Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "How does 🗳️ Politics work in 🇨🇭Switzerland? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

@jessicatriplev9802 How do you know he's white? Or fascist? Or far right? Just cos he's expressed sentiments against a politician and party you support? Do you just assume this about anyone who disagrees with you? Your own political alignment is openly advertised with the symbol you've chosen to use as your pic, but his isn't. And mind you, before you start assuming things about me next, you're speaking to a colored person now.
5
@elpresidente1822 "Democrats aren't creating a pathway to citizenship to get votes." + "Maybe if republicans stopped treating immigrants like shit some of them may vote red." - your third point undermines your first one. Cos the third point pretty much accepts that immigrants currently mostly vote blue, which lends credence to the idea that democrats would help them with citizenship in order to curry those votes.
5
@elpresidente1822 1) The far right doesn't have the monopoly of being anti-immigration. If nothing else, even if he were on the right, it still isn't clear he's 'far' there. 2) You just equated a political position with intelligence. Something I've ironically seen the far right itself do. Ditto a choice of news network with intelligence, which choice itself was assumed. 3) Are you sure you're not the one who's missing a few marbles? Cos your response certainly doesn't speak highly of your intellect, or more precisely your capability to objectively analyse things. Ditto your accusation of him repeating talking points, which is pretty much what you just did. It would behoove you to stop thinking in tribalist terms, and especially not in terms of just two tribes. It'll help you see the world clearer.
4
@elpresidente1822 1) "That doesn't mean democrats are deliberately expanding their voting base by allowing more immigrants." - it doesn't mean they're not either. Whether you think they are or not seems to be based on whether you feel like granting them the charitable interpretation or not, which would align with support or opposition. Ergo your reading of it has no more validity than his does. 2) Irrelevant. Whatever be their reasons, it's still possible for democrat policy to be aimed at increasing their votebase. 3) Also irrelevant, since the US hasn't had a continuous string of democrat leaders since 1996, meaning their performance at the popular vote is evidently not enough. Ergo further work on the votebase isn't a bad idea. 4) This is as much an assumption as the other guy was making. And once again which explanations one seems to lean into aligns with which side one seems to support. This is basically just an assertion. 5) Why would you expect a party to adopt a policy they're already against, rather than simply opposing that policy? What's the point being the opposing party if you simply parrot the same ideology, just with a different party flag? And don't bother suggesting they can differ on other things. The pertinent policy in this case is that of immigration. You seem to want the choice to be between the Democrats, and the faux-Democrats aka the democrats effectively win either way. What's the point of that? People already accuse political parties of being fronts for the same set of corporate friendly policies either way - you want that to become true of everything else in society as well? Why bother with democracy then?
2