California has been conquered

[DevilsAdvocate]

http://driveca.org/bill-ab60/


Governor Brown signed AB 60 into law in 2013, directing the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue an original driver’s license to any California resident who is eligible for a driver’s license, regardless of immigration status. An applicant who does not have proof of lawful presence can receive an AB 60 license.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-secretary-of-state-proposes-automatic-voter-registration-in-california-20150326-story.html


Every eligible Californian with a driver’s license would be automatically registered to vote under a proposal Thursday by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who estimated it would add millions of people to the voter rolls.


Hmmmmm....
HMMMMMM....
HMMMMMM...

So sneaky... So underhanded... So devious...

[Anti Federalist]

So how does this comply with REAL ID?

[Slave Mentality]

It's for the greater good.

[DevilsAdvocate]

In 1970 12% of California was Latino. In 2014 it was officially announced that their numbers have officially surpassed whites.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fVgMwsPuNio/UMfl8x9B9BI/AAAAAAAABgA/NYIAPMSz1nQ/s1600/California+Public+School+Enrollment+by+Ethnicity.p ng

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/images/cjsc/18race4.gif

Latinos now have electoral control of the most economically powerful state in the Union, which if it were it's own country, would be the 8th largest economy in the world. It is also the state with the highest population, and thus the most votes in Congress. To my knowledge this is the only US state that has lost it's white majority. The Reconquista is in full effect and bearing fruit. Californians will rue the day they decided to offer such lucrative welfare benefits and lax immigration enforcement. Gotta import those votes though.

Now historically, we know that whenever some place in America loses it's white majority, the new dominant population votes in a government that is very different than the one that was in place before. Crime goes up, school quality goes down, and all the white people run for the hills! This is known as "white flight".

https://familyinequality.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/detroit-pop1.jpg

So make a prediction as to what's about to happen in California.

[Southron]

Can we put a wall around California?

[twomp]

You all make like being tagged by the government is a good thing. If you were an illegal, would you really want your info being fed into a government database?

[euphemia]

I wonder if this will mean challenges to the election results next November.

[Ronin Truth]

http://driveca.org/bill-ab60/



http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-secretary-of-state-proposes-automatic-voter-registration-in-california-20150326-story.html




Hmmmmm....
HMMMMMM....
HMMMMMM...

So sneaky... So underhanded... So devious... So Democrat... :p :mad: (Department of Redundancy Department)

[vita3]

Curious, Are there any Latino liberty minded Elected politician, anyone knows of?

[Chester Copperpot]

So how does this comply with REAL ID?

according to REAL ID illegals dont need to be issued the regular state drivers license, but ANY kind of ID is sufficient... i forget the exact language written into the "law" but its along the lines of a certificate..

[Rothbardian Girl]

Curious, Are there any Latino liberty minded Elected politician, anyone knows of?

Raul Labrador

[erowe1]

Every eligible Californian with a driver’s license would be automatically registered to vote


So having a drivers license isn't enough to make someone able to vote. They also have to be eligible, which non-citizens aren't.

Leaving aside the more basic question of why have democracy in the first place, given it's existence, this is how it should be. Right?

[Ronin Truth]

So having a drivers license isn't enough to make someone able to vote. They also have to be eligible, which non-citizens aren't.

Leaving aside the more basic question of why have democracy in the first place, given it's existence, this is how it should be. Right?

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin

"The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin


You can always count on the PRC (People's Republic of California ) for a looney left chuckle of the day. :p

[oyarde]

California should have no electoral votes .

[DevilsAdvocate]

So having a drivers license isn't enough to make someone able to vote. They also have to be eligible, which non-citizens aren't.

Leaving aside the more basic question of why have democracy in the first place, given it's existence, this is how it should be. Right?

In my view, people like to live with (and marry) people that look like, act like, think like, themselves. This is a good thing, because it maintains diversity. If the entire world were a giant melting pot, there would be no more Asians, no more Caucasians, no more Africans...only a uniformly brown tinted homogenous mass. Diversity is great, we get different ideas, different forms of government, different customs and values and traditions.

