Trump, Vance, Musk and the rightwinged echo system have one goal: destroy the faith in the electoral system so they can demagogue their way into power. In a healthy democracy, even the best and the brightest do not have unlimited power, let alone second and third rate talents. But in much more chaotic circumstances, they can carve a niche and seize power.
Why are Allists like this? Like, what is it like to experience "reality" for you people? Does it seem like you know everything? Do these things form in your mind as pictures or movies, how does it work/feel?
It seems like people who make this argument about democrats supporting illegal immigration to boost their voting numbers tend to also rail against immigrants not doing enough assimilate into culture of the US. To me these two arguments seem to come in conflict with each other. Like we're suppose believe immigrants are are not interested in contributing to our society, but also they're mobilizing in large numbers and risking their very right to be here just cast a vote.
This is just not true. A monstrous distortion of the facts. An interpretation built upon emotions along with a preconceived notion of what is right and wrong that can only come about by condemning all those that don't think like you.
"Those who levy sensational charges should bear the burden of proving them. But they haven’t. It’s just assertion after assertion, with no refutation of the considerable evidence to the contrary."
The promise of "total clarity" is somewhat jeopardized by the studied inability to articulate a single substantive objection to anything in the article.
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." - Harlan Ellison
And with that, I can say with total clarity and assurance that you have your head completely wedged in your keister. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒..
What Elon actually said was "Biden's strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state." He claimed this is "why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration".
Well get aware. Many Washington D C representatives have said They "want a path to citizenship" for the illegals. As the younger generation is turning more and more to republicanism and /or conservatism, un-American, liberal, unstable individuals turn to illegal aliens for the Democrat's future. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact.
The onus is on those making these extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence. We've seen nothing but conjecture and fearmongering. It's time to stop undermining our democracy with these unsubstantiated allegations...nice piece, Walter.
Strictly speaking, I know of two contexts where proof exists: axiomatic systems and empiricism. In the case of axiomatic system, the proof is contingent on the axioms; in the case of empiricism, you can prove that "X is always Y" is false if you observe a counterexample.
It seems possible to me that you're confusing rules of argumentation and rhetoric with rules of logic.
Think about it: if we culturally reject burden of proof (well....*only when it is used against you*), then I can simply assert the opposite of what you've said, winning the argument (until you reassert your claim, taking back the title).
People aren't ready to talk about this, but if Republicans wanted to reduce immigration, they would stop complaining about "the open border." Americans know they're full of shit, but prospective immigrants hear it and occasionally believe it.
Your entire claim about Elon is false. So sad. What Elon actually said was "Biden's strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state." He claimed this is "why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration". Entire article built on a false claim.
He didn't say which elections. His claim is that Dems want to import enough illegals to guarantee the Dems never lose another national election and that they will do this by encouraging the illegals to come (done) and then giving them the vote as soon as the Dems control the White House and both houses of congress.
I don't think Musk is saying these things because he believes them - he's saying them for the reaction he hopes he can provoke (or reinforce - the reaction is already out there). Also, he's trying to improve Tesla's market penetration with Republicans, which he needs to do to boost sales (perhaps the Cybertruck will do a better job of this than his tweets). https://lucid.substack.com/p/how-to-push-back-against-propaganda-06f?r=29v529
If you believe that Democrats are seriously advocating an immediate path to registered votership for these immigrants - Musk did say "importing as many voters as possible _before_ the election"
(1) I have a bridge to sell you and (2) It's sad that we currently live in a country where views of reality don't seem to overlap between the right and the left.
The majority of of these immigrants are Latin-American and many (probably most) are more culturally and politically conservative than Democratic party members on average. I strongly suspect Democratic strategists are aware of this. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trump-latinos-biden-2020/616901/ It doesn't look like a good strategy in that respect.
Also, as someone who has ranted long and hard about labor shortages and family size, Musk is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. No foolish consistency for ERM.
You still haven't told me why Biden keeps the border open even though it is hurting him at the polls. He clearly does not care a whit about human rights - he has handed billions to the terrorist regime that rules Iran.
Have you actually watched the video you linked to? It says they are importing millions of illegal immigrants with plans to eventually give them citizenship / the vote so that the Dems will win every future election. Which is exactly what I said Elon was saying and the OPPOSITE of what this substack is claiming he said. READING COMPREHENSION
Food for thought; one must come to the forum with clean hands in order to be heard. Think about this. The president sends a scouting party to the southern border and the scouting party sends back a message; 250,000 undocumented aliens entering per month. A second scouting party sends back a message; 250,000 illegal aliens entering per month.
