Maybe per capita, but you can also look at it this way: any crime by an illegal immigrant should not happen, because they should not be here.
Maybe per capita, but you can also look at it this way: any crime by an illegal immigrant should not happen, because they should not be here.LOL! Dude, this is manipulation. If you where being honest, you would also be looking at all incidents, including US citizens. If you did that, you would realize that they are 3 times worse per capita. Which would make it clear that being documentented or undocumented, immigrants/migrants has no relevance to such things happening, and you are only using it to support and fuel your hate for those groups of people. Heck documented immigrants are between undocumented and US citizens in such incidents. Why are you not going after US citizens since they are the largest offenders? Why are you only focused on "illegal" immigrants and migrants? Is it because it does't fit your narrative to hate on those groups?
Being undocumented is equivalent to jay walking, a misdemeanor. Also, many of those accused of being here illegally, Are currently here legally per our laws ,as they are waiting for their asylum hearing. The whole argument boils down to is a piece of paper and hatred towards those that are seeking a better life, with 99.9% of them being harmless.Maybe per capita, but you can also look at it this way: any crime by an illegal immigrant should not happen, because they should not be here.
AOC would lose.. because she would troll people like this so hard.. it'd be a crime against MAGA
AOC would lose.. because she would troll people like this so hard.. it'd be a crime against MAGA
I don't want anything coming out of Chicago, at this point.
Would explain why Kam didn't have a chance in hell.
And how would "socialist," New Green Deal AOC do any better? Plus they'll just show on repeat her cringey clips crying at the border a few years ago.
One good thing about being at rock bottom is that there's nowhere to go but up. I just don't think the Democrats have it in them to do it, at least not for a generation. Plus with redistricting and whatever new "election integrity bills" the GOP passes in the next 2-4 years, they are basically locked out of govt for a decade +. GG
Yes, empathy is cringey to a wide range of voters in our country. I think that really sums up a huge part of the problem. So why not just call people names ? Seems to work really well for the GOP.
She'd rail against corporate greed, and tell people all the different ways that Republicans constantly fuck them.And how would "socialist," New Green Deal AOC do any better? Plus they'll just show on repeat her cringey clips crying at the border a few years ago.
One good thing about being at rock bottom is that there's nowhere to go but up. I just don't think the Democrats have it in them to do it, at least not for a generation. Plus with redistricting and whatever new "election integrity bills" the GOP passes in the next 2-4 years, they are basically locked out of govt for a decade +. GG
Who cares if she cried at the border? I would hope watching human suffering elicits some kind of painful and sorrowful emotional response, as opposed to being a fucking psycho who enjoys it.
Dems already tried that and it backfired.
Reality is that Dems are just super unpopular in this country. And in this social media age they're also (somewhat rightfully) portrayed as preachy and uncool. Silly thing to hang your hat on but it works with voters.
Which is? Crying somehow makes her look weak and unelectable?You're missing the point entirely.
The really sad truth is I think we have learned debates have a very limited impact. Trump was soundly beaten in almost all his debates against democrats and still won 2 out of 3 elections .Which is? Crying somehow makes her look weak and unelectable?
I'm counter arguing that any loss from that clip on repeat will be made up by her very anti-corporate stances. Put her in a debate and she'd crush it, just like Pete.
The really sad truth is I think we have learned debates have a very limited impact. Trump was soundly beaten in almost all his debates against democrats and still won 2 out of 3 elections .
The reality is, the public does not care about policy details, and being too detailed on policy is an electoral negative since people will then nitpick on specific points.If the debates discussed specific issues and polices, and plans on how to accomplish them, then debates would be worthwhile. Neither candidate want to give details, either for fear they may lose a certain demographic, or its what the candidate or their handlers want the populous to hear. Baffle with bullshit seems the theme.
The reality is, the public does not care about policy details, and being too detailed on policy is an electoral negative since people will then nitpick on specific points.
I'm guessing 1988 is pretty red too.what did 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 look like?
the comparison insinuates that this shift happened overnight and 2024 is anomalous. examining the intervening years would give a lot more information. looking at shifts in the 2008-2016 elections would be particularly enlightening.
That isn't allowed for democrats, you know this.Yes, empathy is cringey to a wide range of voters in our country. I think that really sums up a huge part of the problem. So why not just call people names ? Seems to work really well for the GOP.
The reality is, the public does not care about policy details, and being too detailed on policy is an electoral negative since people will then nitpick on specific points.
But even those policies were just very high level. They certainly were not policy details like the peanut gallery tends to call for.A poll asked voters about Harris' policies without her name attached and people responded very positively. Problem is they thought those were Trump's policies. People just don't care enough to be informed. They vote based on vibes or who got in the sickest burn on instagram. It's been joked about for a while, but I think we're probably halfway to Idiocracy and I don't know a good way to reverse it.
Oh hell, there are people who voted for Trump, say they support Trump in shutting down Obama care, and want it to happen. Then in the next breath saying they love the ACA, it saved their lives, and it's all they need. They are so fucking stupid, they don't understand that they are the same thing. that is a glaring example of how ignorant and uneducated they are.A poll asked voters about Harris' policies without her name attached and people responded very positively. Problem is they thought those were Trump's policies. People just don't care enough to be informed. They vote based on vibes or who got in the sickest burn on instagram. It's been joked about for a while, but I think we're probably halfway to Idiocracy and I don't know a good way to reverse it.