"The left is very close to having a governing majority due entirely to immigration"

[goldennirvana]

We have the same sun in America. And we have beaches too.

Yes, and they attract many white people. Your point?

Unless you mean the brown countries have better beaches, which they do.

What does that have to do with "brown people"? Did "brown people" create those beaches?

Better women

Depends what you're into.

and food too.

European cuisine had an influence of Latin American cuisine, but cuisines in more tropical parts of the world naturally have more ingredients, due to the climate. Spices and more herbs naturally grow in those parts of the world, over cold parts of the world, where spices don't grow, and less herbs grow.

What does that have to do with "brown people"?

Also those "brown people" came from the lands they are being deported from.

That is impossible to prove. But go ahead and try.

Texas was brown people before Lubbock was ever there.

"Brown" makes no sense in this context. Central Americans for example, of which there are a lot in California and elsewhere in the USA, were never in any of those states, historically.

So you mean they are trying to stay in their homeland that you try to claim is your homeland.

I'm not claiming it's my homeland, son. I'm from the UK. The fact is, the USA was founded by white people, and overwhelmingly built by white people. As the USA becomes more diverse, it becomes a mixture of Venezuela & Detroit. It will eventually be flooded with Muslim immigrants, once Democrats get their way, like Europe is being flooded with Muslims immigrants. Are you looking forward to that?

 

[Rod1]

I never said disease wiped everyone out. Why are you so dumb?

Why wouldn't white people then inhabit a largely uninhabited continent?

Again, if it was largely uninhabited, wouldnt it make sense that the entire continent would be largely white?

 

[goldennirvana]

No its not.

No what's not? Learn how to quote ya dummy. How am I supposed to know what you're talking about? Ever heard of 'multi-quoting'?

Brown people were here first.
Whites came after.
Thats it. Games done

White people founded the USA, and are the overwhelming force that built the USA. As the USA becomes more diverse, it will become a mixture of Venezuela & Detroit, with a strong Islamic influence, due to Muslim immigration.

The USA is finished.

Now can you name any "brown countries" which are BETTER run than Western countries?

 

[goldennirvana]

Yea semantics. You claimed 95%.
So if I found outs its 94% or lower than your wrong. Which you are

Ahhhh so that's what you're so butthurt about... amongst other things. Me pointing out how stupid your comment was that there are no non-white people in Sweden.

You snowflakes... SMH...

 

[Rod1]

Er no. The Mexicans were quivering in fear at the mere sight of a horse, because there were no horses in the Americas then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Noche_Triste

No, they werent afraid of horses, they didnt had an answer to a well timed cavalry charge on even ground. The Spanish won thanks to a massive amount of native allies.

 

[goldennirvana]

Again, if it was largely uninhabited, wouldnt it make sense that the entire continent would be largely white?

"Largely uninhabited" doesn't mean everyone was wiped out you M O R O N.

Rod with another attempt at receiving sick pleasure from being humiliated in public, as is always the case when he tries to argue with me. You sick, sick masochist.

 

[Rod1]

"Largely uninhabited" doesn't mean everyone was wiped out you M O R O N.

Rod with another attempt at receiving sick pleasure from being humiliated in public, as is always the case when he tries to argue with me. You sick, sick masochist.

So if they werent wiped out, why is Anglo-America largely white while the rest of the Americas are largely brown?

 

[goldennirvana]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Noche_Triste

No, they werent afraid of horses, they didnt had an answer to a well timed cavalry charge on even ground. The Spanish won thanks to a massive amount of native allies.

Yes, they were terrified by the horses. They'd never seen such an animal in their lives, so it's understandable. Disease, and Native tribes who hated the Mexicans are the reason the Spaniards won.

Hear that, @DeJulez? Native tribes who the Mexicans persecuted for so long sided with the Spaniards. They preferred to side with the white man, over their "brown" brothers. So much for brown unity. LOL

 

[DeJulez]

What the FUCK are you talking about? You really are all over the place now. This is hilarious. LOL

You're about a couple of posts away from going into full Farakhan mode.



