War on white people?

[Quintium]

Your theory has one problem. There are many so called Hispanic politicians and businessmen that want power. And becoming or being part of the so called majority group will only get them crumbs and a seat in sight of but still far from the table of political power. It makes more sense to create there own Hispanic political base and work together with the African American politicians and Asian politicians in order to achieve a coalition of power which in the end will get you a seat at the table and no more crumbs.

That depends. If Hispanics, in time, come to be a respected and high-ranked part of American economic and political life, they will make a dramatic shift to the right. And in a way, you can see that happening already - the only reasons Hispanics prefer the Democrats over the Republicans at the moment are (1) that they vote for their wallets and ethnic interests because they haven't all settled down and become part of the United States yet and (2) that the Republicans are still incredibly tough on immigration, which scares ethnic minorities off.

[Vettrera]

Your theory has one problem. There are many so called Hispanic politicians and businessmen that want power. And becoming or being part of the so called majority group will only get them crumbs and a seat in sight of but still far from the table of political power. It makes more sense to create there own Hispanic political base and work together with the African American politicians and Asian politicians in order to achieve a coalition of power which in the end will get you a seat at the table and no more crumbs.

That depends. If Hispanics, in time, come to be a respected and high-ranked part of American economic and political life, they will make a dramatic shift to the right. And in a way, you can see that happening already - the only reasons Hispanics prefer the Democrats over the Republicans at the moment are (1) that they vote for their wallets and ethnic interests because they haven't all settled down and become part of the United States yet and (2) that the Republicans are still incredibly tough on immigration, which scares ethnic minorities off.

Can you elaborate on (1), because I don't think I'm hearing what you're saying.

[Trygg]

Except when it comes to skin tone, obviously.

#shotsfired (no spam here)

Burn.

[Trygg]

Yeah, just laugh.

Unlike the Western nation that apologise to terrorists after blowing up in Boston for "causing stress and criticism on Islam that led to the bombings" Russia is handling thoose thugs because its cares for its people.

Also, if Russia was not the bastion of freedin than Snowden would not seek asilyum there.

I'm sorry, but I have to go with

[Rio Cana]

This from 2010

U.S. Hispanics are expected to control nearly $1 trillion in purchasing power by the end of this year, representing more household wealth and economic influence than ever before.

And this

Between 1990 and 2012, the number of Hispanic immigrant entrepreneurs more than quadrupled, going from 321,000 to 1.4 million, according to a report by the Partnership and the Latino Donor Collaborative. This increase was in stark contrast to the decrease of entrepreneurs nationwide, which dropped by 250,000, to 10 percent, in 2012.

Politically there are things like this.
http://hispanicpoliticalcaucus.wordpress.com/about/

[Quintium]

That depends. If Hispanics, in time, come to be a respected and high-ranked part of American economic and political life, they will make a dramatic shift to the right. And in a way, you can see that happening already - the only reasons Hispanics prefer the Democrats over the Republicans at the moment are (1) that they vote for their wallets and ethnic interests because they haven't all settled down and become part of the United States yet and (2) that the Republicans are still incredibly tough on immigration, which scares ethnic minorities off.

Can you elaborate on (1), because I don't think I'm hearing what you're saying.

There are two kinds of voters. Those who vote for what they think is best for the nation, and those who vote for what they think is best for their own ethnic or religious groups. Idealism versus tangible material interests. That's why, in Europe, you see Muslims voting for Social Democratic parties. Not because they agree with those parties from their hearts (on nearly all social matters, they are much further to the right than the most right-wing parties in Europe), but because those parties promise to maintain the welfare state on which so many Muslims are dependent and because those parties generally do nothing to limit further immigration or self-segragation by those communities. They vote not because they think the Social Democrats are right, but because they know that they benefit from what the Social Democrats do, at least in the short term. Of course, if the Social Democrats stop acting in the best interests of Muslims, they'll bail and head for other political parties that will. Before the past parliamentary election in the Netherlands, a Muslim community leader in Amsterdam even demanded that "the Labour Party should speak out for the interests of Islam more, or I will recommend my followers to vote differently this time."

