Reply With Quote
TSA making sure his "racist, xenophobic" check boxes are blackly pencilled in.
The following states require only a modest infusion of statist newcomers to place them out of reach for any Republican or conservative presidential candidate not pledged to open borders and a huge welfare state: Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado and Arizona.
When any five of these ten are gone it’s game over.
Under Clinton, Illegals would continue moving north across America’s southern border in numbers sure to exceed those who came during Obama’s presidency (a minimum of 2.5 million according to liberal leaning Pew Research and the Center for Migration Studies).
In addition to the illegals, at least 1.5 million overwhelmingly third world legal immigrants will arrive annually (up from 1.1 million per year under Obama), nearly all impoverished and nearly all with expectations of government formed in their statist homelands.
Added to the legal and illegal immigrants will be the sure-to-be-legalized 11-20 million illegals already here (again Pew and Homeland Security admit to 11.2 million illegals already in America, but the actual figure is unknowably higher).
And if Clinton’s amnesty runs into Congressional opposition and she resorts to uncons utional executive orders, this time there’ll be no help from the Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court will become a five vote rubber stamp for the Left immediately upon Clinton’s appointment of Justice Scalia’s replacement. That majority will be sustained or enlarged by whatever further vacancies come Clinton’s way.
So, adding it all up, the number of new future statist client voters after Clinton will be in the neighborhood of 26-38 million: 11-20 million amnestied illegals; 12 million new, almost exclusively third world, statist voting legal immigrants; and another 4-6 million newly arrived illegals.
With the full power of the federal executive branch in their hands, and no opposition from an increasingly partisan federal judiciary and Supreme Court, the re-empowered Left will move its newly chosen voters around as it chooses -- to the states where their voting presence will have the greatest effect.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/nevertrumps_and_the_end_of_america_as_we_know_it.h tml
TSA making sure his "racist, xenophobic" check boxes are blackly pencilled in.
it's pretty hard for immigrants to get citizenship and much harder to vote.
but once they get here and get citizenship, you can hardly blame them for voting for the party that doesn't demonize them as criminals, job stealers/lazy moochers and brainless sheep.
Racist lol. You've worn that word well out here.
One party embraced and encouraged illegal immigration through lax deportation policies while upping incentives and the other party completely slammed the door and it will be the end of them.
whose lax deportation policies?
you mean Reagan, right?
Obama has been harsher than anyone since Eisenhower. The Border Patrol is bigger than it's ever been, border enforcement and deportations are at an all time high.
Even Bill Clinton was tougher than his predecessor. He had to be: NAFTA created a wave.
Pretty much. I mean, , Saint Reagan understood how this worked, he was the last president to actually grant amnesty for illegals...
I'm no fan of illegal immigration nor amnesty, but a lot of this stuff is the GOP doing it to themselves... that's why pointing fingers to the democrats as the OP does is fairly disingenuous.
What's more, articles like that gloss over the fact that white, religious conservatives are a dwindling demographic, and there's more reasons for that than just dem foreigners. That's a pretty narrow view. A deeper question is why can't conservatism make gains in other states and become more compe ive in them. Sometimes you have to go back and see what you're selling and why it isn't selling instead of blindingly believing you have the superior product.
EDIT: I should add, at least at the federal level, when all the disparate brands of conservatism have to unify. At the local level, it's a bit of a different story. You have all sorts of shades, from the "RINO" McCain all the way to the Ted Cruzes...
I also think either of these guys will be a one term president, IMO...
Reagan's 2.5 million don't make up a quarter of illegals here now.
But are white religious conservatives dwindling from the voting pool as fast as illegals now legal voting kids are adding to the voting pool? Add in a potential amnesty for 11.5 million and you think white religious conservatives will lose that many in a year?
Yet the illegal population remains unchanged. Again, too many incentives.
TSA, change your name to the duckman please
bssessed
Neither the GOP or DEM bases have had enough to win an election in many years. And the demographic shift has been unavoidable for the past 30 or so years (Reagan saw right through it).
I just finished reading the whole piece (thanks for sharing, BTW), and it's a completely terrible diagnosis. No, the GOP's base can't win this election alone (as he advances if the "NeverTrump" voters would just vote for Trump). Neither can the DEM base.
That's why you appeal to the non-team players. A lot of those foreigners didn't grow up with the rah-rah red or rah-rah blue, they have no allegiance, and that's the kind of guys you want to convince to vote for you and will eventually win you elections.
