If you'll actually offer them yourself, at least when you are
actually quoting things, sure, I can see about digging for some studies about the breakdown of supporters and vocal political viewpoints.
My statement was about
supporters. "Vocal, politically active people" is what I referred to. Activists, by another name. And a quick Google search gives me
three different articles immediately on how the Democrats are
becoming open border, with the last mentioning how the Democrat supporter base is rapidly destroying middle ground and utterly dehumanizing the opposition, while focusing on how that support base is very much open-border.
It's quite hard to have honest debate with people who make snap decisions and constantly misconstrue your words into utterly different points. And make use of
hilariously contradictory graphs (
20% is still quite a minority!) Rodyle called me a right-wing cat's paw, but I see your lot being far less critical of any details. You, yourself, have defended your own lack of citations
with the presumption of commonly-held fact and that contrary views are lies, also presuming I actually get information from right-wing mainstream sources instead of assimilating whatever comes my way, and your own previous posts have had you dismissing the validity of, among other things,
any meritocratic system without communal childcare, completely misunderstanding what meritocracy actually means. In the same thread, Rufus went on to have a knee-jerk reaction of
multiple page lengths of graphs to disprove me on something I'd accepted wrong
three posts later.
The fact of the matter is that they completely ignore any difficulties of implementation within a two-party system. They make the demand, but offer no framework beyond
sometimes pointing at Europe... Which, itself, varies and in some cases is only marginally better than the US in overall healthcare costs. They speak in absolutes, that it automatically fixes major problems, but only occasionally bother to talk about how the government would fund it.
I wound up citing such a thing in the post I accepted the problems with universal healthcare were primarily political (actually,
this is the post where I cite such a funding solution, but I wanted to snipe at more sectarian lunacy). Then Rodyle made a
mindbogglingly egregious strawman of my views by saying "make sure only white people are allowed to be old" when my associated point was that the rich old people were a demographic timebomb causing the funding to get considerably more complicated in the long run, meaning that they're part of the
problem.
The point, as Geomax stated, is that it does absolutely nothing about anything long-term. It's an utterly immediate solution to a long-term problem caused in large part by student loans
existing in the first place allowing college tuitions to get vastly larger than they would otherwise, with attendance numbers inflated beyond what the economy can actually handle, given the tuition fees. The fact that so many of them end up with debt that takes most of their careers to pay means that either the tuition costs are too high or they shouldn't actually be in those colleges, and they push for little that'll fix that outside bluntly socializing the universities, turning them into just an extension of existing public education. Despite US public schools continually declining, and them
also offering few solutions to that beyond "throw more money at it".