Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[Merrill]

Obviously they shouldn't be eligible for things like Medicaid and Social Security...

But to your one point...

Allowing non-citizens (whether they're here on an extended work visa or for some other reason) to get a state-issued drivers license is as much for our protection as it is a benefit for them. This is especially important for people coming from countries that don't have driver's license reciprocity with us due to the rules of the road being quite different.

A) It ensures that they can pass our driving tests and understand our rules of the road if they're going to be driving among us on a longer-term basis.

B) It's an additional point of registration of their address (meaning, if someone here on a green card does commit an infraction of some sort and police need to find them, state and local police are going to be able to access that much more quickly and efficiently via state DMV/BMV records, as those are on-demand for them right there in a squad car vs. having to get ahold of their federal counterparts and waiting for information)


So I have no problem with non-citizens getting a driver's licenses... in fact, for people coming from countries with road rules that are different than ours, I'd actually prefer that it be a requirement that they get one. There are some countries with very different driving cultures and different kinds of signage and traffic light usage and operation.

I understand your point from a pragmatic stance, and agree with some of it

but it is based on a flawed principle: that if enough people break the law, we need to amend other laws to fix the situation. It is similar to the situation in California where shoplifting was so bad that jails were filling up with shoplifters. The solution the government came up with was to lessen the penalties for shoplifting, to free up jail space

and now shoplifting is so rampant, hundreds of stores have closed, and drug stores need to lock everything up behind glass doors

that isn't a solution

I am pro-immigration, and I do think we need workers from other countries to come here. They should be given work permits, and if they pass certain checks, should be given temporary driver's licenses, etc.

I do not support wild-west illegal immigration and chaos. This idea that we cannot enforce immigration or control the border is complete nonsense. Do you know what happens to young women who make the trek northwards to the US using coyotes, etc.? It is very, very bad --and left-wing politicians encouraging this stuff is immoral.

 

[BCP1928]

1. Illegals are not entitled to driver's licenses and healthcare. I am under no obligation to start paying for this stuff for people who came here illegally and are not contributing to the system legally (many get paid under the table, or are on welfare)

Are you including asylum seekers as "illegal?"

2. Sanctuary cities have everything to do with open borders, and it is all part of a system to prevent immigration enforcement and import future voters

Why do you think local Leo's are willing to go along with sanctuary cities? It's about ICE and the thuggish and incompetent way that go about failing in their duty.

3. The left is divided on Israel: some support that country unconditionally (like Walz) others condemn it (like Omar).

4. Walz turned Minnesota into a "sanctuary state for people seeking gender-affirming care". Now parents are bringing their kids to the state to get puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone therapy, or even top surgery (thousands of girls aged 12-16 have had this done in the US) or complete sex-reassignment

Minnesota governor protects rights to gender affirming care

Gov. Tim Walz has signed an executive order protecting the rights of LGBTQ people from Minnesota and other states to seek and receive gender affirming health care.

apnews.com

Doesn't he know that you are the one who is supposed to decide what kind of gender care minors are to get in Minnesota? Instead, he let the people of Minnesota, through their elected representatives, decide to leave the question up to medical professionals and parents. How dastardly!

 

[Ana the Ist]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/06/politics/tim-walz-harris-vice-president/index.html

Walz emerged from the most accelerated vice presidential search in modern history from a shortlist that included half a dozen Democrats, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. The vice president held in-person interviews with Walz, Shapiro and Kelly on Sunday.

While Harris and Walz did not enjoy much of a previous relationship, aides said Harris grew increasingly enthused by how Walz genuinely carried himself and found a warm chemistry with him during a final meeting Sunday at her residence at the Naval Observatory. Harris was impressed “by his authenticity,” a person close to the process told CNN.


Granted, none of us are in the DNC strategy meetings that go on behind closed doors, but I question whether or not this is the right move, strategically.

It seems like the areas where Harris is going to have the biggest uphill challenge is in purple state voters, rural voters, and among independent voters. Picking a running mate that's equally unpopular among those groups (or that a large number of people just haven't heard of) doesn't seem like the best move IMO.

Picking a guy who's popular in a very blue state (so blue, that they were literally the only one who didn't vote for Reagan, even California did that year)
View attachment 352902

...seems less advantageous that going with someone like Shapiro.

