Why Do A Majority of White Republicans Hate The Government

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by backonthesaddle

Because they hate YOU. According to White Republicans, YOU are the poster child of what government is doing with their tax money.

Backonthesaddle, This is like immigration, legal and illegal. Democrats want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats. Republicans don't want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats.

Similarly, many White Republicans would love to see their tax money used efficiently to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds become successful in life. That increases the probability they'll become Republicans. If they remain stuck in hopeless circumstances and more dependent on government, it increases the probability they'll remain Democrats. Now this isn't the way it worked out for SC, but there's still plenty of time for him to see the light.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Backonthesaddle, This is like immigration, legal and illegal. Democrats want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats. Republicans don't want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats.

Similarly, many White Republicans would love to see their tax money used efficiently to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds become successful in life. That increases the probability they'll become Republicans. If they remain stuck in hopeless circumstances and more dependent on government, it increases the probability they'll remain Democrats.

The Republicans are mainly to blame for the illegal immigration problem. Dumb fucks in places like Pittsburg don't know anything about the border or Mexicans

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by themystic

The Republicans are mainly to blame for the illegal immigration problem. Dumb fucks in places like Pittsburg don't know anything about the border or Mexicans

I'm not following this Mystic. Could you elaborate? What makes an anti-immigrant Republican in Pennsylvania different from Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Backonthesaddle, This is like immigration, legal and illegal. Democrats want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats. Republicans don't want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats.

Similarly, many White Republicans would love to see their tax money used efficiently to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds become successful in life. That increases the probability they'll become Republicans. If they remain stuck in hopeless circumstances and more dependent on government, it increases the probability they'll remain Democrats. Now this isn't the way it worked out for SC, but there's still plenty of time for him to see the light.

California was apportioned six additional Congressional seats based on the 2010 census which did not differentiate between "citizens" and "non-citizens". It's the California congressional delegation that insures Pelosi is Speaker of the House. It doesn't matter whether or not illegals vote, because modern dim-retards are exactly the same as Antebellum slave masters who voted for the slaves they owned. Your notion that the dim-retards don't benefit politically by the influx of illegals is preposterous.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your notion that the dim-retards don't benefit politically by the influx of illegals is preposterous. [/COLOR]

IB, I don't understand your point. I said the opposite of what you think I said:

Originally Posted by Tiny

Backonthesaddle, This is like immigration, legal and illegal. Democrats want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats.

To be clear, I think the Democrats are right.

[Redhot1960]

"Government" can't even protect out borders. It's USELESS!

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm not following this Mystic. Could you elaborate? What makes an anti-immigrant Republican in Pennsylvania different from Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

For one thing Sherriff Joe was a convicted criminal who violated the civil rights of people. The Pennsylvania people don't know anything about the Mexican border. Penn is a cool state but they don't know anything about Mexico. Bambino is in Penn. That should tell you a lot. He thinks General Flynn is innocent

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

California was apportioned six additional Congressional seats based on the 2010 census which did not differentiate between "citizens" and "non-citizens". It's the California congressional delegation that insures Pelosi is Speaker of the House. It doesn't matter whether or not illegals vote, because modern dim-retards are exactly the same as Antebellum slave masters who voted for the slaves they owned. Your notion that the dim-retards don't benefit politically by the influx of illegals is preposterous.

IB get back to your Iran and General Flynn threads. You are only allowed to lie in 2 threads at a time

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

"Government" can't even protect out borders. It's USELESS!

I know its sad that Trump cant protect us. We never had these problems under Obama

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Tiny

IB, I don't understand your point. I said the opposite of what you think I said:

To be clear, I think the Democrats are right.

Very well, but you used the qualifier "believe" as opposed to a declaration of fact. There are presently nine House seats based on the presence of non-citizens. California has six, New York, Florida and Texas have one each at the expense of one each belonging to Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those misplaced seats are also a factor in the Electoral College.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Very well, but you used the qualifier "believe" as opposed to a declaration of fact. There are presently nine House seats based on the presence of non-citizens. California has six, New York, Florida and Texas have one each at the expense of one each belonging to Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin

IB North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have 2 Senators. They have a combined population of 112. You don't know your stuff. Get back to the General Flynn thread

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

IB North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have 2 Senators. They have a combined population of 112. You don't know your stuff. Get back to the General Flynn thread

Exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended!

BTW, you don't know your stuff, Jussie, or you wouldn't have written a fucking check documenting your criminal activities.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Very well, but you used the qualifier "believe" as opposed to a declaration of fact. There are presently nine House seats based on the presence of non-citizens. California has six, New York, Florida and Texas have one each at the expense of one each belonging to Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those misplaced seats are also a factor in the Electoral College.

Well, I have no problem with that. It makes no sense counting illegal immigrants, and probably makes more sense determining House seats based on number of citizens instead of number of legal residents. Presumably you recognize that it wouldn't have made a difference in which party controls the House, and the results of the House elections should be a wake up call for Republicans? We have a very strong economy, and yet still the Republicans lost 63 seats. I attribute a lot of that to our President.

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Backonthesaddle, This is like immigration, legal and illegal. Democrats want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats. Republicans don't want it because they believe immigrants will vote for Democrats.

Similarly, many White Republicans would love to see their tax money used efficiently to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds become successful in life. That increases the probability they'll become Republicans. If they remain stuck in hopeless circumstances and more dependent on government, it increases the probability they'll remain Democrats. Now this isn't the way it worked out for SC, but there's still plenty of time for him to see the light.

Lol there's lots of interesting theories about SC...all flattering I guess. Smh

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Lol there's lots of interesting theories about SC...all flattering I guess. Smh

Well, I'll throw another one out. Back in 2004, Karl Rove commissioned a study of Professional Wrestling. He discovered that wrestling fans were motivated more by their dark instincts. They rooted against the villains more than they rooted for their heroes. Masked villains in particular engendered a strong response among fans.

Rove and his cohorts refined the data, and passed it onto groups like Cambridge Analytica, who helped Trump win the 2016 elections. Cambridge, backed by the billionaire's billions, went out and hired the best and the brightest. These people were the on-line equivalent of the highly trained Russian male and female prostitutes in the spy film Red Sparrow. They would do their all to support their cause. In the event one of their proselytizers betrayed the Republican Cause, Cambridge would terminate his or her life, in a very gruesome way. Cambridge trained their on line prostitutes in what they'd gleaned from extensive psychological and professional wrestling research. Then they put them to work, posting on social media and other web sites, posing as villainous, despicable Democrats.

Sistine Chapel was so employed in a get out the vote effort, posting on various web sites, to make Republicans so mad they'd rush to the polls to elect Donald Trump.

This effort by Cambridge was wildly successful. SC was the most prolific of the online prostitutes. Cambridge's tracking data on election day showed clusters of Republican voters showing up at particular polling sites after SC's posts on certain Facebook pages.

SC received a bonus in the millions in return for his service, and was personally thanked by Candidate Trump on several occasions. Paul Manafort reputedly attributed Trump's margin of victory solely to SC.

This theory would explain a lot. Another one, that SC is really Roger Stone, makes a lot of sense too, but I don't have time to go into it this evening.