OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
Let me know when protestors start holding signs for Alyona Dixon.
What benefits does the average heritage amerikaner get from having Indians or Chinese becoming a permanent resident?
In our current environment with a low TFR, we get people. We avoid a steep population crunch, if only for a little while longer until we can sort it out.
Most people migrating or getting refugee status are completely incapable of being productive money wise.
You seem to misunderstand me here. I don't want "Most people." I would prefer for our foreign born population to decrease by 2/3rds. I think a reasonable amount of newcomers is good, as long as they come in at a rate where they can intermarry and assimilate. I don't want enough of any given foreign population to create an enclave.
If america were to raid India or China or Israel, will people of the respective ethnicities not have a very high chance of siding with nations they come from?
This has been a concern throughout American history and there have been some level of sabatuar and unrest during wars from time to time. But most Americans, especially immigrants who choose to assimilate, side with America. People who drop everything with the dream of Being American, a sovereign in themselves, with unalienable rights and infinite opportunity, don't defect so easily. At least not when selected carefully.
For what it's worth, I was raised by Republican parents who listened to Conservative Talk Radio and watched Fox News. Growing up I listened to Michael Medved, Glen Beck, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Rush Limbaugh, and Micheal Savage in the car. I still follow some of these personalities on X. I feel like I am tuned into normie conservative sentiment. And the Normie Conservative Sentiment is that America is a values-based society. Immigration is great if someone is willing to work hard, not take handouts, assimilate, and parent their kids to do the same.
I only see the "Blood and Soil" types in fringe online groups. The vast majority of American conservatives are not like that, and if you think that the "Values-Based" Americanism is losing I don't know what to say. I don't even know where the fight is taking place - YouTube comment sections?
I say this as someone who thinks it will be very sad if France is not majority French people, Italy not majority Italians, etc. In my heart I almost see Europe as a museum and I will be sad to see that go away. But America is multi-racial and I see that as a good thing.
That being said, seeing America as a Values-Based Society requires limited immigration. To explain, let's say that we brought in 300 million immigrants next year from all over the globe. 50% of Americans would be immigrants, 50% would be born in the USA. Let's ignore the economic pressure that would create, housing and job crises, and just focus on culture. If the population of foreign-born Americans was 50%, would we be able to pass along American values and culture?
I asked my siblings this question once and they said, "Of course, why not?" I think they were pretty stupid for thinking so. If American norms and values were so easily acquired and distributed throughout the globe, why would people need to move to America? They could just turn their existing countries into America themselves.
Instead, we find in immigration-heavy states like California that new structures that resemble the bribery, nepotism, and corruption of immigrant's home countries.
Obviously 50% of foreign-born people residing in the United States would be too big a shift for us to properly integrate them into our culture. But what is the correct percentage? Immigrants today account for 14.3% of the U.S. population. I think this is an under-count, because they list only 11 million "unauthorized" immigrants, when other independent studies have found closer to 20 million..
Is 14.3% of foriegn-born people the sweet spot? I don't think so. At times of greatest stability in America, that number was between 5-10%.
In New York specifically, rape as a legal definition means penis. The jury, using this specific legal definition, decided that Trump did not put his penis in Carroll.
The jury's findings are about as ridiculous to me as Cardinal Pell's conviction in Australia. The story as portrayed has no basis in reality. It is really telling that Carroll's story was that Trump raped her and the jury didn't agree. Carroll's story is that Trump met the legal definition of rape - penetration with a penis - but the jury disagreed. The jury collectively said, "No, your story breaks the laws of physics and anatomy, but we will just change your testimony to 'fingers' instead of 'penis' and then pretend that doesn't have implications on the reliability on the rest of what you said."
It's not semantic to say that there is a crucial standard of evidence lacking that would have been required in a criminal conviction.
It is natural, when denying an allegation, to provide an alternative explanation for the facts. It is part and parcel of denying an allegation. If you ask a kid if she ate a cookie, she will deny it by saying, "No, the dog ate it." The explanation is part of the denial. It shouldn't be libel to provide an alternative explanation when someone is accusing you of something.
he literally said she had made it up to sell books.
Didn't she?
Let's say I accuse you of raping me. You know that you have never raped me. You can honestly say you're innocent! You can also say, with 100% certainty that I am making it up. It shouldn't be libel for you to say that I'm making it up, because you are in a position where you can say that with certainty. Maybe I made it up because I am mentally unstable. But if I was also publicizing a book at the time, then you could reasonably infer that I made up to sell the book.
And this seems like the inference that everyone makes. Most liberals take this libel suit as evidence that Trump has been proven of rape in court.
Fox News is cable though.
I think a lot of people have forgotten what Broadcast means and why there's a legal distinction.
In short, there is a limited spectrum of channels we can have on broadcast TV and radio. There are strict rules that the government has implemented to ensure that this limited resource is allocated "fairly." It's not like the Internet where everyone can talk at once.
There were irregularities, but Republicans were more alert and suspicious in 2024 in a more productive way than 2020. Republican lawyers were working around the clock to make sure polls stayed open in Red areas and poll watchers witnessed everything in blue areas. Even if they don't catch explicit fraud, their actions prevent it from happening.