Although, I think the best choice would've been Andy Beshear

Poll: Beshear most popular Democrat governor again

With his re-election campaign finally behind him, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has reclaimed the title of the most popular Democratic governor in the United States.

www.lanereport.com

...who was voted one of the most popular Democratic governors in the country, and is able to carry a 60%+ approval rating in the red state of Kentucky (indicating at least some measure of being able to connect with rural conservative-leaning voters)

And this little bit certainly is worth noting:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article281207713.html

Is tied with Hawaii Gov. Josh Green as the most popular Democratic governor among voters who also supported former president Donald Trump in 2020, with 41% approving of his job performance Is the most popular Democratic governor among 2020 voters who backed President Joe Biden, with 93% approval


It seems like Andy Beshear would've checked all of the boxes a Democratic candidate looking to take on the GOP could've hoped for.
93% approval among Biden voters
41% approval among Trump voters (which is about as good as you're going to get for a Democratic governor among Trump voters)
60%+ favorability in a quite red state


Did Kamala bet on the wrong horse here? Or am I just missing something?

Judging by how it's going....Harris' pick seems at least as unpopular as Trump’s.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

non-citizens are not eligible for things like Medicaid, which they did not pay into.

Some of them have; some of them haven't. Not all illegal immigrants are getting paid under the table, and people with work authorizations legally pay taxes - including medicare and medicaid taxes. Regardless, I think ensuring good public health is more important than making sure everyone has paid their "fair share" into it.

They were not entitled to things like driver's licenses either --at least until some left-wing governors decided otherwise.

Why not, though? The purpose of a driver's license is, ostensibly, to make sure that the people driving have a baseline knowledge of traffic laws. That's a good thing, right? If illegal immigrants are here and driving vehicles anyways, I'd prefer that they learn the rules of the road. Makes other drivers safer.

They are not entitled to social security --that is a program for citizens who paid into the program

I've not seen any arguments for giving them access to Social Security.

do you think illegal aliens should be able to get American Passports too?

No - a passport is a legal document intended to show proof of citizenship. No one can obtain a passport for any country without first being a citizen of that country.

and stop conflating non-citizens with illegal aliens, as they are NOT the same thing

In post #70, you separated people in the US into two categories: citizens and illegal aliens. My comments about non-citizens being eligible for certain services were to point out the fact that you were conflating non-citizens with illegal aliens.

and state law that contradicted the state constitution in order to extend benefits and privileges to illegal immigrants is invalid and illegal. Such laws can, and will be, struck down by state courts or SCOTUS

If they do, in fact, violate the state constitution, then yes, they will be struck down by the state supreme court. The US supreme court does not get involved with state constitutional matters.

this is just lawlessness from the Democrats Party in an effort to import new voters and replace our existing population.

Again, the conspiracy theory forum is thataway -->

Replacement Theory is a racist, xenophobic fabrication with no basis in reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

non-citizens are not eligible for things like Medicaid, which they did not pay into. They were not entitled to things like driver's licenses either --at least until some left-wing governors decided otherwise.

This is just patently false. I have known non-citizens for more than 30 years who were living and working in the US and drove cars with state issued drivers licensees in red states, blue states, and purple states.

 

[Merrill]

Some of them have; some of them haven't. Not all illegal immigrants are getting paid under the table, and people with work authorizations legally pay taxes - including medicare and medicaid taxes. Regardless, I think ensuring good public health is more important than making sure everyone has paid their "fair share" into it.

Why not, though? The purpose of a driver's license is, ostensibly, to make sure that the people driving have a baseline knowledge of traffic laws. That's a good thing, right? If illegal immigrants are here and driving vehicles anyways, I'd prefer that they learn the rules of the road. Makes other drivers safer.

I've not seen any arguments for giving them access to Social Security.

No - a passport is a legal document intended to show proof of citizenship. No one can obtain a passport for any country without first being a citizen of that country.

In post #70, you separated people in the US into two categories: citizens and illegal aliens. My comments about non-citizens being eligible for certain services were to point out the fact that you were conflating non-citizens with illegal aliens.

If they do, in fact, violate the state constitution, then yes, they will be struck down by the state supreme court. The US supreme court does not get involved with state constitutional matters.

Again, the conspiracy theory forum is thataway -->

Replacement Theory is a racist, xenophobic fabrication with no basis in reality.