They were quivering at the sight of a horse, back then. You moron.

The sight of a load of armour-clad men, on horseback, swinging swords was pretty terrifying for them. You do realise there were no horses in the Americas prior to European contact, right?



White people weren't sickly. The Native immune system was just so peak weak. Don't blame whitey, dude... blame nature.



Oh god, you really have gone off the deep end. Completely out of options. I actually feel sorry for you. lol



Evidence needed.



About half of Europe's population was wiped out by the black plague. But the black plague was far more powerful than the simple flu or small pox which Europeans brought to the Americas, which wiped out 95% of the Natives. Because the Native folk's immune system was so piss weak.

And are you aware the black plague was brought to Europe by "brown people"? That's right. The black plague originated in central Asia, and was brought to Europe via the Silk Road.

Without black people there would be no white people, so if you want to get technical, I can just trace everything back to Africa, which is something you clearly don't want to happen.

And Mexicans have stronger immune systems and generally dont get sick.
The white man brought his shit diseases over here. The white man still gets sick from these same diseases while the Mexicans have adapted, hencing stronger immune systems. Also the Mexican chiles help. Good for clearing shit out or detoxing as you folks call it.

They had donkeys in Mexico. No one was quivering at the sight of a horse as you do at the sight of a Mexican.

Go to the store and watch white people coughing and sneezing everywhere. Watch white people melt in the sun.
Not a strong people.

 

[DeJulez]

Yes, they were terrified by the horses. They'd never seen such an animal in their lives, so it's understandable. Disease, and Native tribes who hated the Mexicans are the reason the Spaniards won.

Hear that, @DeJulez? Native tribes who the Mexicans persecuted for so long sided with the Spaniards. They preferred to side with the white man, over their "brown" brothers. So much for brown unity. LOL

No, it was Tribal warfare in Mexico and the Spanish couldn't win by themselves so they recruited the stronger brown men to win the war for them.
Spain was helpless with out them.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Irrelevant. We're not discussing that. We're discussing the left supporting mass immigration, both legal & illegal, because it benefits them in the voting booth. The left wants amnesty precisely because of that.

We're discussing your post that I originally quoted, which was a false claim that "the left" is flooding the country with immigrants. The fact is they come here when we American citizens offer them jobs, regardless of anything politicians are doing.

The democrats have pushed for paths to citizenship. I don't see it as a vote grab. Seems like a common sense aspect of real immigration reform. And considering those who qualify would be productive, tax paying employees of American businesses, or students, the motivation for that policy is that it is beneficial to the country.

They'll try to get amnesty when they have the power.

So, nothing to back your claim.

 

[Rod1]

Yes, they were terrified by the horses. They'd never seen such an animal in their lives, so it's understandable. Disease, and Native tribes who hated the Mexicans are the reason the Spaniards won.

Hear that, @DeJulez? Native tribes who the Mexicans persecuted for so long sided with the Spaniards. They preferred to side with the white man, over their "brown" brothers. So much for brown unity. LOL

So terrified that they nearly wiped out the entire Spanish expedition, sounds legit.

They didnt had an answer for a cavalry charge for sure, but that only mattered on even ground, when it came to fight in the cities the Aztecs managed to defeat mounted warriors.

Pedro de Morón was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead.[20]...


They used ... cudgels and swords and a great many bows and arrows ... One Indian at a single stroke cut open the whole neck of Cristóbal de Olid’s horse, killing the horse. The Indian on the other side slashed at the second horseman and the blow cut through the horse’s pastern, whereupon this horse also fell dead. As soon as this sentry gave the alarm, they all ran out with their weapons to cut us off, following us with great fury, shooting arrows, spears and stones, and wounding us with their swords. Here many Spaniards fell, some dead and some wounded, and others without any injury who fainted away from fright.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl

 

[Rod1]

Hear that, @DeJulez? Native tribes who the Mexicans persecuted for so long sided with the Spaniards. They preferred to side with the white man, over their "brown" brothers. So much for brown unity. LOL

There is no such thing as a "white" or "brown" unity, racialism is a recent, mainly Anglo, phenomena.

