Nikki Haley

I made an honest mistake and corrected it.

Yeah, how convenient for Democrats for DC to allow noncitizens to vote.

My rationale is simply Democrats acting in their own electoral best interests. Yours is Democrats discovering the virtues of federalism for apparently the first time.

Also river, if I may, I recall you editing one of my posts for claiming someone was lying. What so saying someone was lying is against the rules, but suggesting they were “passing falsehoods” isn’t?

 

Hey, I respect the honest insinuation that you at best don’t see a problem with noncitizens voting, thereby diluting the votes of citizens.

 

My misrepresentation wasn’t intentional.

I’ve moved on, and am still treating my argument as standing despite the mistake while you dwell on the mistake and act cynical about my intentions.

 

There is zero push to repeal the 1996 law that bars non-citizens from voting in Federal elections. Any insinuation by you that there is should be construed as made up. You are just making up an issue because there are no good real reasons to support the wretched GOP.

 

How is that in the Democrats' own interests?

Simple: Calling someone a liar is saying that he not only posted something that was false, but knew it was false when he said it. I don't have a clue if you knew what you said wasn't true. Beyond that, calling anyone a liar just spirals into more name-calling, which is what we try to avoid.
But ... you did, in fact, pass a falsehood, right? What you posted wasn't true. That is a fact, not an opinion.

 

To be fair, some people like supporting a criminal and a criminal organization. To them, that might very well BE a good reason.

 

Riddle me this, what is the policy rationale that favors allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections but not federal elections?

 

Simple, illegal immigrants as a voting bloc generally favors Democrats.

Here’s the thing, you edited me saying someone “was lying” which is different from calling them a “liar.”

I guess you can still say it’s not quite the same because lying suggests deceptive intent, whereas “passing falsehoods” may not necessarily.

Here’s the problem, this was your post:

“First of all, maybe the Democrats were just allowing the city to make its own rules.
But, seriously, you got caught trying to pass a pretty significant falsehood and this is your rebound attempt? "OK,maybe they didn't do that. But I bet they wanted to!"
You really think that's an honest, rational argument?”

The whole purpose of this post seems to be to attack my intentions and characterize me as dishonest.

How is that any different than saying I was “lying?” And what was the term you used? You called my choice of words “unnecessarily antagonistic.”

Whatever… some people are above the rules I guess, even their own interpretation of them.

 

Talk about straight from the dnc talking points memo.

1. Supply chains are impacted by shutting down department stores and restaurants. It was a loss in demand that shut down ports and airports.

2. Ships circled the ocean because trucks could not deliver to closed businesses. AND closed businesses did not need those trucks...They had no open retailers/restaurants etc to receive the product. The backlog worked backwards from a lack of customers... leading to empty loading docks... to the trucking distribution center ...to the port... to the ocean.

3. A lot of price increases were caused from businesses trying to recoup lost income from being closed down.

4. As for lives saved...The data has not been as crystal clear as many (including myself) thought it would be.
The clear line between shutdown states vs open states isnt as obvious as many of us thought.

 

I know that's a mantra that Republicans are repeating over and over. But, as with the stolen election claims, there's no evidence that there is any significant noncitizen voting other than in the towns where it's allowed.
And, actually, in this case you're talking about, the issue before Congress was noncitizens voting in local DC elections. How would that favor Democratic congressmen from across the country?
As I already said, maybe the Democrats were just agreeing that Wash DC should have home rule.

Exactly. You posted something that was false. I have no idea if you knew that or not.

I'm certainly attacking your intentions but really with your follow-up. Your first claim about Democrats and noncitizen voting was shown to be false. But you doubled down with the phony claim that Democrats really want it in federal elections. As I said, I know that's the Republican mantra right now, that Democrats are either trying or succeeding in getting large numbers of noncitizens to vote. And that it's helping them steal elections.
Zero evidence, but you keep claiming it. That is not a reasonable discussion any more than someone claiming that Republicans want to jail all homosexuals. (Sure, they haven't said they want to ... but, gosh, I'll bet they really do ... silly, isn't it?)

 

Oh.....I dunno.....maybe that would mean casting a vote for a school board member or local politician who could have a direct impact on that person's life or family. While not voting on national issues that are not similarly locally focused, and also affect a great many non-local people. The distinction is not hard to see.

Also, can you show us on the doll where this voting in local elections hurt you? Interesting new outrage point you Trumpies have.....

 

The loss of demand caused deflation, not inflation. If demand decreases, that is not inflationary. What is inflationary is when demand spikes up or when supply goes down. General shutdowns with the accompanying loss of demand are deflationary, which is why we saw inflation go down in 2020.

 

I’ll ask again, what is the policy rationale for supporting noncitizens voting in local elections, but not federal election?

 

And I'll keep asking until someone tells me the answer that I want to hear, not a rational answer that I don't want to hear!!!

SO tell me! Tell me now!

 

How about home rule? I think I’ve mentioned that once or twice

 

Haha, “rational answer.” That’s cute.

 

What do you mean by that exactly?

I’m aware localities and states are free to set rules however they see fit (within Constitutional and federal law bounds of course).

Here’s the rub, the federal government is free to legalize it as well.

So my question is why Democrats would find it good policy at the local level but not the federal level?

 

First of all, do you understand this story? This was not a matter of Democrats in California and Illinois sitting around saying "Hey, noncitizens can't vote in Washington DC! We should let them."
The DC City Council voted (there's that pesky home rule) to allow noncitizens to vote in the local elections. But Republicans and some Democrats decided they should make the rules, not the local government in DC.
BTW, it still has to go to the Senate.

 

I understand the story perfectly well, River and I’m still waiting on an answer.

DC is run by Democrats. They support noncitizens voting at the local level. For the Democrats who support noncitizens voting at the local level, why wouldn’t they support it at the federal level?

 

And I'll keep saying this until I get an answer that I actually like!!!!

Meanwhile, though - your answer has already been provided.