Replacement isn't a theory: it is a reality, and it is an objective of the Democratic Party

countless examples of articles celebrating the descent into minority status for whites in the country

America's Getting Less White, and That Will Save It - Newsweek

Demographic changes will infuse the U.S. labor force with vitality at a time other nations face advanced aging and population loss.

www.newsweek.com

before the term "replacement theory" becomes a thing, the political left was cheering on immigration and declaring that whites would soon be a minority in the country. Once that was reality, major political change would happen.

the policies of open borders, sanctuary cities, flying illegals in, etc. all confirm the objective of the Democratic Party when it comes to demographic replacement. A thing isn't a conspiracy when you can look at the window and see it happening

 

[Merrill]

This is just patently false. I have known non-citizens for more than 30 years who were living and working in the US and drove cars with state issued drivers licensees in red states, blue states, and purple states.

I didn't say non-citizens, I said illegal aliens

before the country went crazy, I don't remember ever seeing a program that handed out driver's licenses to illegals. Not even in blue states

legal immigrants, people on Green Cards, etc. are a totally different thing

 

[BCP1928]

Replacement isn't a theory: it is a reality, and it is an objective of the Democratic Party

For some reason that doesn't bother me. What does it really matter if the white race isn't a majority any more?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't say non-citizens, I said illegal aliens

Not in the post I quoted. That's why I quoted it as such to make your choice of nouns (non-citizens) clear and plain.

before the country went crazy, I don't remember ever seeing a program that handed out driver's licenses to illegals. Not even in blue states

I didn't say anything about such persons.

legal immigrants, people on Green Cards, etc. are a totally different thing

The people I knew with state issued DLs were not immigrants or had green cards. They were here on visas.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand your point from a pragmatic stance, and agree with some of it

but it is based on a flawed principle: that if enough people break the law, we need to amend other laws to fix the situation. It is similar to the situation in California where shoplifting was so bad that jails were filling up with shoplifters. The solution the government came up with was to lessen the penalties for shoplifting, to free up jail space

and now shoplifting is so rampant, hundreds of stores have closed, and drug stores need to lock everything up behind glass doors

that isn't a solution

I am pro-immigration, and I do think we need workers from other countries to come here. They should be given work permits, and if they pass certain checks, should be given temporary driver's licenses, etc.

I do not support wild-west illegal immigration and chaos. This idea that we cannot enforce immigration or control the border is complete nonsense. Do you know what happens to young women who make the trek northwards to the US using coyotes, etc.? It is very, very bad --and left-wing politicians encouraging this stuff is immoral.

I'm not a fan of illegal immigration or abuse of the obvious exploiting of the asylum systems either.
(in fact, those are two separate topics in my view as well...as people who are here "legally" for "asylum" technically didn't break any laws, but it should be pretty evident that some of the people leveraging it are exploiting it)

I view the asylum systems similar to the tax code, in that there's loopholes that people can legally exploit, but that are somewhat sketchy.

However, I see that as a completely different subject than driver's licenses for non-citizens.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Replacement Theory is a racist, xenophobic fabrication with no basis in reality.

Actually, I don't think replacement theory is any of the things you mentioned when boiled down to pragmatic talking points.

The context with which people discuss it can certainly be racist.


But I don't think, by itself, it's any form of "ism" to suggest that each of the political factions want higher concentrations registered voters from demographic groups who statistically are more likely to vote for them, is it?

For instance, Democrats often have initiatives to get more 18-25's registered to vote because they know they're more likely to back the Democrats than the 50+'s.

It'd be like trying to label that as "ageist".

Republicans obviously want more fundamentalist Christian voters on the rolls because they're more likely to vote for them...


I think we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge the fact that it'd certainly be an easier road for the Democratic party if "Rural White Fundamentalists" made up a smaller percentage of the electorate.

We'd be kidding ourselves even more if we thought that DNC strategists (whose entire job is literally to find the path of least resistance to get their people elected) hadn't thought of that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For some reason that doesn't bother me. What does it really matter if the white race isn't a majority any more?

It's a weird "political project".

It suggests something extremely racist about those endeavoring for it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Actually, I don't think replacement theory is any of the things you mentioned when boiled down to pragmatic talking points.

Most conspiracy theories have to sound at least somewhat sensible if they want to convince people to look deeper down their rabbit hole. The pragmatic talking points aren't the problem. And the context in which "Replacement Theory" is discussed is always racist - no sometimes there. It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society and how that's a Bad Thing. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

But I don't think, by itself, it's any form of "ism" to suggest that each of the political factions want higher concentrations registered voters from demographic groups who statistically are more likely to vote for them, is it?