I think something similar is going on in the United States, as many Hispanics still find themselves near the bottom of society and think of themselves as separate from the nation. But unlike the Muslims in Europe, they seem to be integrating well, which means they'll experience a shift in the next one or two generations from tribalist voting (for their own group interests) to idealistic voting (for the nation). That's when I think their religious views, which are significantly more pronounced than those of other groups that vote for the Democrats, and their sense of community will start turning the tide.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What does generational replacement have to do with anything?

It has a lot to do with a lot of things. If you are a child, you ultimately end up a lot like your parents in your views and beliefs. There are exceptions, and I have no doubt someone will jump in and shout "but I am liberal and my parents are conservative and I am seventeen years of age", but the general rule is that people take on a lot of the characteristics and beliefs with which they grew up. Those characteristics and beliefs can be anything, from the way you divide the work in your household to the political party you vote for to your specific opinion on the separation of church and state.

Now, I have read an interesting little analysis of a previous election in the United States - Bush versus Kerry. Bush won in twenty-five out of the twenty-six states with the highest birth rates, while Kerry won in all the sixteen states with the lowest birth rates in the United States. If you begin with a population of one hundred atheistic liberals and one hundred religious conservatives, and you assume that there is a birth rate of 2.45 per woman for the religious conservatives (based on the figure for white women in Utah a decade ago) and 1.65 per woman for the atheistic liberals (the birth rate in general for California about a decade ago), then what does the next generation look like? The religious conservatives will have about 120 children, while the atheistic liberals will have about 80. Let's assume, theoretically, that ten of those religious conservatives will turn into atheistic liberals. What does the generation after that look like? Around 135 new religious conservatives, and about 75 atheistic liberals.

Now, I'm not saying that it's happening this quickly, but it's a general picture of what's going on everywhere in the world. Liberals and progressives are being outbred by the religious right, regardless of what that religious right is (Muslim in Europe, Christian in the United States and South America, Hindu in India, Christian in China).

Well yes, but also look at the standards of education in the U.S. as a whole.

We are expected now to be college graduates just to hold a good job. With education comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes wisdom about things. The problem with the conservative right in America is that their assumptions have little substance to them, if any. Sure, religious people are taking the cake, but also liberal ideas are being introduced into religion as well, even though Christianity in America is highly puritan it doesn't mean there's no liberalism in ideology.

America may end up becoming a religious culture with time, but religious culture doesn't mean that the U.S. will become more conservative in the American way of conservatism, in fact it will become more center-right is my outlook for the next 50 years or so: the radical parties will die along with their ideals and people will find more middle ground.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Can you elaborate on (1), because I don't think I'm hearing what you're saying.

There are two kinds of voters. Those who vote for what they think is best for the nation, and those who vote for what they think is best for their own ethnic or religious groups. Idealism versus tangible material interests. That's why, in Europe, you see Muslims voting for Social Democratic parties. Not because they agree with those parties from their hearts (on nearly all social matters, they are much further to the right than the most right-wing parties in Europe), but because those parties promise to maintain the welfare state on which so many Muslims are dependent and because those parties generally do nothing to limit further immigration or self-segragation by those communities. They vote not because they think the Social Democrats are right, but because they know that they benefit from what the Social Democrats do, at least in the short term. Of course, if the Social Democrats stop acting in the best interests of Muslims, they'll bail and head for other political parties that will. Before the past parliamentary election in the Netherlands, a Muslim community leader in Amsterdam even demanded that "the Labour Party should speak out for the interests of Islam more, or I will recommend my followers to vote differently this time."

I think something similar is going on in the United States, as many Hispanics still find themselves near the bottom of society and think of themselves as separate from the nation. But unlike the Muslims in Europe, they seem to be integrating well, which means they'll experience a shift in the next one or two generations from tribalist voting (for their own group interests) to idealistic voting (for the nation). That's when I think their religious views, which are significantly more pronounced than those of other groups that vote for the Democrats, and their sense of community will start turning the tide.

Actually we don't even vote for our own tribalist voting, but about furthering economic opportunity.

We come to America for the money and the freedom earned here, and Naturalized Citizens are more keen into voting what furthers the interests of business while keeping our freedoms and rights intact. You can almost say that Latinos are more in the root of Practical Libertarians even though they may be against Libertarian thought ideologically.

