FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

events in MSP have restored Trump's support in the Hispanic community, proving GOP moderates wrong again....

New - Trump approval (Hispanic voters)

🟢 Approve 53% (+8)
🟤 Disapprove 45%

Last month - 🟤 Disapprove +20 (28% shift ⏩ 🟢)

Rasmussen #B - RV - 1/22 pic.twitter.com/TNl20F1saf

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) January 27, 2026

---

Funny, sending Homan in and de-escalating and he gets a bunp. imagine that.

---

Such a great example of what the neverTrump brain virus does to people. You got it completely ass-backwards. Check link. Check the dates the poll was taken.

Wrong @LeadingReport

Hispanic Trump Approval = 54%-45% or +9 per @Rasmussen_Poll https://t.co/1Fwrn8Z7YE pic.twitter.com/gDOXTSSRnL

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) January 27, 2026

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

events in MSP have restored Trump's support in the Hispanic community, proving GOP moderates wrong again....

New - Trump approval (Hispanic voters)

🟢 Approve 53% (+8)
🟤 Disapprove 45%

Last month - 🟤 Disapprove +20 (28% shift ⏩ 🟢)

Rasmussen #B - RV - 1/22 pic.twitter.com/TNl20F1saf

— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) January 27, 2026

---

Funny, sending Homan in and de-escalating and he gets a bunp. imagine that.

---

Such a great example of what the neverTrump brain virus does to people. You got it completely ass-backwards. Check link. Check the dates the poll was taken.

Wrong @LeadingReport

Hispanic Trump Approval = 54%-45% or +9 per @Rasmussen_Poll https://t.co/1Fwrn8Z7YE pic.twitter.com/gDOXTSSRnL

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) January 27, 2026

---

Roll eyes, I was F-ing with you... I checked the polling date before. He was underwater a month ago, he made progress.

Trump has done well with Hispanics, a lot of the Conservative message resonates with their strong family, religion and culture. Really, the only issue not in line has been immigration, and some stupid comments.

How is it going with independents?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Lots of good posts so far. But I think there is another perspective which needs examination. It starts with the question a lot of people asked in 2017:

How did that pompous ******* get elected President of the United States?

Some folks have pointed out that Trump was simply not as bad as Clinton in 2016, and not as bad as Biden/Harris in 2024. But Trump dominated the GOP from 2015 to now, including taking on the presumed heavy-hitters of the GOP at the time.

Trump destroyed Bush, Cruz, Rubio in 2016.

Trump blew away the field again in 2024, including DeSantis.

That's no small thing.

I submit that Trump won because he was a salesman.

A good salesman will listen to the customer, and pay attention to what the customer wants. And somehow, the salesman will always have just what the customer wants. Some of that is packaging, but some of it is as simple as paying attention to the customer.

Trump paid attention and so he knew the issues Americans cared about most. And so he told us he was determined to seal the border, to expel the illegals, to cut off drugs coming into the country, wipe out international gangs and find a way to balance trade.

Trump also has the advantage that there's no real surprise about him left. The Bushes, aside from getting us deep into Middle East conflicts, didn't really do much and really never seemed to pay much attention to voters, Clinton and Obama socialized medicine, polarized race, ignored crime and gangs and used the military as private toys without ever coordinating with Congress. And Biden was a four-year nightmare of worst-possible decisions on everything from spending to foreign policy to persecution of political enemies.

Next to them, no wonder Trump comes off like Reagan, in results anyway.

---

Very well stated. I would add that the key thing that ironically so many of the nuts miss is that Trump is not ideological so attracts a lot of independents tired of the rigid, two-party system. As I have stated hundreds of times, ideologically he is more of a Clintonian Democrat than a Reagan Republican - as you noted he listens and knows what 70% of the country wants which is why the Democrats end up on the wrong side of every issue.

