Illegal immigrants are being paid outside of the system and raising minimum wage only increases demand for employing more of them, continuing exploitation of them. You can make an argument for minimum wage increases, but it doesn't benefit illegal immigrants.

Conservatives are trying to deport illegal immigrants and stop allowing them in, which may have a motive, but exploitation is not it.

That wasn't so hard, was it? People tripping over themselves to find a gotcha and forgetting to use a little common sense.

Our economy depends on a base of low cost labor that used to be from kids or young people. It's almost like Democrats have decided to fill that void with immigrants while Republicans are trying to get back to the low cost labor being from having more kids. It makes sense if your goal is to keep the machine running the way it was designed, or at least how it evolved to operate. Social security, insurance, fast food, service industries, construction would all need overhaul to function without low cost labor being their base. Seems like you could reduce consumerism in general to compensate for the reduced low income work force, but that would hurt the economic numbers and cause an overall contraction in the stock market. Tough pills to swallow for everyone who has accumulated any significant amount of wealth in this system.

Do you remember when the media had a fit about Trump being racist for blocking the flights to countries with high covid rates? How about the two weeks after he announced operation warp speed to develop a vaccine and everybody swore up and down that they wouldn't take Trump's vaccine? Trump bears a lot of responsibility for the toxic political culture, but it wasn't just him.

Well it does pledge to the republic and to the values of the republic. Which is appropriate for a republic.

The supreme court also overruled states trying to ban interracial marriage, implement poll taxes to unfairly target poor people, and place signs in their yard protesting war.

Yes, the United States is a representative republic, and not technically a democracy.

Seems like pretty textbook usage of the supreme court judicial review process, not sure how he's trying to argue that.

How did interracial marriage come to the supreme court anyway? States made laws against it?

There is currently no voter registration card where I'm from. All you have to do is say your name and they check you off. If you aren't registered in the area, you can bring a piece of mail with your name and address to prove you live in that precinct, or someone to vouch for you, then you are given a ballot and they add you to the registration for next time. But yes it sounds like there is a lot of variation in how states implement or assure the integrity of their elections, and all of them are prone to certain kinds of abuse, whether it's discouraging voters or vote harvesting or some other illegal mechanism for influencing elections in favor of the established powers.

But you can't ignore very real problems with increasing the pool of ignorant voters, since whoever has the most access to that pool will have an advantage because these ignorant voters can be taken advantage of simply because they are ignorant. Should people be voting if they don't know how the system works or what the candidates even stand for? If you can't be bothered to care about it enough to go through minimal requirements, do we need to go out of our way to shove a ballot in their hands?

And yes, I acknowledge that the kind of thinking I outlined above can be used to repress voters as well. I guess my point is that these policies cut both ways. It's not such a clear cut answer as "give everyone a ballot", because that can (and has) very very easily turn into "give them a ballot and suggest who they should vote for".

ID and citizenship requirements seem like pretty basic requisites to voting, what's wrong with those?

What are the implications from this study to communist theory?

If you take credit for every good metric and blame all of the bad metrics on your predecessor, it makes me a little suspicious about the motives. They all do it, as long as I can remember.

Walz was super annoying during covid. He never bothered considering metrics or infection rates, it was all about following the progressive states with various mandates and had no correlation with how Minnesota was doing. Minnesotans were doing just fine with masking and being careful, to the point where the narrative was all about how responsible they were. But when mandates starting dropping around the country, he hopped right on board. It was clearly a sign of solidarity and had nothing to do with the "science" at the time. I remember wondering why he did it, but then realizing that he had to in order to align himself with the progressive states instead of with the conservative ones. I didn't appreciate the authoritarianism, especially when it was clearly a political move.

Well ok, in what ways then? Got any examples?

Yes facts are objective, but when you decide to fact check or not fact check is completely subjective. Fact checking statements out of context can be misleading in themselves, and fact checking statements that were misinterpreted by the fact checkers is also influenced by bias.

Any attempt at fact checking will not be neutral. You can fact check obvious hyperbole, you can fact check because of slight misinterpretations, you can decide NOT to fact check. As soon as you decide to do it, you open the door for bias or accusations of bias.

Do you think the country is further to the right now than it was under Reagan?