[Mavorpen]

I think something similar is going on in the United States, as many Hispanics still find themselves near the bottom of society and think of themselves as separate from the nation. But unlike the Muslims in Europe, they seem to be integrating well, which means they'll experience a shift in the next one or two generations from tribalist voting (for their own group interests) to idealistic voting (for the nation). That's when I think their religious views, which are significantly more pronounced than those of other groups that vote for the Democrats, and their sense of community will start turning the tide.

There's only one problem with this implicitly racist tripe of "stupid minorities can't make informed decisions, they just vote for their own interests!" as though EVERY voter doesn't make decisions that are parallel to their own interests (news flash, the two are not mutually exclusive; you can make informed decisions that you believe are for the best for the nation while also believing they are in your best interests): Hispanics are not as socially conservative as you think. In fact, they're more socially liberal than the general population on certain issues.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think something similar is going on in the United States, as many Hispanics still find themselves near the bottom of society and think of themselves as separate from the nation. But unlike the Muslims in Europe, they seem to be integrating well, which means they'll experience a shift in the next one or two generations from tribalist voting (for their own group interests) to idealistic voting (for the nation). That's when I think their religious views, which are significantly more pronounced than those of other groups that vote for the Democrats, and their sense of community will start turning the tide.

There's only one problem with this implicitly racist tripe of "stupid minorities can't make informed decisions, they just vote for their own interests!" as though EVERY voter doesn't make decisions that are parallel to their own interests (news flash, the two are not mutually exclusive; you can make informed decisions that you believe are for the best for the nation while also believing they are in your best interests): Hispanics are not as socially conservative as you think. In fact, they're more socially liberal than the general population on certain issues.

A bit of insight here:

We actually place more importance on the money trails. We're not the ideologues and tribal thinkers Quintum makes us look like. We support more education and more taxes because we understand that more taxation translated into services means less things we have to care about and thus more productivity in business as a result. We understand the flow of money, and it's not coincidental given we come from countries with struggling economies right now.

[Othelos]

What does generational replacement have to do with anything?

It has a lot to do with a lot of things. If you are a child, you ultimately end up a lot like your parents in your views and beliefs. There are exceptions, and I have no doubt someone will jump in and shout "but I am liberal and my parents are conservative and I am seventeen years of age", but the general rule is that people take on a lot of the characteristics and beliefs with which they grew up. Those characteristics and beliefs can be anything, from the way you divide the work in your household to the political party you vote for to your specific opinion on the separation of church and state.

Now, I have read an interesting little analysis of a previous election in the United States - Bush versus Kerry. Bush won in twenty-five out of the twenty-six states with the highest birth rates, while Kerry won in all the sixteen states with the lowest birth rates in the United States. If you begin with a population of one hundred atheistic liberals and one hundred religious conservatives, and you assume that there is a birth rate of 2.45 per woman for the religious conservatives (based on the figure for white women in Utah a decade ago) and 1.65 per woman for the atheistic liberals (the birth rate in general for California about a decade ago), then what does the next generation look like? The religious conservatives will have about 120 children, while the atheistic liberals will have about 80. Let's assume, theoretically, that ten of those religious conservatives will turn into atheistic liberals. What does the generation after that look like? Around 135 new religious conservatives, and about 75 atheistic liberals.

Now, I'm not saying that it's happening this quickly, but it's a general picture of what's going on everywhere in the world. Liberals and progressives are being outbred by the religious right, regardless of what that religious right is (Muslim in Europe, Christian in the United States and South America, Hindu in India, Christian in China).

[Mavorpen]

There's only one problem with this implicitly racist tripe of "stupid minorities can't make informed decisions, they just vote for their own interests!" as though EVERY voter doesn't make decisions that are parallel to their own interests (news flash, the two are not mutually exclusive; you can make informed decisions that you believe are for the best for the nation while also believing they are in your best interests): Hispanics are not as socially conservative as you think. In fact, they're more socially liberal than the general population on certain issues.

A bit of insight here:

We actually place more importance on the money trails. We're not the ideologues and tribal thinkers Quintum makes us look like. We support more education and more taxes because we understand that more taxation translated into services means less things we have to care about and thus more productivity in business as a result. We understand the flow of money, and it's not coincidental given we come from countries with struggling economies right now.

