Infidel Dog

Stop killing babies is a better solution.

Doesn't matter. That was just the first link I came to. Why? Did you want more? Here ya go. If you want even more feel free to ask. There's lots: A few Democratic-affiliated researchers disagreed. Researchers Stephen Ansolabehere (Harvard), Samantha Luks (YouGov) and Brian Schaffner (UM-Amherst) dismissed the Richman et. al. study, later writing “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.” Just Facts, an independent New Jersey research organization, released the results of its study in June 2017. Using extensive data from a Harvard/YouGov study of tens of thousands of voters, Just Facts “estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered to vote in 2008, and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted [in the 2008 U.S. presidential election].” https://cblwomen.org/how-many-illegals-vote/

It's about time for you to can the BS. Or would you like to discuss the Waukesha Christmas massacre or the New York subway shooting? Or for that matter Steve Scalise's Republican baseball practice?

And Democrats are Democrats no matter where you find them. And I repeat, "drip, drip, drip," to a flood of eventual illegals voting. And lets not ignore this: Illegal Immigrants Vote In U.S. Elections There's a reason Dems don't want ID laws for voting and mail-in/out voting without registration.

They're not legal citizens. But they're more just the faces Dems like to trot out to eventually authorize a legalization of the 20 million or whatever illegal immigrants in the US. It's a drip, drip, drip strategy. Like I said Progs play the long game. Remember this one from Commiefornia? https://www.laimmigrationattorneys.co/eligible-illegal-immigrants-california-drivers-license/ Drip, drip, drip.

Yeah he did. What's your point? He was talking about legal American citizens. Mostly Latinos. Not that it matters but there were also increases in the black demographic that voted for him. He celebrated those too. You should check out his rally speeches. Or at least that's what you'd like to believe. Go ahead. Believe what you like. Some of us share Tucker's belief that immigration laws are there for a purpose and that's not racist. We believe it for a Somalian or a Brit.

Thanks. It did help. Now that I see it at its original source without key info edited out it makes more sense. Google sucks. So they're talking about legal American citizens then. The quote they use is from the leftist British rag the Independent. It's American Democrats angry about a comment Donald Trump made against what is called the Democrat "Squad" of 4. 3 American born and 1 legal immigrant. "“As far as I’m concerned if you hate our country, if you’re not happy here, you can leave,” Mr Trump said."

Progs play the long game.

No idea what you're talking about. Best guess says it has nothing to do with what the rest of us were talking about though. Accusing Tucker Carlson of pushing the great replacement theory is BS depending on a reimagining of the definition of the term.

Hopefully, they can't. At least, not legally. However the Dems are even currently all the time pushing to allow greater "rights" including voting rights for what they call "Dreamers" and others.

What it sounds like, Boges, is your narrative masters are trying push their ol' change the definition of the label trick to justify a slur. Tucker is only offering up a natural assumption and well-supported theory that the Democrats have been hoping for some time to pump new democrat voters into the country by hook or by crook. That's not great replacement theory and that's not what the Buffalo shooter was pushing. He says in his manifesto he's not conservative which would imply not republican. I believe he refers to himself as a "leftist authoritarian" who is now or was deeply into Communism.

What it sounds like, Boges, is your narrative masters are trying to push is their ol' change the definition of the label trick to justify a slur.

That's not the great replacement theory. Here's what a left wing source tells me the great replacement theory is: "The original theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of "replacist" elites,[a][4][7] the white European populations are being demographically and culturally replaced with non-white peoples — especially from Muslim-majority countries — through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans.[4][8][9] Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims as rooted in an exaggerated reading of immigration statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.[10][11]" Tucker is talking about how Biden and the Dems have been hoping to open the border up to illegals to attract more Democrat support in elections. He's made no assumptions concerning color. He has all kinds of evidential support for that theory. You don't for yours on him supporting the great replacement theory. Try again.

Google is a Progressive Socialist's friend. Not mine. I did go to Duck Duck Go though to find out who provided that definition. Near as I can find IAW is some sort of women's forum. Is that who you and Google are using for your authority on what words mean or is IAW something else? Nationalist asks a key question you didn't answer. Are whatever IAW is talking about legal or illegal immigrants. Tucker is most often talking about illegals or Biden allowed but should be illegal immigrants.