The weird "MAGA" projection of so many LWNJ's is just funny - they would have supported 95% of Trump's policies if someone other than Trump proposed them. I think they're all butthurt particularly because they felt that Clinton had a right to be anointed Queen and democracy undermined it.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Lots of good posts so far. But I think there is another perspective which needs examination. It starts with the question a lot of people asked in 2017:

How did that pompous ******* get elected President of the United States?

Some folks have pointed out that Trump was simply not as bad as Clinton in 2016, and not as bad as Biden/Harris in 2024. But Trump dominated the GOP from 2015 to now, including taking on the presumed heavy-hitters of the GOP at the time.

Trump destroyed Bush, Cruz, Rubio in 2016.

Trump blew away the field again in 2024, including DeSantis.

That's no small thing.

I submit that Trump won because he was a salesman.

A good salesman will listen to the customer, and pay attention to what the customer wants. And somehow, the salesman will always have just what the customer wants. Some of that is packaging, but some of it is as simple as paying attention to the customer.

Trump paid attention and so he knew the issues Americans cared about most. And so he told us he was determined to seal the border, to expel the illegals, to cut off drugs coming into the country, wipe out international gangs and find a way to balance trade.

Trump also has the advantage that there's no real surprise about him left. The Bushes, aside from getting us deep into Middle East conflicts, didn't really do much and really never seemed to pay much attention to voters, Clinton and Obama socialized medicine, polarized race, ignored crime and gangs and used the military as private toys without ever coordinating with Congress. And Biden was a four-year nightmare of worst-possible decisions on everything from spending to foreign policy to persecution of political enemies.

Next to them, no wonder Trump comes off like Reagan, in results anyway.

---

Very well stated. I would add that the key thing that ironically so many of the nuts miss is that Trump is not ideological so attracts a lot of independents tired of the rigid, two-party system. As I have stated hundreds of times, ideologically he is more of a Clintonian Democrat than a Reagan Republican - as you noted he listens and knows what 70% of the country wants which is why the Democrats end up on the wrong side of every issue.

The weird "MAGA" projection of so many LWNJ's is just funny - they would have supported 95% of Trump's policies if someone other than Trump proposed them. I think they're all butthurt particularly because they felt that Clinton had a right to be anointed Queen and democracy undermined it.

---

Given that most of the LWNJ's are also obsessed with identity politics, they're also PO'd that "a woman" (even though they can't define what one is) didn't get elected in either '16 or '24. Doesn't matter to them that both Hillary and Kommiela were simply terrible candidates with zero policy solutions, they were both women (and Harris had the added "benefit" of being a black person), and should've been elected simply based on what they are.

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

---

But Biden managed to make his insults and bitterness seem accidental, like aside-effect to his dementia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

---

But Biden managed to make his insults and bitterness seem accidental, like aside-effect to his dementia.

---

Biden's meanness came off as Defensive and stumbling, Trump's comes off as vindictive and punitive. Both are bad.

---

Again, though, look to the results.

Turns out voters prefer a jerk who gets things done that voters want, to slick charmers who give great speeches but in the end just turn out like everyone before them.

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Never.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

---

But Biden managed to make his insults and bitterness seem accidental, like aside-effect to his dementia.

---

Biden's meanness came off as Defensive and stumbling, Trump's comes off as vindictive and punitive. Both are bad.

---

Again, though, look to the results.

Turns out voters prefer a jerk who gets things done that voters want, to slick charmers who give great speeches but in the end just turn out like everyone before them.

---

I don't disagree, to a point. The America First has to respect Americans, not have half be considered the enemy. I do think the ICE stuff pushed it too far and it needed to be pulled back, which he is doing. Should work to his benefit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

---

But Biden managed to make his insults and bitterness seem accidental, like aside-effect to his dementia.

---

Respectfully disagree - dude has always been a complete donkey-hole ... Exhibit #1: watch the Clarence Thomas hearings. I think the biggest difference is the oligarch media covered for him.

