Elianna, on 2016-December-04, 00:39, said:
So I was not saying the mayor encouraged illegal activity - he wanted to allow people to vote in local elections (make something legal) but that doesn't mean that he was encouraging people to vote WITHOUT it being made legal.
I disagree that your questions are the questions that should be asked. I would ask: How can people be such bad readers that they miss the word local when reading that article, and get so angry that they pass it along to others who either also can't read, or don't bother to read and just believe whatever they're told. And then how people use evidence of ONE mayor advocating letting undocumented RESIDENTS vote in LOCAL elections and use that as possible proof that 3 million undocumented workers in CA voted in NATIONAL elections when these two are completely unrelated. I think that the problem is not just believing everything one reads/is told, but critical reasoning. Both in the area of critiquing the reasoning of others (not just disbelieving them because blah), and also in inductive reasoning: If A-> B that doesn't prove some unrelated C.
I showed the link to say that it wasn't completely made up, but twisted and misunderstood (or misrepresented), not in support of that ludicrous claim.
late to this topic, not sure what the issue is here, local elections and national elections are often, very often combined at the exact same time, no difference. An argument could be made that all, repeat all elections are local in nature so again not sure what the issue is here.
TO rephrase to claim that local and national elections are "completely unrelated" is false on its face. Now whether anyone should be allowed to vote is an interesting topic.
Whether the rest of the country should try and emulate CA, I state I lived in for many years is an interesting topic.