The president does not know whether or not to send 12,000 secretaries to document the aliens or 12,000 border agents to stop them from entering.
Simply put, the first scouting party that utilized euphemisms to avoid accuracy and honesty, still stated a factually correct statement. That's why, a factually, correct statement can still be a lie. Remember, you must come to the forum with clean hands.
I really appreciate the work put into this post, but as someone who has similarly invested a horrendous amount of time debunking the endless stolen election lunacy, I'm sorry to say it's a giant waste of time. The basic premise of this specific scheme is so patently inane that it crumbles in response to elementary questions. If the accusation is one of fraud, why would you even need real flesh and blood people? If you are going to use real people, why use a demographic explicitly prohibited from voting?
None of this makes any sense from the very beginning, and it's why it only resonates with the segment of the population who are either experiencing delusional psychosis or are otherwise hopelessly gullible (along with those play-acting because they rely on the support of gullible masses). As the adage goes, you can't reason with people out of positions they didn't reason into.
> And as we do, we will find ourselves circling around to another question: If Musk or Trump or Vance have good evidence that this is happening, why haven’t they presented it?
Perhaps for the same reason you never substantiate most of your bold claims of fact: it doesn't seem to you like you need to, because it is "obviously" true.
Ok, but then you have to tell me why Biden has let over 7 million illegals into the country on purpose since he took office. There has to be a reason to do something that over 70% of the electorate opposes.
They're not illlegals, for the most part they are legally claiming asylum. The problem is our processing system for asylum is underfunded so people sit in-country for months to years without their cases being judged.
They are illegals - legal asylum seekers cross at official ports of entry. These people show up and 90% of them lie about needing asylum, but they are economic migrants, not persecuted ones.
If they have a legitimate asylum claim they are allowed to remain in-country legally. If they are economic migrants then they don't have a legitimate claim and should be deported. Unfortunately there isn't enough funding to process the claims in a timely manner. As part of an effective border policy we need a lot more funding. Executive orders aren't a long-term solution to managing the border, Congress needs to take action. We haven't had substantive border legislation in decades, it's long overdue.
There is rarely a way to know why politicians do the things they do.... Most people tend to believe that you can know by listening to what they say, but this is not reliable.
So it would make logical sense that the Dems wants to let enough illegals into the country so that, if/when they grant them citizenship (or their children born here will become 18) the Dems will never lose another national election. Why are you being so obtuse?
Interestingly so much of what the GOP has been saying is simply a projection of what they are doing.
They project that the Democrats are letting the flood of immigrants to come in but it is the GOP that is actually blocking the policies and funds that are needed to help stem the influx.
They project that there is voter fraud and Democrats voting multiple times but most (all?) of the voters found and convicted of trying to vote multiple times have been GOP Trump supporters.
The GOP projects that Voter ID is essential (and I agree that it isn't a terrible requirement) but then they close state offices where such IDs can be issued so as to disenfranchise as many Democratic (Black) voters as possible.
Actually Obama did a better job of keeping controlling the border than Trump, and the only reason Biden is doing worse is because Trump could shut down the border because of the pandemic.
The border could be under control today if the GOP actually wanted to control it, but they don't. They want chaos at the border to improve Trump's election chances.
Actually it's the Republican legislators that are assuming black people don't have drivers licenses, hence the voter ID laws they're promoting to solve an issue that doesn't exist (i.e. thousands of non-citizens voting).
My point is that if the commenter you responded to is making racist assumptions than so are the GOP legislators since they are making the exact same assumptions. The truth is neither are making racist assumptions, they are simply acknowledging the facts, that poor black voters are less likely to have drivers licenses than other groups. If it's a fact it's not racist to acknowledge this. The GOP doesn't want to admit this though so they pretend to be concerned about "voter integrity" when in reality they're just trying to gain an advantage by reducing the turnout among groups of voters who tend to vote Democratic. See Texas for another example, where gun permits are a valid form of voter ID but student IDs aren't.
Most of the actual cases of voter fraud in 2020 that were prosecuted were committed by Republican voters, but the GOP doesn't actually care about this real voter fraud. Republicans are all in favor of voter fraud if it helps them win elections.
Indeed. I note that this month’s AMAC Magazine, the print publication of the right-wing counterpart to AARP, carries a cover story this month entitled “Will the 2024 Election Be Rigged?”, full of Mollie Hemingway-type theorizing.