Which is precisely why I said this:

I think something similar is going on in the United States, as many Hispanics still find themselves near the bottom of society and think of themselves as separate from the nation. But unlike the Muslims in Europe, they seem to be integrating well, which means they'll experience a shift in the next one or two generations from tribalist voting (for their own group interests) to idealistic voting (for the nation). That's when I think their religious views, which are significantly more pronounced than those of other groups that vote for the Democrats, and their sense of community will start turning the tide.

There's only one problem with this implicitly racist tripe of "stupid minorities can't make informed decisions, they just vote for their own interests!" as though EVERY voter doesn't make decisions that are parallel to their own interests (news flash, the two are not mutually exclusive; you can make informed decisions that you believe are for the best for the nation while also believing they are in your best interests): Hispanics are not as socially conservative as you think. In fact, they're more socially liberal than the general population on certain issues.

All voters vote for things that not only benefit them, but also believe benefit the entire nation as a whole. Minorities who suffer from disproportionate amounts of poverty are going to naturally side with those who empathize with them and promise to help level the playing field and give them more opportunity. They ALSO, however, believe that this benefits the entire nation as a whole, because a stable welfare system would not only help them economically, but as consequence of them simply existing within this nation and being a part of the economy, improving the overall economy as well.

Even non-minorities who aren't disproportionately affected by poverty do this. They vote for things that will help keep the wealth concentrated in their hands. They also sincerely believe that this is to the benefit of the nation. This isn't something new, and him implying that this is something exclusive to non-minorities while minorities are the ones who just vote with their interests in mind while not being able to make informed decisions about improving the nation as a whole is disgusting while also not surprising given his posting history.

[Christiaanistan]

The majority of the Democratic party is white, Christian and heterosexual.

Obviously, since we are neither racist nor theocratic nor homophobic, we must be making war against all three.

[UED]

Its obvious NS is filled with Whites, we minorities are in grave danger

[Waideland]

The funny thing is that Hispanics aren't much worse off than non-Hispanic whites. Considering that many of them show up on our doorstep with no English skills, often illiterate even in their own language, no math, no science, etc, they still have a lower unemployment, and higher median incomes than Blacks. Last time I looked at unemployment numbers, all non-Blacks were separated by about 1%, with Blacks falling several points behind everyone.

Because of this, I tend to agree Quintium. American Blacks are the permanent Democrat welfare class because of how their culture views this country. They've had more opportunities to pull themselves out of the cellar than any other non-white group, and yet every other ethnic group and subgroup surpasses them, including black immigrants. By the time Hispanics have increased their numbers to a point that they can completely overthrow whites in the voting booth, their wealth and education will have increased to the point that they are no longer dependent on the Democrat welfare state. If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.

Of course, that's assuming the country doesn't fall apart before then. In the short-term, providing education, medical care, as well as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance to the tens of millions of people flooding the country will fall mostly on the shrinking number of upper-middle class whites. The large influx of cheap labor will also continue to drive wage stagnation for the bottom half of the country, turning the current middle class into subsistence only households with little or no disposable income, which means even fewer middle class wallets to pay for it.

Wage stagnation is my biggest fear when it comes to the near and distant future. While inflation isn't obscenely high, it is there, and puts more and more pressure every year on those 20k-100k a year jobs that are hallmarks of the middle class. If 20 years from now, a loaf of bread is $5, and a gallon of gas is $10, someone making $20 an hour isn't going to be middle class anymore. Having millions of people show up willing to pour concrete, drive forklifts, and work sheet metal for minimum wage is going to make that even worse.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The funny thing is that Hispanics aren't much worse off than non-Hispanic whites. Considering that many of them show up on our doorstep with no English skills, often illiterate even in their own language, no math, no science, etc, they still have a lower unemployment, and higher median incomes than Blacks. Last time I looked at unemployment numbers, all non-Blacks were separated by about 1%, with Blacks falling several points behind everyone.

Because of this, I tend to agree Quintium. American Blacks are the permanent Democrat welfare class because of how their culture views this country. They've had more opportunities to pull themselves out of the cellar than any other non-white group, and yet every other ethnic group and subgroup surpasses them, including black immigrants. By the time Hispanics have increased their numbers to a point that they can completely overthrow whites in the voting booth, their wealth and education will have increased to the point that they are no longer dependent on the Democrat welfare state. If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.

