Can MAGA just be honest about this?

[ThisIsMe]

But you'll try to communicate with MAGAts who can't even be intellectually honest with themselves? You may not like my opinion but it's a real one and you are unable to engage with any real criticism of your opinion. You're just as soft as they are.

Odd, because when we debate with you, we feel that you are the one not being intellectually honest.

It's all perspective.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let's be honest about THIS:

Biden opened the border in order to salt the electorate (in a few years) with tens of millions of government-dependent third-world wretches, knowing that as soon as the Democrats can figure out how to get them naturalized, they will be reliable Democrat voters. This is why so many of them were conspicuously transported to "swing" states.

Can anyone deny or refute this?

That's my take too. Democrats are looking at the long game, which is why they will fight tooth and nail to prevent the deportation of their future voters base.

 

[Mac1958]

That's great. You've given us the synopsis if what you wouldn't do, but that still doesn't answer why you wanted to take this to a racial place, when nobody else had even mentioned race as a part of the whole notion.

I answered that in the last two lines. I'm interested in the how more than the what. I wanted to see if there were any Trumpsters here who could form an original, coherent, intelligent response to a loaded question without resorting to shallow talking points, personal insults and name-calling. So the question I posed was indeed loaded, but it was not overly aggressive.

And by the way, before Trump arrived, I started similar threads to see the responses left wingers had to my semi-loaded questions about PC and Identity Politics. There have been some similarities, and some differences in the way the two groups have responded.

What a lot of people clearly don't understand here is that I'm not ideological. This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics. It's pretty clear that most will never understand that, because they're so rabidly ideological. Okay. I can live with that. And I'll keep doing what I'm doing for as long as I feel like it.

 

[Missourian]

We need to annex something remote to send all the democrats so that they can only hurt themselves

That's what Greenland is for.

When my Dad went to Thule, the Air Force crew that flew him in there joked "you're going to love it there... there's a girl behind every tree!"

 

[Harry Dresden]

I answered that in the last two lines. I'm interested in the how more than the what. I wanted to see if there were any Trumpsters here who could form an original, coherent, intelligent response to a loaded question without resorting to shallow talking points, personal insults and name-calling. So the question I posed was indeed loaded, but it was not overly aggressive.

And by the way, before Trump arrived, I started similar threads to see the responses left wingers had to my semi-loaded questions about PC and Identity Politics. There have been some similarities, and some differences in the way the two groups have responded.

What a lot of people clearly don't understand here is that I'm not ideological. This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics. It's pretty clear that most will never understand that, because they're so rabidly ideological. Okay. I can live with that. And I'll keep doing what I'm doing for as long as I feel like it.

This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics.

yea sure it is mac....

 

[SweetSue92]

This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics.

yea sure it is mac....

Mac wades into the mud pit, slings a lot of mud, comes out dripping mud, and then says "Hey no, I don't mud fight. I'm just here to observe."

Like we can't see and smell you Mac, with mud all over you

It's funny you think you're passing anything off here

 

[Curried Goats]

I answered that in the last two lines. I'm interested in the how more than the what. I wanted to see if there were any Trumpsters here who could form an original, coherent, intelligent response to a loaded question without resorting to shallow talking points, personal insults and name-calling. So the question I posed was indeed loaded, but it was not overly aggressive.

And by the way, before Trump arrived, I started similar threads to see the responses left wingers had to my semi-loaded questions about PC and Identity Politics. There have been some similarities, and some differences in the way the two groups have responded.

What a lot of people clearly don't understand here is that I'm not ideological. This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics. It's pretty clear that most will never understand that, because they're so rabidly ideological. Okay. I can live with that. And I'll keep doing what I'm doing for as long as I feel like it.

I think everyone pretty much pointed and laughed at your inability for self reflection.

 

[struth]

I wonder if everyone across the political spectrum can agree on something.

If you:

• Annex Canada
• Annex Greenland
• Remove all Central/South American illegal immigrants
• Build a wall on our Southern Border

You have literally changed the demographics of the USA damn near overnight (uh, you have a higher percentage of white people). Regardless of any other effects of those actions, that is a stone cold fact.

Is this true or not? Yes or no? Can we all agree on something that obvious?

Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump ramps up threats to gain control of Greenland and Panama Canal

The president-elect said he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland.

www.bbc.com

How far will Donald Trump go to get rid of illegal immigrants?

It is his signature policy, but the obstacles are daunting

www.economist.com

In your hypo that would appear correct but not sure what it has to do with trump. Or for that matter, who cares? Why would it matter anyway? Racist see race.

Trump doesn’t want to just remove illegals from South America/Mexico, he wants to remove all illegals, starting with the ones committing crimes after their illegal entry.

He doesn’t want to annex Canada either. He has made clear he would like more economic partnership then really making them the 51st state. Greenland, yes he would love to make it a terroritory, like PR.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I answered that in the last two lines. I'm interested in the how more than the what. I wanted to see if there were any Trumpsters here who could form an original, coherent, intelligent response to a loaded question without resorting to shallow talking points, personal insults and name-calling. So the question I posed was indeed loaded, but it was not overly aggressive.

