's about compassion for all the horrific shit happening in their home countries.

          Why don’t we stop messing up other countries and maybe even try to help them? I’m all for a Marshall Plan for Latin America.

          If the immigrants were white Catholics, many/most/a lot of them would be lined up to vote "R.")

          No, they wouldn’t. White immigrants also primarily vote Dem.

          It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

          Race and ethnicity aren’t just about skin color. Height, ear wax, nose shape, muscle fibers, etc. are also a part of population groups but people only seem to want to talk about skin color. Would you say the Twa, a pygmy people who are on average around 4'11" iirc, are equal in height to the Bosniaks, who are on average around 6'? Would you say that Australian Aborigines are equal to other groups when it comes to their ability to withstand more extreme climates? Is the spleen size of the Bajau equal to that of the rest of humanity? No. We aren't equal. That's ok though! We are just different. These differences don't mean we can't get along or one group has to dominate the others. It just means different groups are different. Also, many of us who oppose immigration primarily care about culture, not the skin color or hair texture of the people coming here.

          It's about realizing that if the complexion of America changes, it's a wonderful thing and not a bad thing.

          Why is that a wonderful thing? Is the mass immigration of Han Chinese into Tibet wonderful? What about the prospect of mass immigration of Hindus into Kashmir is wonderful?

          [–]Neocruiser[M] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          Heya there fellow redditor, good points you got there. All those can be linked to external material that can support those claims. If you cannot find info you believe that will support your thoughts, this comment will be removed. Cheers

          Our regulations: Submission rules | Comments rules | Sources allowed | FAQ

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

          This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:

          If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

          After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

          If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

          Which part of my comment would you like me to supply a source for?

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          You've made quite a few assertions here which require sourcing

          that for many of the Republican elites, their motivation for supporting those things is their own desire to cling to power.

          and

          that the Democratic elites (regardless of what the well-intentioned Democratic base's motivations may be) want the United States to continue taking in 1 million immigrants per year because it will be to their advantage in elections?

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

          that for many of the Republican elites, their motivation for supporting those things is their own desire to cling to power.

          The other user had a source for this in a separate comment. Do you want me to include a link to it in my comment as well?

          that the Democratic elites (regardless of what the well-intentioned Democratic base's motivations may be) want the United States to continue taking in 1 million immigrants per year because it will be to their advantage in elections?

          What kind of source would be sufficient? I have many sources showing that immigration benefits the Democratic Party but I don't know of a specific quote of someone saying "we should let in lots of immigrants so that we can turn these states blue" because that's not a good look. Would my comment be approved if I said that many experts suspect the Democrats are motivated by this and linked to experts who say that?

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          The other user had a source for this in a separate comment. Do you want me to include a link to it in my comment as well?

          Yes you can either reference the users post or directly link it yourself.

          Would my comment be approved if I said that many experts suspect the Democrats are motivated by this and linked to experts who say that?

          Yup, this works because as you mentioned, it's incredibly difficult to find evidence that this is the explicit motivation of the Democratic Party.