For most part people differentiate from each other based on language and religion.

 

[goldennirvana]

Without black people there would be no white people

lolwut

so if you want to get technical, I can just trace everything back to Africa, which is something you clearly don't want to happen.

I want you to explain what the fuck you're talking about.

And Mexicans have stronger immune systems and generally dont get sick.

Even if that was true, I'm talking about the original Native folk, 500 years ago. Their immune systems were weak as piss, unable to fend off the most simple of flu. That's nature dude, don't blame whitey.

The white man brought his shit diseases over here.

See that's where you keep going wrong. Those diseases weren't "his". They are humanity's diseases, that exist everywhere. Native folk were just separated from the rest of humanity for 10,000+ years, hence their immune systems evolved differently, and couldn't fend off Old World diseases.

The white man still gets sick from these same diseases

Evidence needed.

while the Mexicans have adapted, hencing stronger immune systems.

Evidence needed that Mexicans have stronger immune systems than whites.

They had donkeys in Mexico. No one was quivering at the sight of a horse as you do at the sight of a Mexican.

A donkey is not a horse. Try riding a donkey into battle. And which donkey-like animal was in the Americas, pre-Columbus? What is its name?

Go to the store and watch white people coughing and sneezing everywhere.

Wow, I really struck a nerve pointing out how piss weak the Native immune system was. lol

Watch white people melt in the sun.

Melt? No. But due to their evolution in a colder part of the world, they naturally have less protection from the sun. And you see that as a reason to insult them for?

Not a strong people.

Their immune systems were much stronger than the piss weak Native immune system. They couldn't even fend off the simple flu.

White people, who are so weak... managed to conquer an entire continent of "brown people". ROFL

 

[goldennirvana]

No, it was Tribal warfare in Mexico and the Spanish couldn't win by themselves so they recruited the stronger brown men to win the war for them.
Spain was helpless with out them.

The Mexicans had persecuted their fellow "brown people" for so long, the white man was a better option for them.

All Spaniards needed to do was sit back and watch flu wipe out the Natives, due to their piss weak immune systems.

 

[goldennirvana]

The democrats have pushed for paths to citizenship. I don't see it as a vote grab.

Well that's exactly what it is. Which is why the left constantly boasts about how they'll be unstoppable in elections in the future, due to America's demographic change.

Seems like a common sense aspect of real immigration reform. And considering those who qualify would be productive, tax paying employees of American businesses, or students, the motivation for that policy is that it is beneficial to the country.

So, nothing to back your claim.

The left doesn't care about productive immigrants, they just want to flood the country with immigrants, both legal & illegal, so they can win every election in the future.

It's not my claim. It's a fact, right from the left's own mouth.

 

[Islam Imamate]

United States: Inevitable Empire

American geography is an impressive one. The Greater Mississippi Basin together with the Intracoastal Waterway has more kilometers of navigable internal waterways than the rest of the world combined. The American Midwest is both overlaid by this waterway and is the world's largest contiguous piece of farmland. The U.S. Atlantic Coast possesses more major ports than the rest of the Western Hemisphere combined.

Two vast oceans insulated the United States from Asian and European powers, deserts separate the United States from Mexico to the south, while lakes and forests separate the population centers in Canada from those in the United States. The United States has capital, food surpluses and physical insulation in excess of every other country in the world by an exceedingly large margin.

Climatically, the continent consists of a series of wide north-south precipitation bands largely shaped by the landmass' longitudinal topography. The Rocky Mountains dominate the Western third of the northern and central parts of North America, generating a rain-shadow effect just east of the mountain range — an area known colloquially as the Great Plains. Farther east of this semiarid region are the well-watered plains of the prairie provinces of Canada and the American Midwest. This zone comprises both the most productive and the largest contiguous acreage of arable land on the planet.