Who are the greatest opponents of voter ID laws....? Precisely, the same Democrats who support mass illegal immigration....in total alignment with the donor business interests that want to employ these folks below the regular wage limits and would much prefer not to be able to identify them (hence their opposition to I-Verify legislation). So, the chances of the illegals getting caught violating the rule against non-citizen voting are virtually nil in the absence of voter ID laws.
Biden? Majorkas, the schmuck who heads DHS? They simply don't instruct their bureaucracies to enforce the immigration laws (aided by the absence of voter ID laws, my original point) which is the same as condoning/supporting mass illegal immigration. It's the executive inaction that is the problem here, the laissez-faire neglect, not the on-the-record public statements these politicians make.
Trump, Vance, Musk and the rightwinged echo system have one goal: destroy the faith in the electoral system so they can demagogue their way into power. In a healthy democracy, even the best and the brightest do not have unlimited power, let alone second and third rate talents. But in much more chaotic circumstances, they can carve a niche and seize power.
Impressive mind reading.
Why are Allists like this? Like, what is it like to experience "reality" for you people? Does it seem like you know everything? Do these things form in your mind as pictures or movies, how does it work/feel?
It seems like people who make this argument about democrats supporting illegal immigration to boost their voting numbers tend to also rail against immigrants not doing enough assimilate into culture of the US. To me these two arguments seem to come in conflict with each other. Like we're suppose believe immigrants are are not interested in contributing to our society, but also they're mobilizing in large numbers and risking their very right to be here just cast a vote.
This is just not true. A monstrous distortion of the facts. An interpretation built upon emotions along with a preconceived notion of what is right and wrong that can only come about by condemning all those that don't think like you.
"Those who levy sensational charges should bear the burden of proving them. But they haven’t. It’s just assertion after assertion, with no refutation of the considerable evidence to the contrary."
Add another baseless assertion to pile.
The irony in these conversations is always rich!
Let me say with total clarity. The article is biased and wrong.
The promise of "total clarity" is somewhat jeopardized by the studied inability to articulate a single substantive objection to anything in the article.
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." - Harlan Ellison
And with that, I can say with total clarity and assurance that you have your head completely wedged in your keister. 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒..
You can say whatever you'd like, but it has no bearing on the truth value of the claim to which you are responding.
I suspect you are not nearly as good at thinking as it seems to you.
What Elon actually said was "Biden's strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state." He claimed this is "why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration".
Well get aware. Many Washington D C representatives have said They "want a path to citizenship" for the illegals. As the younger generation is turning more and more to republicanism and /or conservatism, un-American, liberal, unstable individuals turn to illegal aliens for the Democrat's future. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact.
What is the relevance of your model of reality to the point?
The onus is on those making these extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence. We've seen nothing but conjecture and fearmongering. It's time to stop undermining our democracy with these unsubstantiated allegations...nice piece, Walter.
> The onus is on those making these extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence.
True but misinformative.
Anyone who makes a claim of fact has a burden of proof, and the author of this piece made many claims of fact.
Strictly speaking, I know of two contexts where proof exists: axiomatic systems and empiricism. In the case of axiomatic system, the proof is contingent on the axioms; in the case of empiricism, you can prove that "X is always Y" is false if you observe a counterexample.
It seems possible to me that you're confusing rules of argumentation and rhetoric with rules of logic.
I am referring to burden of proof....remember this?
>> The onus is on those making these extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Think about it: if we culturally reject burden of proof (well....*only when it is used against you*), then I can simply assert the opposite of what you've said, winning the argument (until you reassert your claim, taking back the title).
People aren't ready to talk about this, but if Republicans wanted to reduce immigration, they would stop complaining about "the open border." Americans know they're full of shit, but prospective immigrants hear it and occasionally believe it.
Your entire claim about Elon is false. So sad. What Elon actually said was "Biden's strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state." He claimed this is "why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration". Entire article built on a false claim.
More choice bits of Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1753855201834930177 "They are importing as many voters as possible before the elections"; https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1753852898323132686 ". . .every deportation is a lost vote"
He didn't say which elections. His claim is that Dems want to import enough illegals to guarantee the Dems never lose another national election and that they will do this by encouraging the illegals to come (done) and then giving them the vote as soon as the Dems control the White House and both houses of congress.