Unless the Republicans were on the ball in 2024 in a way they weren't in 2020 - filing court cases and working around the clock to make sure polls stayed open in Red areas and poll watchers witnessed everything in blue areas. Even if they don't catch explicit fraud, their actions make it less likely to happen in the first place.
Election Fortification post II:
-
Precinct in Milwaukee, WI had seals discovered broken on 15 out of 16 tabulator machines. They cancelled out the votes from the machines and retabulated all of the 30,000 ballots.
-
Location in Centre County, PA was evacuated due to a bomb threat.
-
Problem from earlier post in Harris County, TX has received a comment from a County Clerk that the difference in numbers was due to an "Alignment' issue.
-
I haven't seen a convincing explanation of what happened, but Burlington County in NJ have had 3+ hour waits, causing some to give up.
Hopefully no further updates.
Can we have an election day without Drama?
-
In Cambria County, PA, all precincts are reporting issues scanning completed ballots. Lines are getting longer as some choose to leave unscanned ballots in a secure box and others choose to wait for the scanner to work. Local judge has permitted voting hours to extend to 10 PM due to the issues.
-
In Georgia, a couple of polling stations have received bomb threats. Georgia Secretary of State claims they are coming from Russia.
-
In Harris County, TX, someone running for the State Senate is claiming that voter totals have been shifted from Red precincts to blue precincts. This one is weird but the main gist is (1) First published record of early voting had numbers in 1-2 Thousands for HCC West Loop South and only 800 for Kashmere. The second record of early voting decreased votes in HCC West Loop South and increased for Kashmere. (2) The Senator candidate says he was at HCC in person on one of those days and personally handed out 1000 buttons that day, now it is showing fewer people voted than he handed out buttons for. (3) Someone who participated in Early Voting at another precinct that had the vote counts lowered is reporting that she is not showing as someone who voted yet. (4) Ann Harris Bennett, the Tax Assessor for Harris County, TX, apparently has not gone to work since 2020. She is "in charge of voter registration and tax collection."
Something similar to Pennsylvania happened in Arizona: https://www.azfamily.com/2024/11/05/40k-damaged-incomplete-voter-registration-forms-submitted-maricopa-county/
The biggest Steelman is that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are counted in the US Census. Then the number of Electoral Votes and congressional seats are apportioned based on that population count. So even without voting, the presence of illegal immigrants can affect the election.
Looking at which states gained and lost EVs, most of it seemed like a wash to me. But I have seen various people lay out paths to a Kamala victory that would not have been a Kamala victory with the pre-2020 electoral vote apportion.
I've seen it reference on here more than once, have not seen it anywhere else.
Vance was not the announced VP pick yet and did not yet have a SS detail.
Does that make his story too paranoid? Only a vanishing few people would know he was going to be the ultimate pick. But his name was being thrown around.
People are denying this happened or saying that if it did happen it's disqualifying. In the absence of influence, I thought it sounded like a reasonable step to take. But does it sound like he's too quick to jump to conclusions and is too paranoid?
When Trump was shot, I found out from The Motte. I read the first sentence and ran and told my husband, "Trump was shot!" He said, "Is it serious?" I replied, "At his age, any shooting is serious."
Turns out, that guess was not correct. A graze in the ear did not set Trump back very far. But I can understand seeing that initial footage, not knowing if he was rushed to a hospital or anything else, and assuming Trump could have been seriously wounded. But I'm not running for VP.
I liked the story. I think it demonstrates a proper, masculine bias towards action and protection. But is that how it will come across to everyone?
It's funny, usually expressing that you hope someone dies at the age of 79 in bed surrounded by loving grandkids is generally a blessing... unless the person is 78.
Third, and more idealistically, I would feel like a total hypocrite with no ground to stand on if I claimed to be pro-freedom, pro-liberalism, and pro-democracy, but didn’t really take a stand against somebody trying to attack enemy politicians and rig an election.
If you didn't read anything else but this sentence, would you know Scott was arguing against Trump or against the Democratic Party?
This is the kind of thing you should bring up to your doctor. My husband started having colon polyps in his 30s.
Have you listened to the clip and do you actually believe that's what he meant?
The tonal context of the statement says exactly what he meant.
For that to be a reasonable interpretation, there would already have to be a referent to "hatred" or another idea. Instead, the referent is to Puerto Ricans, "people." I know what people are trying to twist it into, but it's obviously not what he said.
"They [Puerto Ricans] are good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see out there is his supporters."
The video clearly has Biden saying "supporters (period)" It was the end of the sentence. His voice tone went down. He took in a breath after. The words "garbage" and "supporters" were both emphasized and Biden was linking the two.
How on Earth do people fall for this? "An expert transcriber told me it was actually an apostrophe-S. Trust the Experts!" What is wrong with people?
I think it's the classic Motte/Bailey.
- Prev
- Next
Or the mother, who is closer at hand and has an easier time proving guardianship.
More options
Context Copy link