For 50 years, Biden knowingly falsely accused an innocent truck driver of driving drunk and killing his wife and daughter. That is epic-law nastiness. The biggest difference is Trump insults other public officials whereas Biden tends to insult ordinary Americans. He regularly called voters names, made racist insults, etc. At least Trump limits to public figures.

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

That's actually a really great idea that would give truth to all the Democrat lies around illegal aliens. They always claim one thing but actually want another. In this case, they claim they are about illegals aliens and giving them asylum. They also claim they get no welfare benefits or Medicaid. This would expose their b.s. and agenda.

Practically, one of the reasons I think D.C. has become dysfunctional is because the Democrats constantly lie about their end game: they claim to want or support X but it is really Y ... so nothing gets done because even when the get what they claim to want they will not align because they wanted something more extreme all along but would lie about it.

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

---

Why would should be be counted for infrastructure? Make your case.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

---

Why would should be be counted for infrastructure? Make your case.

---

Good infrastructure is essential for economic growth, public safety, and quality of life. It boosts business productivity by reducing logistical costs, connects people to jobs and services, ensures reliable utilities like water and power, and supports climate resilience. It acts as a foundation for societal development and competitiveness.

You have to count people to know how the state should be built out.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

---

Why would should be be counted for infrastructure? Make your case.

---

Good infrastructure is essential for economic growth, public safety, and quality of life. It boosts business productivity by reducing logistical costs, connects people to jobs and services, ensures reliable utilities like water and power, and supports climate resilience. It acts as a foundation for societal development and competitiveness.

You have to count people to know how the state should be built out.

---

Apologize if I was not clear. I appreciate the value of infrastructure.

Why should illegal aliens be counted toward allocation of infrastructure dollars.

(it is a very specific, targeted question not a general one about infrastructure in general)

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

---

Why would should be be counted for infrastructure? Make your case.

---

Good infrastructure is essential for economic growth, public safety, and quality of life. It boosts business productivity by reducing logistical costs, connects people to jobs and services, ensures reliable utilities like water and power, and supports climate resilience. It acts as a foundation for societal development and competitiveness.

You have to count people to know how the state should be built out.

---

You are merely begging for any angle to legitimize illegal aliens.

Conveniently forgetting than the United States already accepts more legal immigrants than any country in the world.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Why is this urgent? (for GOP)
Why is this worth summoning mobs in defense? (for Democrats).

Census and apportionment. Illegal aliens are counted in a census. They are included in apportionment. What is that impact, one might ask? Pick a number of illegals in the country. I'll use 20m because it's the closest reasonable estimate in the middle which affords easy math. 20m divided by 750k (number of people in a US House district) = 26.67. So call it 26 seats That's the number of seats illegal aliens are worth. So where are those seats, one might ask? Easy. They are very disproportionately located in sanctuary states, which are all blue states. Democrats were offsetting their citizen population losses with illegal aliens. More importantly, deport all those illegals and blue states lose approx 20 House seats, and with them electoral votes.

The 2030 census is coming.
If you think that isn't a big factor at play, you are not thinking clearly. Dems are facing existentially bad demographics.

---

I agree with you on the Census. That is the strongest case you have made. It needs to be cleaned up, illegals can't count in apportionment.

---

Not counting them harms the districts where they reside -- less federal dollars

---

It does harm districts. It turns some red districts blue, and illegals should never vote or be counted in the census.

---

Never???

---

Yes, never. They are not citizens and should not be counted. Everyone knows the ONLY reason democrats want to open the border is to send illegals to swing states. It is all about getting more votes and giving democrats more power. Illegals should get zero welfare or support from the government. Stay and work if they are here and vetted, but you will never be a citizen since you did it the wrong way. Sounds like a fair compromise.

---

Even for infrastructure?

---

Why would should be be counted for infrastructure? Make your case.

---

Good infrastructure is essential for economic growth, public safety, and quality of life. It boosts business productivity by reducing logistical costs, connects people to jobs and services, ensures reliable utilities like water and power, and supports climate resilience. It acts as a foundation for societal development and competitiveness.