Dubya did it twice, gathering almost 50% of the latino vote. Illegals don't vote, but they might have family around that are legal and can vote, and won't take kindly calling their close family rapists and criminals. I mean, you don't have to like/dislike illegals to understand how that dynamic works. There's nothing to gain from insulting groups that just happen to be multiplying like rabbits. You don't even have to promise amnesty. Dubya did it by promising some temporary worker program. But you don't go full re like Donald did, that's political suicide (even more egregious considering he's running against such an unlikable candidate in Shillary, a person a lot of those minorities don't like either).
I remember when Romney lost, the diagnosis was about how the demographics are shifting and how the GOP needed to stop being "the party of stupid"... well, whatever happened to that? I mean, if you really want to effect change, you need to obtain power first, you do that winning these kind of elections, and to do that you need to, at least, stop shooting yourself in the foot.
The analysis long term is also incorrect. The GOP can change their tune in 4 years, and they can still gather those votes then. Like I said, a lot of those people don't really have allegiances to red or blue, but at the very least you gotta treat them with a sliver of respect.
i didn't quote the entire article for a reason, only wanted to look at the numbers in the upcoming years. 20 million votes are nothing to scoff at.
And no the GOP havent changed their tune and haven't shown they'll come close to doing it in 4 years.
They eventually will. Has nothing to do with illegals or securing the border, which most people agree with. A more moderate candidate like Kasich would've won this election easily, IMO. (unless he picked a re like Palin, which I don't think he would've done). Which really tells you what the issue is, has nothing to do with the foreigner boogeyman.
That's the path forward for the GOP... soften the social conservative agenda a bit, push on the fiscal conservative motto and at least pretend you don't hate minorities. I thought they had that figured out last time around, tbh... introspection is key here.
Frankly, a potential amnesty under Clinton will not happen without Congress, and considering gerrymandering, etc, the House is probably fairly safe bet to remain red.
Kasich was the only GOP candidate I would have voted for and said it here from the start. I don't think the GOP is as close to swinging the vote as you think.
State your case. I think with Shillary on the ticket, and coming off 8 years of a Dem presidency (good or bad, being the in bent always gives the newcomer ammo and more ample room to bull ), it's hard to fathom the GOP would screw it this badly.
What's really problematic with the GOP right now is that right-center candidates won't survive the primary. But this election could be a lesson about that.
Past that, Kasich is a guy that was pragmatic, expanded Medicaid in his state, he's on a swing state and he's liked there, he doesn't waste his breath talking about stuff only the base cares about, like religion, the moochers, pro-choice/pro-life, dem niglets, immigrants, etc... Pair him with somebody like Rubio, who's a phony but can actually seriously claim he speaks Spanish and can deliver Florida, and I think it wouldn't be even close, IMO.
If you look back at the last two presidential elections for the GOP, it's all about bad choices. First off, Dubya did a lot of damage, and that wasn't McCain fault, but picking Palin was. Romney sinked when he spoke about the 47% and then picked who was a Tea Party favorite back then in Ryan for VP... to appease who? the base that was going to vote for him already. Just bad decisions.
Even if Shillary wins this time around, in 4 years, she's going to be just as damaged or more. It's there for the picking, but the party needs to stop making bad choices.
unfortunately, i fear this election will "teach" the republicans that they need to go with a traditional, "true conservative" like cruz, since trump was such a wildcard.
this is why my hope all along was for cruz to get the nomination and get destroyed in the generals, so the republicans can learn to move towards the center
If we have a significant recession in the next 4 years (likely imo) they can win even with bad choices.
I came to want Trump to win the primaries basically to cause the introspection you're talking about. I'm not all that confident it's going to happen when I listen to #nevertrump conservative "leaders" who think Trump is a celebrity one off and after he loses they can get back to business as usual. More and more I'm starting to think it will take a Trump victory to cause both parties to start considering actual governance and results as part of their job description instead of just ideological purity and winning the next election cycle.
Even though I would hate that weasel being president, I can completely see him selling out to the center/minorities if he would be the nominee. He would totally sell his "my dad was an immigrant", etc, on a potential general race. I do agree the media would absolutely drill him on his social conservative side though, that appears non-negotiable to him, and it's a major loser in these demographics.
But, he's way more of a political insider than the "outsider" he portends to be.
there's no way he gets away with running a center-right campaign or anything near that. he's the teabagger jesus... hacks like levin (same who was backing huelskamp) like him more than reagan tbh
they adore him for his uncompromising principles, etc
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
