• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Belief does not equal truth.....and please don't tell me you are one of these "5 million illegals voted in the last election" folks.

Agreed regarding immigration though, wanting stronger immigration reform is not necessarily racist. Sadly though, a lot of justifications being peddled out there for immigration reform lean on fear and race.
44%of legal immigrants on welfare . That's a lot man.

The number of illegal votes isn't millions and it isn't zero. We weren't taljing avout that here. We're discussing how legal immigrants vote.
 
Just, before we keep doing this, you are still going to continue conversation with me even when I've told you u I dont care to have them?

As I've told you numerous times, my response is to the thread... You made statements in the thread. This isn't me badgering you, it's posting in the thread. You aren't forced to respond, right?

Illegal immigrants have children. Children get benefits. You know this.

Illegal immigrants aren't citizens. Their children are citizens. The children of illegal immigrants are not illegal immigrants. The parents do not receive substantial federal benefits outside of nursing mothers who decide to sign up for the WIC program. So it is an obviously false claim to argue that the "majority of illegal immigrants are on welfare."

44% of legal immigrants are on welfare.

That's one way to look at it, but another, more complex way is to look at benefit utilization across socioeconomic demographics, thus accounting for the means-tested nature of social welfare programs. The CATO Institute has a report that demonstrates exactly this which contradicts the position that you're asserting here. Here's an excerpt from the conclusions of that report:

Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens
https://www.cato.org/publications/e...mmigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Comparing Studies
A study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)found that immigrant-headed households with children used more Medicaid than native-headed households with children and had higher use of food assistance, but lower use of cash assistance.18 The CIS study did not examine the average value of benefits received per recipient.

There are several reasons why our study differs from CIS’s study. First, CIS did not adjust for income, so the percent of immigrants receiving benefits is higher in their study in part because a greater percent of immigrants are low-income and, all else remaining equal, more eligible for benefits. Non-citizens are almost twice as likely to have low incomes compared with natives.19 We focus on low-income adults and children because public benefit programs are means-tested and intended for use by low income people. It is conventional in analyses like these to focus on the low income because it reduces misinterpretations about benefit utilization.

Second, CIS focused on households headed by immigrants while we focus on individuals by immigration status. Our study focuses on individuals because immigrant headed households often include both immigrants and citizens. Since citizen children constitute the bulk of children in immigrant-headed households and are eligible for benefits, CIS’s method of using the immigrant-headed household as the unit of analysis systematically inflates immigrants’ benefit usage. For example, 30 percent of U.S children receiving Medicaid or CHIP benefits are children in immigrant-headed families and 90 percent of those children are citizens.20

Third, CIS focused on immigrants in general, including naturalized citizens, while we also included non-citizen immigrants. Naturalized citizens are accorded the same access to public benefits as native-born citizens and are more assimilated, meaning their opinions of benefit use are more similar to those of native born Americans. Separating non-citizens from naturalized Americans gives a clearer picture of which immigrant groups are actually receiving benefits.

Conclusion
Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born. For Medicaid, if there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for the same number of non-citizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The benefits cost of non-citizens is 42 percent below the cost of the native-born adults. For children, a comparable calculation for 100 non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs, while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in benefits. The benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66 percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of citizen parents. The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall financial cost of providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants is lower than for native-born people. Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than similarly poor natives.


We werent speaking about illegal immigrants, but we can address that too.

Actually "we" were, given I quoted your comments about "illegal immigrants" specifically. I said nothing else about your statements with @-Akronite- ...

If you think illegal immigrants who normally have no connections and are less likely to speak english are able to work and provide for themselves more than legal immigrants, I'll just say I really doubt it man.

I've never made this claim.

Many here illegally are using false information, so again, hardly means they cannot get benefits

Not sure as to the point you're trying to make?

It doesn't matter if California whether you're legal or not you get registered when you get your license.

Again: that is false.

You and I both live in California man, you should know that's not true.

Here's an excerpt about this exact issue:
"The way automatic registration works is relatively simple: Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver’s license or state ID. The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State’s office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms…

“… Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury,” Padilla said."


It's hardly barred.

Illegal immigrants are not barred from voting? Really?

Back to legal immigrants, they vote left, and you know this.

Dave, can you list off all of the racial/ethnic/gender demographics that predominantly vote for the GOP?
 
The number of illegal votes isn't millions and it isn't zero.

Ummmm... okay?

We weren't taljing avout that here. We're discussing how legal immigrants vote.

Will ask once more; Dave, can you list off all of the racial/ethnic/gender demographics that predominantly vote for the GOP?
 
As I've told you numerous times, my response is to the thread... You made statements in the thread. This isn't me badgering you, it's posting in the thread. You aren't forced to respond, right?