Now it's also clear that different populations have very different expectations for what they expect from their government. Certain communities skew far to the left, and certain communities skew far to the right. The goal should be to give everybody the government that tailors to their own specific needs, rather then lumping everyone together in the same pot.

For example: if you pass a national ban on drugs, let's assume 51% of people are happy, and 49% of people are unhappy. However, if you have smaller units of government that cater to the different individual communities, one state can ban drugs, while the other legalizes them. In such a scenario, each community can live under the laws that they prefer to. Thus 70, 80, 90% of the population is happy.

Now my thesis here is that Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and other ethnic groups in total have very sharply different ideas for what they expect from their government than Christian whites (in particular).

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5-usvc8ou0erpubmlcheiq.gif

The problem is, immigrant groups are coming in and essentially disenfranchising the native population. Whites just aren't allowed to have their own government that serves their needs as a people. That is: a right leaning society that respects individual rights, free markets, and competition. Which is what a 90% Christian white country (America in the 1950's) produced.

These immigrant groups would never be satisfied to have their own country to themselves, because they are essentially seeking to be parasitic. They want to engineer laws that will steer the productivity of white Christian America into their own pockets.

------------------------------------------------------

Let me give you an example that might help you understand a little better: imagine a city like Detroit which was 90% white. Blacks started moving in, and became a larger and larger proportion of the population. Eventually they gained electoral control, and started running the city as a redistribution scheme. All the white people ran to the suburbs, and with no tax base the city fell into ruin.

So a movement started to "integrate" these suburbs with minorities. More and more minorities started moving to these peaceful suburbs. Crime shot up, school quality crashed, and so the white people started leaving. Eventually enough left that the black people gained control of the government. And, again, started running it as a redistribution scheme. The remaining white people ran for the hills, and the area fell into ruin. What once were peaceful suburbs were now ghettos. Are you starting to see the pattern here? This is known as "white flight".

Now the white people kept running away like this, so a movement was made to fix that. To instead pass giant sweeping laws at the state level. Eventually over time they gained electoral control and succeeded. So just like you'd expect, the white people deserted the state, and the entire state fell into ruin. You see, this is the problem the Communists encountered. The rich people who's money they wanted to redistribute kept running away, so eventually they had to build walls to keep them in. That is impractical in America, but if they can manage to enforce their laws at the national level, then they can win ultimate victory. Until, of course, white people desert the US for some other place.

This is the pattern. This is the history. It is happening right now to America at a national level. Latinos are streaming in with very left wing political leanings. Liberals will use them to turn the entire country into a redistribution racket like Detroit. And the white people will have no where left to run.

[erowe1]

In my view, people like to live with (and marry) people that look like, act like, think like, themselves.

Does letting someone else get a drivers license prevent anyone from doing that?



The problem is, immigrant groups are coming in and essentially disenfranchising the native population. Whites just aren't allowed to have their own government that serves their needs as a people.

That's not what the article in the OP says. Having a drivers license doesn't enable non-eligible people to vote, just to drive.

But if they did vote, that would only be enfranchising them, not disenfranchising anyone else. The white people you're so worried about would still be able to vote. And yes, if you and other like-minded white people want to form an all-white club that has a government that serves your needs as a people, you can always do that. You just don't get to force anyone else to participate, like the whole state of California.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Does letting someone else get a drivers license prevent anyone from doing that?



That's not what the article in the OP says. Having a drivers license doesn't enable non-eligible people to vote, just to drive.

But if they did vote, that would only be enfranchising them, not disenfranchising anyone else. The white people you're so worried about would still be able to vote. And yes, if you and other like-minded white people want to form an all-white club that has a government that serves your needs as a people, you can always do that. You just don't get to force anyone else to participate, like the whole state of California.