Of course, that's assuming the country doesn't fall apart before then. In the short-term, providing education, medical care, as well as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance to the tens of millions of people flooding the country will fall mostly on the shrinking number of upper-middle class whites. The large influx of cheap labor will also continue to drive wage stagnation for the bottom half of the country, turning the current middle class into subsistence only households with little or no disposable income, which means even fewer middle class wallets to pay for it.

Wage stagnation is my biggest fear when it comes to the near and distant future. While inflation isn't obscenely high, it is there, and puts more and more pressure every year on those 20k-100k a year jobs that are hallmarks of the middle class. If 20 years from now, a loaf of bread is $5, and a gallon of gas is $10, someone making $20 an hour isn't going to be middle class anymore. Having millions of people show up willing to pour concrete, drive forklifts, and work sheet metal for minimum wage is going to make that even worse.

We're not overthrowing anyone out of anywhere.

What's most likely going to happen is that we will be categorized as "white" under the U.S. system rather than "Hispanic" and we will be swallowed into being white people because plenty of us look like we're white people.

Also, good to know you don't know anything about hispanic immigrants, otherwise you'd know we may not be mathematicians and scientists but we'll be damned if we let you shortchange us on our wages and in what we sell. We may not be at your level of theoretical math, but we're pretty good with numbers and money, something many American high school graduates have to take remedial classes in college for.

The other problem is that you're assuming we cannot see the money trails. As I have explained before we do tend to see the money trails, is why we tend to stand on the issues the way we do. I don't stand for the issues the way I do because I am a bleeding heart, is because I see the issue in a monetary manner.

[Dyakovo]

The ignorance displayed.

Well pardon me it was 2:30 am and I was tired. I was just agreeing with him and does my grammar really need to be perfect.

You were agreeing with something that is an ignorant presentation of statistics. One that completely ignores everything except the the skin tone of the people involved. It ignores socio-economic factors, it ignores the institutionalized racism that non-whites in general and blacks in particular have to deal with. Essentially you presented a middle-schooler's view of the American justice system.

[Saiwania]

Also, good to know you don't know anything about hispanic immigrants, otherwise you'd know we may not be mathematicians and scientists but we'll be damned if we let you shortchange us on our wages and in what we sell. We may not be at your level of theoretical math, but we're pretty good with numbers and money, something many American high school graduates have to take remedial classes in college for.

The other problem is that you're assuming we cannot see the money trails. As I have explained before we do tend to see the money trails, is why we tend to stand on the issues the way we do. I don't stand for the issues the way I do because I am a bleeding heart, is because I see the issue in a monetary manner.

If Hispanics are so good with money, why then are their home countries doing so poorly in comparison and why the willingness to work below minimum wage? That is pretty much letting American employers shortchange them on wages, they put up with it because the pay is better than what can be found in their home countries.

How does it make sense to want to pay higher taxes for more government services, instead of wanting more money going towards their wallets? What is so great about the public sector that the private sector can't do better? If most Hispanics just want government programs up the wazoo, how much of a percentage of total income do they feel should citizens be allowed to keep?

You know which group is actually good with money? The Chinese, at least their country is both a military and economic juggernaut rapidly becoming a superpower that will surpass the US.

[Blakk Metal]

The fact of the matter is that at this point, lots of people want to punch each other in the face, and are looking for an excuse to do it. No matter what happens now, somebody will have an excuse to get pissed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, good to know you don't know anything about hispanic immigrants, otherwise you'd know we may not be mathematicians and scientists but we'll be damned if we let you shortchange us on our wages and in what we sell. We may not be at your level of theoretical math, but we're pretty good with numbers and money, something many American high school graduates have to take remedial classes in college for.

The other problem is that you're assuming we cannot see the money trails. As I have explained before we do tend to see the money trails, is why we tend to stand on the issues the way we do. I don't stand for the issues the way I do because I am a bleeding heart, is because I see the issue in a monetary manner.

1. If Hispanics are so good with money, why then are their home countries doing so poorly in comparison and why the willingness to work below minimum wage?

2. How does it make sense to want to pay higher taxes for more government services, instead of wanting more money going towards their wallets?

