Elon Musk

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -151
11/4/2025, 12:29:44 PM
X
In reply to:
Torsten Prochnow
@TorstenProchnow
·
25d
@elonmusk Elon Musk is absolutely right. The real debate is not whether illegal immigration will influence U.S. elections but by how much. Census apportionment is the quiet lever through which Democrats have turned an open-border policy into a permanent political machine. By counting
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
·
25d
Very important to appreciate that the debate is not about whether illegals will sway future US elections due to census apportionment, but just by how much!

Left-leaving organizations like Pew Research represent the low end of estimates.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/XsMl6…
C3
@C_3C_3
·
26d
By the numbers the Democrats have around 50 fraudulent Congressional seats due to illegals.

760,000 people per seat.
40,000,000 illegals.

That’s what this is all about.

Power.

Every 760,000 illegals deported the Democrats lose a seat.

The statement and associated conversations engage in public discourse by discussing the impact of undocumented immigrants on U.S. elections and census apportionment. The tone is assertive and suggests a partisan perspective, implying that immigration policy is used as a political tool by Democrats.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement could potentially cause harm by framing immigration in a negative light and suggesting it is a tool for political manipulation. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of undocumented immigrants, implying they are used for political gain. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on political implications rather than human aspects of immigration. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, instead presenting a one-sided view without acknowledging counterarguments. [-1]