I knew Napoleon would turn heel sooner or later.
I'm lovin' it.
I'm lovin' it.
Honest question:Bruh, they're not going ignore voting.
Black voters vote, knowing that, the Dems who are better than the republicans, support a poor view on immigration.
But thats the state of the black voter.
I'm talking about getting voters back.
Why are you so dense?
If Dems drop the unnecessary defense of illegals, adopt a "non amnesty" but long term gateway to citizenship view, and go harder on borders, they can win back many seats in the eyes of those who find the wall stupid but interesting.
Youre not focused on winning.
It's great. He realized half the year is over and he might be trailing in WOAT voting.I knew Napoleon would turn heel sooner or later.
I'm lovin' it.
Don't play the "affect more" game.Honest question:
Which affected the black vote more?
Democrats position on illegal immigrants or running a likable black man with a black wife.
Are you suggesting that Republican politicians represent their constituents right or wrong(in touch), while Democratic politicians just do what they feel is right(out of touch)?You could argue that being out of touch with voters and being wrong on the issues are two different things.
Everything you just said here is at odds with what you supported here:Its not contradictory
Dems need to jettison blanket support for things like illegal immigrant benefits like loans and social services and sanctuary cities and adopt more nuanced public policy on illegal immigration gateways
Read the article.
Quite the opposite. Republicans constituents vote republican regardless of what they actually do while in office.Are you suggesting that Republican politicians represent their constituents right or wrong, while Democratic politicians just do what they feel is right?
It's great. He realized half the year is over and he might be trailing in WOAT voting.
Thats different from amnesty. And the policy proposals are not blanket statements. Theres more nuanced policy options. And even then, the Dems don't need to brag about it. Its the overt loudmouth nature of it.Everything you just said here is at odds with what you supported here:
", they do support a path to citizenship for long-time, law-abiding and productive undocumented residents that has real work and assimilation requirements, "
:DolphTF:
What you're advocating is what sanctuary cities are. What the DACA supported.Thats different from amnesty. And the policy proposals are not blanket statements. Theres more nuanced policy options. And even then, the Dems don't need to brag about it. Its the overt loudmouth nature of it.
People harp on it too much.
Its a weakness.
I'm a black male, so miss me with all that shyt.
And fact is, islam is a belief. Its not a people. Centrists think democrats are too loyal to muslims
You wanna hear the facts on the ground or you wanna put your fingers in your ears?
Nah. Its islam.You're missing the point. If not islam it's something else. You want dems to bd mkre white supremacy friendly nothing more nothing less And you clearly aren't a black male. Your views make it very transparent.
Nah. Its islam.
I'm a black male. And stop asking people to put their blackness on the line for islam. Its not gonna happen.
Wrong again.What you're advocating is what sanctuary cities are. What the DACA supported.
People who are against illegal immigrants don't support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. They just want them gone.
People who feel that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from black people gain nothing by making those same immigrants citizens.
You don't win those voters advocating "a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants."