Keep wondering, other people in "middle America," are probably keenly aware of the dangers of Latino voters.
Now that makes some sense.
Keep wondering, other people in "middle America," are probably keenly aware of the dangers of Latino voters.
Now that makes some sense.
Again, this shows you think of things superficially in terms of race. So. Prove me wrong. Explain in sufficient depth what he means.Keep wondering, other people in "middle America," are probably keenly aware of the dangers of Latino voters.
Perhaps it does, but it is certainly NOT the way frame a point of view.
Again, this shows you think of things superficially in terms of race. So. Prove me wrong. Explain in sufficient depth what he means.
Perhaps it does, but it is certainly NOT the way frame a point of view.
Just curious, Kut. If "perhaps it does" make some sense then how would YOU frame that same point of view to make it palatable to your standards?Perhaps it does, but it is certainly NOT the way frame a point of view.
Explicitly said? How about you explain what was explicitly said? That’s what I’m asking. You need to presume more facts in evidence to find something worthy to make the complaint you made. The presumptions substituted for facts is what I’m trying to nail down. So if you don’t mind...Lol, wut? I haven't interjected anything that hasn't already been explicitly said. Perhaps YOU can explain in sufficient depth what you think I mean.
That would require more formal composition to nail the subtleties so that uber race-sensitive people who are looking for offenses wouldn’t take it in a way that was not intended. But, peoole tend to say things in less precise colloquial language in informal settings. It’s not a problem when everyone understands the colloquial language.Just curious, Kut. If "perhaps it does" make some sense then how would YOU frame that same point of view to make it palatable to your standards?
Help us understand here.
Explicitly said? How about you explain what was explicitly said? That’s what I’m asking. You need to presume more facts in evidence to find something worthy to make the complaint you made. The presumptions substituted for facts is what I’m trying to nail down. So if you don’t mind...
That would require more formal composition to nail the subtleties so that uber race-sensitive people who are looking for offenses wouldn’t take it in a way that was not intended. But, peoole tend to say things in less precise colloquial language in informal settings. It’s not a problem when everyone understands the colloquial language.
Well, you made the complaint. I don’t have to quote it. What your presumptions were is what I’m trying to nail down. So again, if you don’t mind...What complaint/presumption, did I make that wasn't in reference to what was explicitly said?
And the problem with that? What do you think he meant to convey?I understood Latino.... "middle America," (with purposefully added quotes) though, I'm a bit hazy. Just enough to remain ambiguous as to meaning.
So this wall is about "Latino" vs "middle America" votes? Very interesting... I guess that's about as transparent one can be and still be slightly ambiguous with what they mean.
And the problem with that? What do you think he meant to convey?
I think Trump's talking points are spot on. Why are we OK with spending trillions defending other countries' borders, but aren't willing to spend a few billion to protect ours? Are the dems willing to go the distance for the latino vot?. I hope the GOP is willing to go the distance for "middle America" votes.
Dem's are ok with giving billions in corruptible cash to the countries that are attempting(and succeeding) to "crash" our borders. A structured border might pay for itself eventually. We don't need new laws, just enforcement of the one's in place
So this wall is about "Latino" vs "middle America" votes? Very interesting... I guess that's about as transparent one can be and still be slightly ambiguous with what they mean.
I think the first quote is speaking to the Democrat's arguable tendency of favoring porous borders to pander to a certain demographic and hope to convert a non-zero percentage of those who achieve citizenship to the democratic fold. It is not an uncommon nor extreme viewpoint to believe that at heart the Democrats care little for the people caught up in their plans nor the Americans harmed by the same, so long as they achieve power. They are widely held to be the party of "by any means necessary" I would expect "going the distance for the Latino vote" could refer to their open borders at all costs stratyegy
When the OP speaks of the Republicans "going the distance for the middle America vote" I interpret it as doing whatever it takes to get control of the border and bring some semblance of rationality to immigration. I infer the writer would prefer emigres that are committed to the idea of America and becoming Americans not those solely committed to the idea of profiting off America while becoming La Raza Unida members
I get no read from the OP that says "keep all the brown people out". I just hear another voice raised against people storming our border demanding we take them in. Not nearly as many people as you imagine are for closed borders, they are for the creation of new Americans. Assimilation should not be a dirty word nor fail to be required of any who wish to be awarded citizenship. Anything else is self-destructive
In the other post, I see innuendo used to suggest dark undercurrents but still haven't seen that OP post up the evidence (or lack thereof) he was called out on
Cue the usual krewe to come and grab an oar
Idk, I'm hazy on what "middle America" means, when contrasting with Latino voters. But apparently there is some kind of difference, enough difference that apparently Latino voters are excluded from "middle America." Now since I've spent some time in the actual place called middle America, and know that there are Latino voters there, I'm left scratching my head as to what is actually meant.
Perhaps you can provide some clarification?