You have to count people to know how the state should be built out.

---

if nothing else, Waco, your post demonstrates you do not understand how businesses operate.

"Infrastructure" is a word which basically refers to underlying support. Like you need reliable bridges and safe roads to deliver product.

Please note that it's not enough to have bridges and roads; they have to be safe and reliable or you cannot depend on them for your plans.

Same thing for your employees. Illegals cannot count for infrastructure, because by definition they do not follow law, and so you cannot build a workforce depending on illegals as part of it.

We have laws for a reason, Waco, and not 'racism', 'hate' or whatever excuse the Left is selling this month.

Oldbear.
Perhaps part of the problem is that; neither candidate was worthy of being our president. One the other hand too many of us apparently held our noses and approved one or the other.
It would appear that we get what we are willing to settle for and then perhaps gripe about but little else.


" I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear.
Perhaps part of the problem is that; neither candidate was worthy of being our president. One the other hand too many of us apparently held our noses and approved one or the other.
It would appear that we get what we are willing to settle for and then perhaps gripe about but little else.


" I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

With all due respect ... this is been the attitude of Americans for at least 100 years ... often elections are picking the best of two bad options.

I am curious ... what policies of Trump do you oppose?

Perhaps Waco was referring to societal infrastructure, and if so his comment would appear to be more appropriate.

Societal (or social) infrastructure drives economic growth by fostering a healthy, skilled, and productive workforce and enabling community stability. Key examples include early childhood education and childcare facilities, healthcare systems/hospitals, affordable housing, and community centers/libraries. These investments increase labor force participation, boost productivity, and improve long-term economic mobility.

Examples of Societal Infrastructure Aiding Economic Growth:

Education & Care: Early care and education services allow parents to enter the workforce, boosting productivity and supporting future workforce development.

Healthcare & Public Health: Hospitals, clinics, and long-term care for the elderly or disabled maintain a healthy, available workforce.

Social & Community Spaces: Libraries, community centers, parks, and cultural amenities (museums, galleries) foster social capital, trust, and quality of life, which are linked to better economic outcomes.

Housing Stability: Workforce housing and subsidized housing initiatives reduce financial strain, improving employee stability and productivity.

Social Support Systems: Paid leave programs (sick/family), disability, and unemployment insurance provide financial safety nets that keep workers attached to the labor force.

"Phygital" Infrastructure: The integration of physical community spaces with digital technologies enables remote work, education, and access to services in underserved areas.

Local Economic Support Centers: Business and Intellectual Property Centres (BIPCs) or similar community hubs support local entrepreneurship and employment training.

These assets function as "soft" infrastructure that complements traditional physical infrastructure (roads, bridges), ensuring that economic development is sustainable, inclusive, and efficient.

Let's start with his respect for the Constitution, as exemplified by January 6th events.

Still wrong.

Culture depends on legitimacy. You break into a house, you don't get to say you're the same as people who paid for that house.

I was referring to Harrison wanting to know some of the eI didn't like about Trump and his policies.

BUDOS said:

---

Let's start with his respect for the Constitution, as exemplified by January 6th events.

---

Sorry. You cannot just say "January Sixth" to every question.

What policies of the Trump Administration do you oppose?

"Policy"
"a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual."

Trump' s course of actions on January 6th represent his principles as it concerns his views and respect for the Constitution and what it represents.

Here is a list of some I don't really like, as well as many others:

Policies which focus on economic strain, including high disapproval for his handling of inflation/prices (-26 net rating), tariffs and trade (-15), and jobs/economy (-13). His policies on foreign relations, particularly with Russia and Ukraine (-14 each), and environmental regulations.

Inflation & Prices (-26 net rating): And many Americans also agree his policies have made life less affordable.

Economic Policies & Cost of Living: I am among 57% of Americans who disapprove of his handling of the economy, especially in late 2025.

