Reading a book by Mark Levin (American Marxism) quote from book:

account no longer exists writes:

Can one argue that the Obama administration's amnesty plan to allow children who came here to the US at a young age and should be granted citizenship was a political move to increase Hispanic turnout in 2012 and that these younger people will grow up to be democrats? And is it assuming that all Hispanics think monolithically and have no individual mindset regarding political views? That "ALL" hispanics will grow up to become democrats? But does knowing that minorities and immigrants are generally more Democrats than Republicans allow people to logically deduce that this could be a game to get more voters. That there is an incentive for demographic change to stay in power?

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Jakub M]

Can one argue that the Obama administration's amnesty plan to allow children who came here to the US at a young age and should be granted citizenship was a political move to increase Hispanic turnout in 2012 and that these younger people will grow up to be democrats?

Possibly, though it's a stretch to say that giving a few people amnesty would permanently alter the demographics of the country and significantly expand the Democratic voter base - as you go on to point out, there's no guarantee all of those younger people would even grow up voting Democratic. 

skips777 writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

"..but this looks like a string of unsupported claims."......lmfao

Since Biden took office military transports have been flying planes filled with illegals into numerous states and letting them go. With all due respect, you must have "headup"your.....disease.

"though it's a stretch to say that giving a few people amnesty would permanently alter the demographics of the country".....wow, it's millions of people genius. You are a perfect liberal dupe

Ed F writes:
[To skips777]

Although I strongly disagree with the comments on illegal immigration by Rationalissimus of the Elenchus, there is no place on this website for personal attacks.  The whole point of this website is to avoid fallacies and there’s no fallacy more unacceptable than abusive ad hominem. 

skips777 writes:
[To Ed F]

Ad hom...."Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself,"....

I 'attacked' his argument

:.."when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making."

His statement that "only a few" was so naive and wrong. Where do you think his head is at other than up the metaphorical...?

Insults are not fallacious, they're bad manners. I guess I should have said in the sand. Either hole is relevant...lol..... So no ad hom

Ed F writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Just to clarify.  The number of people in this program is not a few.  As of 2 years ago it was over 800,000.  That’s more than the population of Boston or Washington D.C.   

One comment on current affairs (which we can’t ignore).  With the humanitarian tragedy going on in Ukraine, one way the U.S. could help is by allowing refugees to come to the U.S.   I was embarrassed and angry when Vice President Harris was asked about this in Poland and her reaction was to turn to the President of Poland and say “a friend in need is a friend indeed” (what does that mean? argument by gibberish)  and then laugh for a few seconds and side-stepped the question.   avoiding the issue