So. . .this would be a reasonable response to Karl Rove's durable Republican majority? https://ask.metafilter.com/110239/When-did-Karl-Rove-make-his-famous-prediction
I don't think Musk is saying these things because he believes them - he's saying them for the reaction he hopes he can provoke (or reinforce - the reaction is already out there). Also, he's trying to improve Tesla's market penetration with Republicans, which he needs to do to boost sales (perhaps the Cybertruck will do a better job of this than his tweets). https://lucid.substack.com/p/how-to-push-back-against-propaganda-06f?r=29v529
If you believe that Democrats are seriously advocating an immediate path to registered votership for these immigrants - Musk did say "importing as many voters as possible _before_ the election"
(1) I have a bridge to sell you and (2) It's sad that we currently live in a country where views of reality don't seem to overlap between the right and the left.
The majority of of these immigrants are Latin-American and many (probably most) are more culturally and politically conservative than Democratic party members on average. I strongly suspect Democratic strategists are aware of this. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trump-latinos-biden-2020/616901/ It doesn't look like a good strategy in that respect.
Also, as someone who has ranted long and hard about labor shortages and family size, Musk is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. No foolish consistency for ERM.
Finally, the volume at the border is not due so much to a welcoming policy as it is to backlog and the _removal_ of Trump-era policies and actions that violate internationally recognized human rights https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3559908 https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5057029/user-clip-maxwell-frost On top of that it helps to consider a century or more of outside forces (from both the right and the left) pouring gasoline on instabilities in Latin America.
You still haven't told me why Biden keeps the border open even though it is hurting him at the polls. He clearly does not care a whit about human rights - he has handed billions to the terrorist regime that rules Iran.
Have you actually watched the video you linked to? It says they are importing millions of illegal immigrants with plans to eventually give them citizenship / the vote so that the Dems will win every future election. Which is exactly what I said Elon was saying and the OPPOSITE of what this substack is claiming he said. READING COMPREHENSION
IN THE FUTURE, after the Dems change the laws to make them all citizens
Thank you for proving that the thesis of the article we are all talking about is based upon a false claim of what Elon said. I appreciate the assist.
Food for thought; one must come to the forum with clean hands in order to be heard. Think about this. The president sends a scouting party to the southern border and the scouting party sends back a message; 250,000 undocumented aliens entering per month. A second scouting party sends back a message; 250,000 illegal aliens entering per month.
The president does not know whether or not to send 12,000 secretaries to document the aliens or 12,000 border agents to stop them from entering.
Simply put, the first scouting party that utilized euphemisms to avoid accuracy and honesty, still stated a factually correct statement. That's why, a factually, correct statement can still be a lie. Remember, you must come to the forum with clean hands.
I really appreciate the work put into this post, but as someone who has similarly invested a horrendous amount of time debunking the endless stolen election lunacy, I'm sorry to say it's a giant waste of time. The basic premise of this specific scheme is so patently inane that it crumbles in response to elementary questions. If the accusation is one of fraud, why would you even need real flesh and blood people? If you are going to use real people, why use a demographic explicitly prohibited from voting?
None of this makes any sense from the very beginning, and it's why it only resonates with the segment of the population who are either experiencing delusional psychosis or are otherwise hopelessly gullible (along with those play-acting because they rely on the support of gullible masses). As the adage goes, you can't reason with people out of positions they didn't reason into.
> And as we do, we will find ourselves circling around to another question: If Musk or Trump or Vance have good evidence that this is happening, why haven’t they presented it?
Perhaps for the same reason you never substantiate most of your bold claims of fact: it doesn't seem to you like you need to, because it is "obviously" true.
Ok, but then you have to tell me why Biden has let over 7 million illegals into the country on purpose since he took office. There has to be a reason to do something that over 70% of the electorate opposes.
They're not illlegals, for the most part they are legally claiming asylum. The problem is our processing system for asylum is underfunded so people sit in-country for months to years without their cases being judged.
They are illegals - legal asylum seekers cross at official ports of entry. These people show up and 90% of them lie about needing asylum, but they are economic migrants, not persecuted ones.
If they have a legitimate asylum claim they are allowed to remain in-country legally. If they are economic migrants then they don't have a legitimate claim and should be deported. Unfortunately there isn't enough funding to process the claims in a timely manner. As part of an effective border policy we need a lot more funding. Executive orders aren't a long-term solution to managing the border, Congress needs to take action. We haven't had substantive border legislation in decades, it's long overdue.
There is rarely a way to know why politicians do the things they do.... Most people tend to believe that you can know by listening to what they say, but this is not reliable.