So lets say there are two communities side by side. Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim community is larger, and significant numbers of them move into the Hindu area and vote in a Muslim government. You wouldn't think the Hindus are being disenfranchised? They no longer have a government which serves their specific needs as a culture. They may even be being abused and repressed by the new regime.

People are not interchangeable widgets. Different population groups have different cultures, needs, and desires which are sharply different from each other. Thus it makes sense they'd have their separate political representation. In America you will find in the Black community very VERY different values beliefs and traditions than you will in a Christian white suburb.

[erowe1]

So lets say there are two communities side by side. Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim community is larger, and significant numbers of them move into the Hindu area and vote in a Muslim government. You wouldn't think the Hindus are being disenfranchised? They no longer have a government which serves their specific needs as a culture.

No, they'e not being disenfranchised. The needs that exist exist on the level of individuals, with each of those individuals having equal rights. There don't exist larger entities with rights and needs of their own separate from the individuals that comprise them, like what you call "a culture" in your second sentence.

Mind you, I don't believe in democracy anyway. Nobody should have the right to vote in the first place. But given democracy, enfranchisement means one person one vote.

[DevilsAdvocate]

No, they'e not being disenfranchised. The needs that exist exist on the level of individuals, with each of those individuals having equal rights. There don't exist larger entities with rights and needs of their own separate from the individuals that comprise them, like what you call "a culture" in your second sentence.

Mind you, I don't believe in democracy anyway. Nobody should have the right to vote in the first place. But given democracy, enfranchisement means one person one vote.

So let's say one group of people wanted to live on their own, in their own little gated community. But another population kept following them. No matter where they ran, the other people followed. They tried to establish their own government, but the other people streamed in and took it over.

You don't think these people have a right to have their own government? Again, individuals like to live with other like-minded individuals. People are not interchangeable widgets. You will find Christian communities, Muslim communities. Suburbs full of engineers, suburbs full of Lobster farmers. People will group up with the people they want to be around, and you don't have any right to stop them.

They can group up in their own little towns, build a fence and keep other people out if they want to. Freedom of association also means the freedom to disassociate.

[erowe1]

So let's say one group of people wanted to live on their own, in their own little gated community. But another population kept following them. No matter where they ran, the other people followed. They tried to establish their own government, but the other people streamed in and took it over.


How would they stream into a gated community? By buying houses from the people who owned them and had a right to sell them. It sounds like you want to give yourself the right to control what other people do with their own property. But if you don't want to sell your own property to a non-white, then just don't.


People will group up with the people they want to be around, and you don't have any right to stop them.


Exactly. I knew you'd come around.

[DevilsAdvocate]

How would they stream into a gated community? By buying houses from the people who owned them and had a right to sell them. It sounds like you want to give yourself the right to control what other people do with their own property. But if you don't want to sell your own property to a non-white, then just don't.


By jumping the border wall and having anchor babies. Then becoming an electoral majority and opening the floodgates for everyone else to come in.

[erowe1]

By jumping the border wall and having anchor babies. Then becoming an electoral majority and opening the floodgates for everyone else to come in.

Can people vote in gated communities who don't own homes in them?

It sounds like you want to treat the US or California like a gigantic gated community where you can boss the rest of us around and then tell us to leave if we don't like it.

[Batman]

Raul Labrador

Let's deport him too. Just to be sure.

[dillo]

The main issue is that you need a liscense to drive in the first place, fuck that :D

[klamath]

This is why Trump alienating Hispanics is a sure fire way to lose in the long run. He will make the Hispanics vote in the same block numbers the blacks vote for democrats now.

[pcosmar]

Who were the folks living there before socialism?

or do you like the California some years after socialism,, a white California,, with "Fitter Families" and other eugenics programs,, and forced sterilizations.
It was California's programs that inspired Hitler.

That shit is something the conservative in me does not want to conserve.

[erowe1]

The main issue is that you need a liscense to drive in the first place, fuck that :D

From some of these folks' perspective that's a great thing. You can't deprive illegal immigrants of drivers licenses if they don't exist.