And by the way, before Trump arrived, I started similar threads to see the responses left wingers had to my semi-loaded questions about PC and Identity Politics. There have been some similarities, and some differences in the way the two groups have responded.

What a lot of people clearly don't understand here is that I'm not ideological. This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics. It's pretty clear that most will never understand that, because they're so rabidly ideological. Okay. I can live with that. And I'll keep doing what I'm doing for as long as I feel like it.

Well, that explains a lot. I mean I know you don't want to give away the methodology without tainting the results, but, you are on a politically charged message board, it's only natural people will try to put you in one camp or the other.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, that explains a lot. I mean I know you don't want to give away the methodology without tainting the results, but, you are on a politically charged message board, it's only natural people will try to put you in one camp or the other.

Correct. While it really isn't all that complicated, that's most of what I get here.

Which, of course, is interesting in itself.

 

[SweetTea]

I wonder if everyone across the political spectrum can agree on something.

If you:

• Annex Canada
• Annex Greenland
• Remove all Central/South American illegal immigrants
• Build a wall on our Southern Border

You have literally changed the demographics of the USA damn near overnight (uh, you have a higher percentage of white people). Regardless of any other effects of those actions, that is a stone cold fact.

Is this true or not? Yes or no? Can we all agree on something that obvious?

Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump ramps up threats to gain control of Greenland and Panama Canal

The president-elect said he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland.

www.bbc.com

How far will Donald Trump go to get rid of illegal immigrants?

It is his signature policy, but the obstacles are daunting

www.economist.com

You think these proposals are about race? You are LOST.

These would also make the US stronger and safer. These are also “stone cold facts”. “Is this true or not? Can we all agree on the obvious?”

Just yes or now will suffice Mac.

 

[bdtex]

You have literally changed the demographics of the USA damn near overnight (uh, you have a higher percentage of white people).

That's been the goal for decades. Someone on that side of the aisle actually called it "preserving the white Judeo-Christian majority" in the past but they stopped publicly using that kind of language. The right has been super engaged in that since GWB tried to pass immigration reform after the 2004 election.

It's not a coincidence that they want to make Canada the 51st state and not Mexico.

Great OP.

 

[SweetTea]

That's been the goal for decades. Someone on that side of the aisle actually called it "preserving the white Judeo-Christian majority" in the past but they stopped publicly using that kind of language. The right has been super engaged in that since GWB tried to pass immigration reform after the 2004 election.

It's not a coincidence that they want to make Canada the 51st state and not Mexico.

Great OP.

You people need lobotomies.

 

[Mac1958]

That's been the goal for decades. Someone on that side of the aisle actually called it "preserving the white Judeo-Christian majority" in the past but they stopped publicly using that kind of language. The right has been super engaged in that since GWB tried to pass immigration reform after the 2004 election.

It's not a coincidence that they want to make Canada the 51st state and not Mexico.

Great OP.

I specifically left the OP open to a "two things can be true at the same time" type of response, but none of them saw it. They went straight emotional.

Theoretically, the racial thing could just be a byproduct of another set of priorities. But they just can't practice the intellectual elasticity to run with that.

And that's what I was looking to see.

 

[candycorn]

It was needed to turn several fires into a disaster.

200,000 acres of Texas burned 2 years ago. Are you saying Texas was incompetent?

 

[DonGlock26]

200,000 acres of Texas burned 2 years ago. Are you saying Texas was incompetent?

Where? Be specific.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I specifically left the OP open to a "two things can be true at the same time" type of response, but none of them saw it. They went straight emotional.

Theoretically, the racial thing could just be a byproduct of another set of priorities. But they just can't practice the intellectual elasticity to run with that.

And that's what I was looking to see.

sure it was mac....

 

[SweetTea]

Theoretically, the racial thing could just be a byproduct of another set of priorities. But they just can't practice the intellectual elasticity to run with that.

You post this with the implication that these proposals are racially motivated. The fact that you even think about that shows where your mind is. As mentioned above, there are many national security and financial benefits to these proposals. Like most suffering from TDS and victims of the left-wing mind-meld, all roads lead to racism. You have an illness.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You people need lobotomies.

.

The institutions are ready.


.

 

[Nostra]

I answered that in the last two lines. I'm interested in the how more than the what. I wanted to see if there were any Trumpsters here who could form an original, coherent, intelligent response to a loaded question without resorting to shallow talking points, personal insults and name-calling. So the question I posed was indeed loaded, but it was not overly aggressive.

And by the way, before Trump arrived, I started similar threads to see the responses left wingers had to my semi-loaded questions about PC and Identity Politics. There have been some similarities, and some differences in the way the two groups have responded.

What a lot of people clearly don't understand here is that I'm not ideological. This disaster is about sociology for me, not politics. It's pretty clear that most will never understand that, because they're so rabidly ideological. Okay. I can live with that. And I'll keep doing what I'm doing for as long as I feel like it.

You finally admit your question is “loaded”, and still wonder why you aren’t getting the responses you expected.

Now, when will you admit your question is based on a lie?