Sure, but it is racist when you suggest that a group wants to replace white voters (as if being white makes people special somehow). It is xenophobic when you suggest that the only reason why foreigners are coming to the country is to perform a "soft takeover" of the government.

Replacement theory | Definition, Conspiracy Theory, Renaud Camus, & Facts | Britannica

Replacement theory, in the United States and certain other Western countries, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with...

www.britannica.com

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

What is ‘great replacement theory’ and how does it fuel racist violence?

Investigators are still piecing together the motives of the mass shooter who killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, this weekend. But authorities aren't hesitating to call it a racially motivated attack.

www.pbs.org

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Replacement isn't a theory: it is a reality, and it is an objective of the Democratic Party

Clearly, you live in a completely different reality.

countless examples of articles celebrating the descent into minority status for whites in the country

America's Getting Less White, and That Will Save It - Newsweek

Demographic changes will infuse the U.S. labor force with vitality at a time other nations face advanced aging and population loss.

www.newsweek.com

Yes, a diverse society is a good thing. Why would it be bad for white people to not be the majority anymore? There's nothing inherently special about whiteness aside from our propensity for sunburn and our increased ability to process lactose.

before the term "replacement theory" becomes a thing, the political left was cheering on immigration and declaring that whites would soon be a minority in the country. Once that was reality, major political change would happen.

Surely you can provide evidence for this (and I don't mean some random lefty on Twitter saying it - because you can find someone who says just about anything if you look hard enough).

the policies of open borders, sanctuary cities, flying illegals in, etc. all confirm the objective of the Democratic Party when it comes to demographic replacement. A thing isn't a conspiracy when you can look at the window and see it happening

The funny thing about conspiracy theories is that you can always find evidence for them if you start from the position that the conspiracy is true. It's very easy to make facts fit the narrative - you just ignore the ones that don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most conspiracy theories have to sound at least somewhat sensible if they want to convince people to look deeper down their rabbit hole. The pragmatic talking points aren't the problem. And the context in which "Replacement Theory" is discussed is always racist - no sometimes there. It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

Sure, but it is racist when you suggest that a group wants to replace white voters (as if being white makes people special somehow).

You understand James Carville wrote about exactly this....right?

And are you suggesting that it's "racist to speak of" because there's nothing inherently wrong, morally or otherwise, with making white people a minority (deliberately or accidentally)?

It is xenophobic when you suggest that the only reason why foreigners are coming to the country is to perform a "soft takeover" of the government.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

Replacement theory | Definition, Conspiracy Theory, Renaud Camus, & Facts | Britannica

Replacement theory, in the United States and certain other Western countries, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with...

www.britannica.com

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

What is ‘great replacement theory’ and how does it fuel racist violence?

Investigators are still piecing together the motives of the mass shooter who killed 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, this weekend. But authorities aren't hesitating to call it a racially motivated attack.

www.pbs.org

Fuels racist violence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, a diverse society is a good thing. Why would it be bad for white people to not be the majority anymore? There's nothing inherently special about whiteness aside from our propensity for sunburn.

Does this logic extend to any other groups?

Would it be acceptable to you if we deported en masse Hispanic and Latino people?

How about if we offered a program to unsatisfied black people wherein they forfeit their citizenship for a free home in the African country of their choice?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Most conspiracy theories have to sound at least somewhat sensible if they want to convince people to look deeper down their rabbit hole. The pragmatic talking points aren't the problem. And the context in which "Replacement Theory" is discussed is always racist - no sometimes there. It's always about some minority demographic group "replacing" the majority demographic group in society. There's no context in which that isn't racist.

But it's not purely conspiracy theory is it?

They're not even really trying to hide the strategy all that hard

Liberal group and its PAC to drop $57M in 8 states to turn out Latino voters

The head of Somos Votantes and its PAC says about half of the PAC's spending this year will likely be in Nevada and Arizona to support President Biden and other Democrats.

www.nbcnews.com

The very fact that Democratic PACs exist for explicit purpose of "increasing the number of Latino voters" is an acknowledgement of the premise of "More Latinos voting = More votes for us" otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

When you consider that there a bill was put out that aimed to put safeguards in place to restrict non-citizens from voting, and only 5 democrats in the house voted "yes", and president Biden vowed to veto it, if it made it to his desk...