Illegal immigrants aren't citizens. Their children are citizens. The children of illegal immigrants are not illegal immigrants. The parents do not receive substantial federal benefits outside of nursing mothers who decide to sign up for the WIC program. So it is an obviously false claim to argue that the "majority of illegal immigrants are on welfare."



That's one way to look at it, but another, more complex way is to look at benefit utilization across socioeconomic demographics, thus accounting for the means-tested nature of social welfare programs. The CATO Institute has a report that demonstrates exactly this which contradicts the position that you're asserting here. Here's an excerpt from the conclusions of that report:

Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens
https://www.cato.org/publications/e...mmigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Comparing Studies
A study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)found that immigrant-headed households with children used more Medicaid than native-headed households with children and had higher use of food assistance, but lower use of cash assistance.18 The CIS study did not examine the average value of benefits received per recipient.

There are several reasons why our study differs from CIS’s study. First, CIS did not adjust for income, so the percent of immigrants receiving benefits is higher in their study in part because a greater percent of immigrants are low-income and, all else remaining equal, more eligible for benefits. Non-citizens are almost twice as likely to have low incomes compared with natives.19 We focus on low-income adults and children because public benefit programs are means-tested and intended for use by low income people. It is conventional in analyses like these to focus on the low income because it reduces misinterpretations about benefit utilization.

Second, CIS focused on households headed by immigrants while we focus on individuals by immigration status. Our study focuses on individuals because immigrant headed households often include both immigrants and citizens. Since citizen children constitute the bulk of children in immigrant-headed households and are eligible for benefits, CIS’s method of using the immigrant-headed household as the unit of analysis systematically inflates immigrants’ benefit usage. For example, 30 percent of U.S children receiving Medicaid or CHIP benefits are children in immigrant-headed families and 90 percent of those children are citizens.20

Third, CIS focused on immigrants in general, including naturalized citizens, while we also included non-citizen immigrants. Naturalized citizens are accorded the same access to public benefits as native-born citizens and are more assimilated, meaning their opinions of benefit use are more similar to those of native born Americans. Separating non-citizens from naturalized Americans gives a clearer picture of which immigrant groups are actually receiving benefits.

Conclusion
Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born. For Medicaid, if there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for the same number of non-citizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The benefits cost of non-citizens is 42 percent below the cost of the native-born adults. For children, a comparable calculation for 100 non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs, while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in benefits. The benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66 percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of citizen parents. The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall financial cost of providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants is lower than for native-born people. Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than similarly poor natives.




Actually "we" were, given I quoted your comments about "illegal immigrants" specifically. I said nothing else about your statements with @-Akronite- ...



I've never made this claim.



Not sure as to the point you're trying to make?



Again: that is false.

You and I both live in California man, you should know that's not true.

Here's an excerpt about this exact issue:
"The way automatic registration works is relatively simple: Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver’s license or state ID. The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State’s office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms…

“… Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury,” Padilla said."




Illegal immigrants are not barred from voting? Really?



Dave, can you list off all of the racial/ethnic/gender demographics that predominantly vote for the GOP?
No I'm not forced to respond to you. If I didn't you would have just responded to an entirely different argument than what d being discussed, and have refuted my data as incorrect because you were talking about something no one else was.

It comes down to respecting boundaries. Im trying not to make this personal, but I literally don't want to spend my days discussing things with you and you can't seem to respect that. Like earlier, you're asking if I really think something was your argument.. Well you argued it man, so yea. What sort of question is that? There's something psychologically maladjusted with people who don't respect boundaries, I don't trust you in conversation and I'm over you rounding up cavalry when you have a bad day at work and get upset that I don't agree with you.

Why not just respect that I don't want to talk to you all day long?
 
Ummmm... okay?



Will ask once more; Dave, can you list off all of the racial/ethnic/gender demographics that predominantly vote for theGOP?
1. How can you possibly take issue with that statement?


2.Its entirely irrelevant to the conversation, so you can go look it up yourself and divert on your own.
 
44%of legal immigrants on welfare . That's a lot man.

The number of illegal votes isn't millions and it isn't zero. We weren't taljing avout that here. We're discussing how legal immigrants vote.

I get your point. But, as Gouri points out, and what CIS fails to mention in their study which everyone uses, is the income disparity between the immigrant/native categories which leads to this increase. Also, we both look at use of social programs a little bit differently philosophically:chuckle:

Do you have more of a problem with legal immigrants using social programs than natives? Not accusing, just curious.
 
We're still on this bullshit illegal immigrants are voting thing?

Cripes.
 
No I'm not forced to respond to you. If I didn't you would have just responded to an entirely different argument than what d being discussed, and have refuted my data as incorrect because you were talking about something no one else was.