So it would make logical sense that the Dems wants to let enough illegals into the country so that, if/when they grant them citizenship (or their children born here will become 18) the Dems will never lose another national election. Why are you being so obtuse?
Here is a fact for you, bot: over 70% of Latinos vote Dem
No, that does not logically and necessarily follow from what I said.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(psychology)
I feel like we're pushing deep into Radley Balko vs The Fall of Minneapolis territory here and that you're taking The Fall of Minneapolis side. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
I feel you're pushing deep into Meme Magic territory.
Do you find it interesting when confident opiners on the internet are unable to directly take on challenges to their claims?
Interestingly so much of what the GOP has been saying is simply a projection of what they are doing.
They project that the Democrats are letting the flood of immigrants to come in but it is the GOP that is actually blocking the policies and funds that are needed to help stem the influx.
They project that there is voter fraud and Democrats voting multiple times but most (all?) of the voters found and convicted of trying to vote multiple times have been GOP Trump supporters.
The GOP projects that Voter ID is essential (and I agree that it isn't a terrible requirement) but then they close state offices where such IDs can be issued so as to disenfranchise as many Democratic (Black) voters as possible.
Then how do you explain that Trump was able to reduce the influx using the existing laws, yet, somehow, Biden can't?
Actually Obama did a better job of keeping controlling the border than Trump, and the only reason Biden is doing worse is because Trump could shut down the border because of the pandemic.
The border could be under control today if the GOP actually wanted to control it, but they don't. They want chaos at the border to improve Trump's election chances.
The Pandemic.
Then why do Republicans continue to add/demand laws to control immigration?
Also Republicans won't support funding to strengthen border security.
Open borders are useful to their political objectives and they don't want them fixed... now.
That is all.
Also - isn't is racist of you to assume that most black people don't have driver's licenses? Do you think they even carry wallets?
Actually it's the Republican legislators that are assuming black people don't have drivers licenses, hence the voter ID laws they're promoting to solve an issue that doesn't exist (i.e. thousands of non-citizens voting).
thanks for you non-sequitor - it is impossible to even tell whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me
My point is that if the commenter you responded to is making racist assumptions than so are the GOP legislators since they are making the exact same assumptions. The truth is neither are making racist assumptions, they are simply acknowledging the facts, that poor black voters are less likely to have drivers licenses than other groups. If it's a fact it's not racist to acknowledge this. The GOP doesn't want to admit this though so they pretend to be concerned about "voter integrity" when in reality they're just trying to gain an advantage by reducing the turnout among groups of voters who tend to vote Democratic. See Texas for another example, where gun permits are a valid form of voter ID but student IDs aren't.
Most of the actual cases of voter fraud in 2020 that were prosecuted were committed by Republican voters, but the GOP doesn't actually care about this real voter fraud. Republicans are all in favor of voter fraud if it helps them win elections.
Musk going mad
I think the bogus voter fraud claims problem discourage voting among right-sing voters. Not by a whole lot, but enough to swing close elections.
Indeed. I note that this month’s AMAC Magazine, the print publication of the right-wing counterpart to AARP, carries a cover story this month entitled “Will the 2024 Election Be Rigged?”, full of Mollie Hemingway-type theorizing.
Who are the greatest opponents of voter ID laws....? Precisely, the same Democrats who support mass illegal immigration....in total alignment with the donor business interests that want to employ these folks below the regular wage limits and would much prefer not to be able to identify them (hence their opposition to I-Verify legislation). So, the chances of the illegals getting caught violating the rule against non-citizen voting are virtually nil in the absence of voter ID laws.
every member of the Squad, every Dem candidate for Prez in 2020 raised their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal immigration at a debate (remember?). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-democrats-promise-to-decriminalize-border-crossings-during-2020-debate#:~:text=Most%20Democrats%20promise%20to%20decriminalize%20border%20crossings%20during%202020%20debate,-Politics%20Jun%2027&text=All%20but%20one%20Democratic%20candidate,civil%2C%20not%2C%20criminal%20offense.
I know realize that you are a bot
Biden? Majorkas, the schmuck who heads DHS? They simply don't instruct their bureaucracies to enforce the immigration laws (aided by the absence of voter ID laws, my original point) which is the same as condoning/supporting mass illegal immigration. It's the executive inaction that is the problem here, the laissez-faire neglect, not the on-the-record public statements these politicians make.
testimony from the front lines
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5057029/user-clip-maxwell-frost