3. What is so great about the public sector that the private sector can't do better?

4. If most Hispanics just want government programs up the wazoo, how much of a percentage of total income do they feel should citizens be allowed to keep?

I'll go with your questions one by one.

1. That is because our countries are run by corrupt politicians and entrepreneurs, at least in the case of Mexico and Central America. The pre-civil war era thinking has not left. Before the civil war most people were living in poverty. Just in El Salvador alone the catorce familias owned the means of production. It was an oligarchy dressed as a democracy. After the Civil War in each of those respective countries the countries have been struggling as they were before. Also, you don't understand the situation in those countries. Down there is not like up here in the U.S. where even the homeless person has a higher quality of life than down in Honduras or El Salvador. Many who immigrate is not because they want to, is because they have no choice if they want to provide a better future for their families. Do you think I enjoyed coming to the U.S. when I was 13 years old? No, but yet I knew it was the only option at that young age or eat shit for the rest of my life.

2. It's not that we want to have money going into the government instead of our wallets to purchase more things, but we look at it like this: if the government services are there why not use our taxes on those services? Basically when it comes to money we can realize and appreciate the fact that on something like, say, universal healthcare, we actually pay with taxes for said service. There is never a free lunch and most people realize that when they are absolutely poor. We may receive government services, but the money has to come from somewhere, which is basically not free but us purchasing healthcare from the government via our taxes, so our money is never lost.

3. The public sector can't be as efficient as the private sector, and I will concede that; however, the public sector works for the public in the manner of government services, so all we have to do is pay taxes and it is their responsibility to their people to actually back up their word, it is the government we are talking about. Private sector doesn't have to do this, the private sector can do what it pleases as long as it falls under regulations established by government, but they are only interested in the profit. And, even though I am now a business owner I have to say that operating under profits when it comes to the public's welfare is a bad idea in practice.

4. The answer to that question is "as much as they can live comfortably with". We also like our nice things in life, but when we come expecting a world-class society that is different from our own countries, worlds apart, and we come to find out your society falls short, even shorter in our expectations than we anticipated it's a downer. We make do with it because here is much better than in our countries, but being realistic you guys paint yourselves as the American continent's utopia when you have many things left to work on.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You know which group is actually good with money? The Chinese, at least their country is both a military and economic juggernaut rapidly becoming a superpower that will surpass the US.

The Chinese are becoming good because they so happen to aggressively industrialize at the expense of their people. They have become aggressively capitalistic while also being an authoritarian government. However, the other thing is that the Chinese have more natural resources that they can exploit than many other countries.

[UNITED AMERICAN FEDERATI0N]

Well pardon me it was 2:30 am and I was tired. I was just agreeing with him and does my grammar really need to be perfect.

You were agreeing with something that is an ignorant presentation of statistics. One that completely ignores everything except the the skin tone of the people involved. It ignores socio-economic factors, it ignores the institutionalized racism that non-whites in general and blacks in particular have to deal with. Essentially you presented a middle-schooler's view of the American justice system.

No its fact's look around you it's seen every day and didn't say that to make seem I was taking about all blacks or any other group of people. If you can't see that then there is no hope for. It's sad when half of all these post are bias and ignorant. Half of every one on hear don't understand the world works including you it's not rocket science.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You were agreeing with something that is an ignorant presentation of statistics. One that completely ignores everything except the the skin tone of the people involved. It ignores socio-economic factors, it ignores the institutionalized racism that non-whites in general and blacks in particular have to deal with. Essentially you presented a middle-schooler's view of the American justice system.

No its fact's look around you it's seen every day and didn't say that to make seem I was taking about all blacks or any other group of people. If you can't see that then there is no hope for. It's sad when half of all these post are bias and ignorant. Half of every one on hear don't understand the world works including you it's not rocket science.

I think we understand more about the world than you do in fact, which is why we don't just go "aw shit, maybe I should just take it in the ass and shut up like the nice monkey I am" but go "this is seriously fucked up, we need to do something".

[Geilinor]

If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.

Democratic voters voting for socialism? What?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.

Democratic voters voting for socialism? What?

Yep, you heard it here first; if you are a democrat you're a socialist¹.

¹totally ignoring the fact that even U.S. Democrats are right-wing.