Dave you entered several false statements into a discussion in a thread titled General Terrorist Rampage; those statements were about "immigrants," illegal or otherwise. I took a moment to correct those statements in a post that was all of literally 5 sentences. You were not forced to respond... you chose to anyway.

It comes down to respecting boundaries. Im trying not to make this personal, but I literally don't want to spend my days discussing things with you and you can't seem to respect that.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is... I'm not really looking for you to respond to my posts. My posts are to the thread, in an open forum, they are not to you personally.

Like earlier, you're asking if I really think something was your argument.. Well you argued it man, so yea. What sort of question is that?

It's a rhetorical question that was intended to be lightheartedly saying "give me a break." I didn't think your post really made much sense, and I asked you, in essence, if you had really thought this through.

There's something psychologically maladjusted with people who don't respect boundaries, I don't trust you in conversation and I'm over you rounding up cavalry when you have a bad day at work and get upset that I don't agree with you.

Huh?

Dave, it's simple. You post in the political threads, you will get responses. You may not like the responses. But you should act like an adult, and not whine when people respond to your comments on this forum.

Why not just respect that I don't want to talk to you all day long?

I'm not asking you to Dave... I'm posting in the thread.

Is it really that difficult to understand that this thread is not the "Dave's Questions about Politics" thread, but instead, an open forum to discuss terrorism? If you post comments here, anyone is free to respond to them.

No boundaries are being crossed by someone responding to your posts...
 
I get your point. But, as Gouri points out, and what CIS fails to mention in their study which everyone uses, is the income disparity between the immigrant/native categories which leads to this increase. Also, we both look at use of social programs a little bit differently philosophically:chuckle:

Do you have more of a problem with legal immigrants using social programs than natives? Not accusing, just curious.

Thanks for the respectful reply.

"socialists want to help the poor, capitalists want less of the poor. "

I dont want anyone on it really, and that's not a statement against the poor. That's a statement to" people will do more if they arent propped up. It limits them. "

I'm absolutely in favor of safety nets but when they are weighed down, more and more, that net breaks. There are people who absolutely need aid. But not all of them and we'd do a lot better with less people using the aid and instead being productive. If we're importing people who rely on the government and vote for more of it, that's literally in direct opposition to what I'd like to see and it's effects aren't positive. Idle hands and income disparity is not the catalyst of positive things.
 
1. How can you possibly take issue with that statement?

I've already explained up-thread....

2.Its entirely irrelevant to the conversation, so you can go look it up yourself and divert on your own.

How is it irrelevant to ask what demographics vote for which political parties when you yourself have injected this question into the conversation? You said, and I quote:

"Illegal immigrants literally are criminals and I believe a majority are on welfare. And historically vote for these programs, and bigger government."
"Back to legal immigrants, which is what we have been discussing, they vote left, and you know this."
"We're discussing how legal immigrants vote."

So, how is it irrelevant to the conversation to ask who votes for whom?

Again, I'll ask, can you please list off the racial, ethnic, and gender demographics vote predominantly Republican?

Believe me, by answering this question, you'll likely enlighten yourself a bit on this topic that "you're discussing." But it's okay if you choose not to answer man, that's your right...
 
We're still on this bullshit illegal immigrants are voting thing?

Cripes.

Member that time you made a bullshit thread about CNN being not as bias as other media outlets and then only your bud gouri posted after it was well proven that CNN was just as biased which led to the thread dying an early death?

Fun times, man.

Keep posting in it though. Maybe you and gour can talk to each other and make RCF history.
 
Member that time you made a bullshit thread about CNN being not as bias as other media outlets and then only your bud gouri posted after it was well proven that CNN was just as biased which led to the thread dying an early death?

Fun times, man.

Keep posting in it though. Maybe you and gour can talk to each other and make RCF history.

The thread was started because of the Sinclair Media Group, and it's at 14 pages in less than a week.
 
The thread was started because of the Sinclair Media Group, and it's at 14 pages in less than a week.

Those three posts about the Sinclair Media Group really set off a firestorm.

13 pages of not discussing the Sinclair Media Group.... :chuckle:

Oh look! Gouri approves your post! Shocking!
 
Member that time you made a bullshit thread about CNN being not as bias as other media outlets and then only your bud gouri posted after it was well proven that CNN was just as biased which led to the thread dying an early death?

Fun times, man.

Keep posting in it though. Maybe you and gour can talk to each other and make RCF history.
Those three posts about the Sinclair Media Group really set off a firestorm.

13 pages of not discussing the Sinclair Media Group.... :chuckle:

Oh look! Gouri approves your post! Shocking!

Any reason you've come into this thread and done nothing but attack @AZ_ and myself?
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top