The most distinctive and important feature of North America is the river network in the middle third of the continent. While its components are larger in both volume and length than most of the world's rivers, this is not what sets the network apart. Very few of its tributaries begin at high elevations, making vast tracts of these rivers easily navigable. In the case of the Mississippi, the head of navigation — just north of Minneapolis — is 3,000 kilometers inland.

The network consists of six distinct river systems: the Missouri, Arkansas, Red, Ohio, Tennessee and, of course, the Mississippi. The unified nature of this system greatly enhances the region's usefulness and potential economic and political power. First, shipping goods via water is an order of magnitude cheaper than shipping them via land. The specific ratio varies greatly based on technological era and local topography, but in the petroleum age in the United States, the cost of transport via water is roughly 10 to 30 times cheaper than overland. This simple fact makes countries with robust maritime transport options extremely capital-rich when compared to countries limited to land-only options.

Second, the watershed of the Greater Mississippi Basin largely overlays North America's arable lands. Normally, agricultural areas as large as the American Midwest are underutilized as the cost of shipping their output to more densely populated regions cuts deeply into the economics of agriculture. The Eurasian steppe is an excellent example. Even in modern times Russian and Kazakh crops occasionally rot before they can reach market. Massive artificial transport networks must be constructed and maintained in order for the land to reach its full potential.

Not so in the case of the Greater Mississippi Basin. The vast bulk of the prime agricultural lands are within 200 kilometers of a stretch of navigable river. Road and rail are still used for collection, but nearly omnipresent river ports allow for the entirety of the basin's farmers to easily and cheaply ship their products to markets not just in North America but all over the world.

Very interesting read. I always felt the success of the US was largely due to its geography. The colonist were pretty lucky, imagine if they only found small bits of desert when expanding to the west instead of vast farmland and navigable river systems.

 

[panamaican]

@Wsb390

The other guy already replied with the pew link. Of course it's basically impossible to determine the real reason why people vote in such a way. But it's obvious that people that make minimum wage and have little to no property will vote for the party that will help them the most economically. I'd do the same.

You obviously didn't read the pew link? Or you don't understand how sourcing a claim works?

I asked for a source that immigrants are drawn to parties that promote welfare programs. A link that says Hispanics lean Democrat is not a link that sources the claim.

1. Poor countries means more than just Hispanics. The link is only about Hispanics. Poor Asian countries? Poor African countries? Poor Eastern European countries?
2. Foreign born Hispanics support Democrats less than native born ones. That would mean that the Hispanic immigrants are less in favor of the Democrats than the Hispanic citizens. The allegation should actually run the other way, with immigrants being more supportive than native born citizens of the welfare supporting party.
3. Unauthorized immigrants support the Democrats even less than authorized ones. Again, the allegation should yield the complete opposite result.
4. Supporting Democrats does not mean that they support them for welfare programs. There are plenty of other reasons that Hispanic immigrants might support Democrats - the most obvious being immigration policy.

Seriously, the bar isn't that high to provide a valid source that supports such a claim. This tangential link that was provided only proves that the claim itself was bullshit since it seems that an on target link was not available. Don't defend bullshit, it just makes it obvious that you're incapable of truthfully reading and presenting neutral information.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Well that's exactly what it is. Which is why the left constantly boasts about how they'll be unstoppable in elections in the future, due to America's demographic change.

Well, sure, the democrats are pushing policies that citizens, including legal immigrants and the citizens that hire them, want. That's what elected representatives are supposed to do.

The left doesn't care about productive immigrants, they just want to flood the country with immigrants, both legal & illegal, so they can win every election in the future.

It's not my claim. It's a fact, right from the left's own mouth.

Yet another claim can't back up.

 

[goldennirvana]

Yet another claim can't back up.

They boast about it ALL THE TIME. You must be living under a rock.