Progressive narrative BS. Tucker deals in facts - something you and yours can't seem to tolerate. Speaking of which...I specifically asked to see some to factual support for your particular BS. I notice you didn't. Is that because you don't have any? Yeah it is.

Really? A guy whose manifesto tells us he identifies as a "leftist authoritarian" had been listening to too much Tucker Carson? You sure about that. He tells us in the same manifesto it was 4 Chan. But now you're the greater expert on what his influences were? I'm from Missouri. Show me. Listening to too much leftist media nonsense, I think. I hear they're pretty happy about the opportunity to infect the gullible with the "blame Tucker' crap though. And when you follow in line they just turn to each other grinning and say, "Got another one, Julian." Believe it or not there's another side. Try this one: The Race-Baiting Media Seize on Buffalo Shooting to Smear Republicans –Again

Man, they sure got the ID and manifesto out quick on the Buffalo one, though, didn't they? I was hearing he was a white racist a couple hours after the news broke there was a shooting. There was another one on the weekend. We had to wait till today for the ID on that one. Sounds like most of you didn't even hear about it. I know I'm not supposed to notice stuff like that but I do. Suspected Gunman ID'd In Fatal Church Shooting In Laguna Woods Also, I've been watching MSNBC and CNN lately for Ukraine war news. Man were they happy to jump all over this one and not have to discuss Biden's screw up with the baby food shortage. Ukraine's been pushed to the back burner too. They have their 3 favorite issues to hype. Anti-Gun, Ben Crum and the Reverend Al get to get on and race bait. And we hear how Fox News is the core of all evil. If they can hook it into blaming Trump somehow they'll hit the jackpot. And I'm sure they'll figure out a way to do that eventually.

You're drawing the line between ethnic and civic nationalism and that in itself is valid. However when you attempt to infer that you have the key to which is more valid as a definition and from that attempt to make nationalists necessarily "national socialists" GA becomes correct. You are full of crap.

If it's not a scandal it should be. It is though. Here's Tucker explaining how the Biden administration is responsible for it. It's complicated but they were hoarding and the house of cards they'd created tumbled.

The way I remember it she was waiting until all the data was made public. She thought that was going to happen. True the vote suggests it will make the data public. I expect it. It's the old Breitbart trick. O'keefe who studied at Breitbart's heels still does it. You release the main video. The Progs attack with hysterical criticisms concerning weaknesses or flaws they see in the argument. You release the rest of the data you've been holding. Bam. The legs are kicked out from under the critics and they're flat on their asses. If True the Vote releases the names of the NGOs behind the scam, for example, this story will get even bigger. TtV claims they do have the names. There is some data they don't have. For example they don't have video on all the mules from all the locations. Dinesh replies to a critique from Ben Shapiro on that one:

Mine are more contemporary than Churchill but I haven't really advanced to the point I can appreciate whatever branch of Conservatism Mikey is supposed to be. By "mentor" though I'm going to assume you mean the thinkers who influenced my thinking when I started to realize I was a Conservative. So I'm going to say, Andrew Breitbart and Bill Whittle.

After a little thought though I suspect you're talking about Paul Ryan. Not sure why you're calling him a spend thrift. Didn't he support TARP? I was never sure about that guy since the early days when Glenn Beck was grilling him about suspicions he was a Progressive. And Ryan was all, "Progressive??? Puh, puh, puh don't say that word. I could never be a Progressive." And I was quietly sitting there watching thinking 'Methinks the lady protests too much." Then the creator of RomneyCare chose him to run as his VP candidate. Yeah...speaking of RINO infiltrator sellouts, you sure you're not talking about Romney.

Which lieberal spendthrift is that? It's hard to support an accusation when I don't know what you're talking about. Beginning to suspect that makes two of us.

RINOing around with fellow RINOs I imagine. I don't know. Where's Occupy? Not sure why you think it matters.

He was doing pretty good with the economy until the Chi-Comms went into their biolab arsenal and brought out their secret weapon.