Foreign Policy & Alliances: I disapprove of his handling of international alliances (-12), foreign aid (-6), and relations with specific nations like Canada and Russia (-16 and -14).

Specific Domestic Policies: Significant disapproval for Medicare/Medicaid (-14).

Ethics & Governance: Confidence in his ethics does not exist.

The Net ratings which I have included indicate the difference between approval and disapproval; a negative number shows higher disapproval.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

After rereading Oldbear's rationale, I think he makes several points with which I agree, of which at least a couple I had not considered. Thank you.

---

Thank you BUDOS.

I believe Trump is one of a kind, a unicorn if you will. And by 'unicorn', I mean the ugliest, meanest, fart-producing animal to appear in US politics in a long time.

It really says something that Trump was still clearly better than the other major candidates running,

---

Biden was 10x meaner than Trump.

---

good to know you know them both, captain omniscient ! what are clown show you are. you and momma get back to your govt jobs being someone biatch

BUDOS said:

---

Here is a list of some I don't really like, as well as many others:

Policies which focus on economic strain, including high disapproval for his handling of inflation/prices (-26 net rating), tariffs and trade (-15), and jobs/economy (-13). His policies on foreign relations, particularly with Russia and Ukraine (-14 each), and environmental regulations.

Inflation & Prices (-26 net rating): And many Americans also agree his policies have made life less affordable.

Economic Policies & Cost of Living: I am among 57% of Americans who disapprove of his handling of the economy, especially in late 2025.

Foreign Policy & Alliances: I disapprove of his handling of international alliances (-12), foreign aid (-6), and relations with specific nations like Canada and Russia (-16 and -14).

Specific Domestic Policies: Significant disapproval for Medicare/Medicaid (-14).

Ethics & Governance: Confidence in his ethics does not exist.

The Net ratings which I have included indicate the difference between approval and disapproval; a negative number shows higher disapproval.

---

its the golden age ...didn't you hear trumps? Best economy in human history. ah, nevermind the mass layoffs.

LOL our resident Trump impersonator is at it again.

BUDOS said:

---

"Policy"
"a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual."

Trump' s course of actions on January 6th represent his principles as it concerns his views and respect for the Constitution and what it represents.

---

What specifically did he do on January Sixth that has you upset?

BUDOS said:

---

Here is a list of some I don't really like, as well as many others:

Policies which focus on economic strain, including high disapproval for his handling of inflation/prices (-26 net rating), tariffs and trade (-15), and jobs/economy (-13). His policies on foreign relations, particularly with Russia and Ukraine (-14 each), and environmental regulations.

Inflation & Prices (-26 net rating): And many Americans also agree his policies have made life less affordable.

Economic Policies & Cost of Living: I am among 57% of Americans who disapprove of his handling of the economy, especially in late 2025.

Foreign Policy & Alliances: I disapprove of his handling of international alliances (-12), foreign aid (-6), and relations with specific nations like Canada and Russia (-16 and -14).

Specific Domestic Policies: Significant disapproval for Medicare/Medicaid (-14).

Ethics & Governance: Confidence in his ethics does not exist.

The Net ratings which I have included indicate the difference between approval and disapproval; a negative number shows higher disapproval.

---

Again, you cut and pasted a very generic poll. I am looking for specifics - what policies of his administration do you oppose and what would you have preferred?

For example, you could post things like:
- I disapprove of his closing the southern border
- I disapprove of him destroying the Iranian nuclear program
- I disapprove of him removing a Venezuelan dictator
- I disapprove of him removing pedophiles and rapists illegal aliens
- I disapprove of him demanding Europe pay for its fair share of defense / NATO spending
- I disapprove of him protecting women

If you do not like him, you should be able to easily lay out a case of things you oppose and what you would prefer instead. It's pretty simple.

The ethics comment just shows how subjective people are - there was never a bigger, unethical person in Washington and Joe Biden. The guy told more lies about his biography than most politicians tell in their career.