Combine those elements together, it's not a far leap (logically speaking) for someone to think that "Hey, perhaps they'd like to get more people in the country who statistically are more likely to vote for them"

So while there may be some conspiratorial elements to the theory in certain facets...it's certainly not the zaniest theory that's ever been floated.

Sure, but it is racist when you suggest that a group wants to replace white voters (as if being white makes people special somehow). It is xenophobic when you suggest that the only reason why foreigners are coming to the country is to perform a "soft takeover" of the government.

But I don't think that's the exact tone of the argument though...

It's not necessarily that people think "white voters are more special" (although I don't doubt that a few people think that's that case, you're always going to have some bona fide racists in the mix), it's the theory that, because older rural white christian voters are less likely to vote democrat, democrats want to find a way to make sure they're outnumbered by people who would vote for them.

A party that's suggesting packing the supreme court shouldn't be above the suspicion that they may try to pack the electorate as well, correct?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

They're not even really trying to hide the strategy all that hard

Liberal group and its PAC to drop $57M in 8 states to turn out Latino voters

The head of Somos Votantes and its PAC says about half of the PAC's spending this year will likely be in Nevada and Arizona to support President Biden and other Democrats.

www.nbcnews.com

The very fact that Democratic PACs exist for explicit purpose of "increasing the number of Latino voters" is an acknowledgement of the premise of "More Latinos voting = More votes for us" otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

And Republicans have "Latinos for Trump." Can we assume that they're also trying to replace white voters? Latinos are a large voting bloc, and both sides court them.

When you consider that there a bill was put out that aimed to put safeguards in place to restrict non-citizens from voting, and only 5 democrats in the house voted "yes", and president Biden vowed to veto it, if it made it to his desk...

Anything that requires further documentation to vote is always going to be a non-starter for Democrats until Republicans can show that they're not doing it to disenfranchise eligible voters.

Combine those elements together, it's not a far leap (logically speaking) for someone to think that "Hey, perhaps they'd like to get more people in the country who statistically are more likely to vote for them"

So while there may be some conspiratorial elements to the theory in certain facets...it's certainly not the zaniest theory that's ever been floated.

"It's not the craziest theory" isn't really saying a whole lot.

But I don't think that's the exact tone of the argument though...

It's not necessarily that people think "white voters are more special" (although I don't doubt that a few people think that's that case, you're always going to have some bona fide racists in the mix), it's the theory that, because older rural white christian voters are less likely to vote democrat, democrats want to find a way to make sure they're outnumbered by people who would vote for them.

Or, perhaps, Democrats are adapting to the changing demographics of the country while Republicans are clinging to the past? If Democrats recognize that the Latino voter base is growing faster than the white voter base, and chooses to tailor its messaging to reach those voters, is that cheating, or just smart? Republicans have had the same opportunity, but they've chosen to lean in to the rural white Christian demographic, which is shrinking. Do we blame the Democrats for the Republicans' poor decision-making?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And Republicans have "Latinos for Trump." Can we assume that they're also trying to replace white voters? Latinos are a large voting bloc, and both sides court them.

Anything that requires further documentation to vote is always going to be a non-starter for Democrats until Republicans can show that they're not doing it to disenfranchise eligible voters.

"It's not the craziest theory" isn't really saying a whole lot.

Or, perhaps, Democrats are adapting to the changing demographics of the country while Republicans are clinging to the past? If Democrats recognize that the Latino voter base is growing faster than the white voter base, and chooses to tailor its messaging to reach those voters, is that cheating, or just smart? Republicans have had the same opportunity, but they've chosen to lean in to the rural white Christian demographic, which is shrinking. Do we blame the Democrats for the Republicans' poor decision-making?

This is a rather bad argument...

The massive influx of people is due to illegal immigration and asylum fraud. We know this because more than 80% are being rejected for asylum in court.

This is a permanently illegal population...barring...


A Democrat or Republican attempt at mass amnesty, asylum, or a path to citizenship.

At that point...pretending this is some organic demographic change is entirely nonsense. It's deliberate and orchestrated at that point.

 

[BCP1928]

It's a weird "political project".

It suggests something extremely racist about those endeavoring for it.

Whether it exists or not, I was more interested in the belief that it exists. Why should I care if white people were no longer a majority?