Page 6862 of 6983 FirstFirst ... 58626362676268126852685868596860686168626863686468656866687269126962 ... LastLast
Results 102,916 to 102,930 of 104733
  1. #102916
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    What it is is a childish, immature, racist President throwing meat to his base -- nothing more, nothing less.

    If they see that as something that crosses the same "threshold" as Trump lying at a rate of about 100 times per week then that says more about their lack of objectivity that Warren's "dishonesty" -- something that has already been proven by the whole "email" nonsense.

    And there you go pointing out one "proxy" that you can try to claim somehow represents the "liberal" position which is exactly what I referred to when I was conversing with the last "conservative" guest to grace our boards -- you know "open borders" and "abolish ice" aren't the real issue at hand, yet you still continue to pivot to those talking points every time the issue is raised, while refusing to admit to -- or even discuss -- the fact that Pence won't even answer questions regarding immigration.

    You're sitting here talking about a "bipartisan solution" when the Republicans don't even bother trying to be bipartisan anymore -- the last time we saw a real attempt at bipartisanship was from Obama, and we all know how the Republicans reacted to his seven or so years of outreach, so let's not even go there: recent history has proven that when the "left" tries to meet the "right" halfway, the right just moves further right.

    Some Democrat wearing a "T-shirt" isn't the problem and the both of us know it -- the fact that we don't even know what our (Republican) government is doing with hundreds of children is a much, much bigger concern to anyone with a conscience and a sense of responsibility for the actions of said government.
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in. Otherwise, the sartorial choices of the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the calls by prominent officials to abolish ICE, serve as the main articulation of the party's position.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  2. #102917
    "Comic Book Reviewer" InformationGeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,107

    Default

    Oh hey, WBE, Seth Grossman piece to read for your inevitable profile.

    Seth Grossman, a right-wing pundit who is now the GOP nominee in New Jersey’s 2nd Congressional District, previously touted opinion pieces that were published on two leading white nationalist websites. One of those posts, which Grossman praised, claimed that Black people “are a threat to all who cross their paths.”

    In an email to Media Matters, Grossman attempted to distance himself from his endorsement of the racist "threat to all who cross their paths" piece and said he wants to help "take the Democratic training wheels off the black and Hispanic communities so they can succeed even more."
    And it goes on from there..

  3. #102918
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in.
    Come on Mets -- you already had that for about eight years with Obama and at no time was said administration proposing "open borders" during immigration talks. Likewise for Hillary Clinton -- at no time did I hear talk of any plans for "open borders" nor do I hear any Democrats calling for it now: that's just a catchphrase Republicans have seized upon to try to make Democrats looks unreasonable with regards to immigration reform, similar to how they tried to bring up "antifa" every time white supremacists were mentioned in their midst.

    They've turned a reasonable discussion about immigration reform, DACA, and family separations into a "open borders" argument because that's how they operate at this point -- kind of like turning an investigation Manafort and Trump into an investigation of Comey and Mueller.

    Again -- what you say here always sounds good in text, but the Republicans don't actually practice it: they aren't interested in bipartisanship, they are interested in using fear to keep their voting base motivated, which is why they lie about crime rates and immigration's effects on the economy. They also know that more immigrants generally mean more Democratic and/or non-white voters so they are both politically and racially motivated in that respect.

    The problem with our "arguments" isn't that we can't agree on the "problem" -- it's that you won't even admit that the problem is that the Republicans rarely, if ever, negotiate in good faith with the Democrats so "bipartisanship" isn't even part of the discussion.

    Merrick Garland tells me all I need to know about the Republican concept of "bipartisanship" -- there's no honor among thieves.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 09:12 PM.

  4. #102919
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    "FACT CHECK OF THE DAY"

    "No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’"

    President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.

    “The Democrats want open borders. They want anybody they wanted, including MS-13, pouring into the country.”

    — President Trump, speaking on Monday at a campaign rally in South Carolina

    THE FACTS

    False.
    Democrats have argued that building a wall on the southwestern border is ineffective and a waste of resources, and rejected hard-line proposals to limit legal immigration. But Mr. Trump is grossly exaggerating Democrats’ positions when he conflates their opposition to his signature campaign promise and immigration priorities as “open borders.” And there is no evidence that they “want anybody,” including MS-13, to enter the United States freely.

    While criticizing Mr. Trump’s immigration policies, the Democratic National Committee has committed to improving border security.

    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leaders, have rebutted the president’s charges. Additionally, their aides cited several examples of legislation that are supported by Democrats and would have provided border security funding.

    Responding last week to Mr. Trump’s earlier claims, Ms. Pelosi said, “No, we do care about the border.”

    “We care about protecting our country, but we don’t think we need to protect the border by putting children in cages,” Ms. Pelosi said. “We want to be smart and strong — not reckless, rash and ruthless in this case.”

    Thirty Democrats in the House have sponsored a bipartisan immigration bill this year that gives the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. It also enhances technology used to monitor the border, and provides $110 million in grants annually for collaboration between local law enforcement and Border Patrol agents.

    All 193 Democrats in the House and 23 moderate Republicans have signed a “discharge” petition to force a vote on that bill and other immigration proposals.

    In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted for similar immigration legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware.

    And all but three Democrats voted for yet another bipartisan proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers, authorize $25 billion to build barriers and hire personnel at the border over the next decade. It would also prohibit green-card holders from sponsoring adult children..."


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...n-borders.html
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 08:55 PM.

  5. #102920
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    13,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I don't think we're in agreement on the real problem. The Democratic preference for open borders and the problem of the kids separated from their parents are both subsets of the larger topic of immigration policy.

    It sucks that hundreds of kids were separated from their parents, and that parents are bringing their kids along on dangerous border crossings. These are still small parts of the big question of who should be allowed into the country, and how those laws should be enforced.

    If the argument is that Democrats aren't in favor of open borders, I'm eager to read about any major Democratic politician who has a clear proposal which defines limits on who is allowed in. Otherwise, the sartorial choices of the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the calls by prominent officials to abolish ICE, serve as the main articulation of the party's position.
    If you're going to regurgitate Republican talking points about "Open Boarders," we won't be able to have any kind of discussion in good faith.

  6. #102921
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,924

    Default

    The Democratic party had a two year window in which they held both houses of Congress and the White House, so their ability to get something done on immigration by themselves was limited. That was also eight years ago, and the party is in a different place (witness the popularity of arguments like Medicare for All, as well as the changing conversation on gay marriage.)

    I get that there are strategic advantages to being vague on a party's position on an issue. If Schumer were to say he thinks legal immigration should have a limit of three million people per year (it's currently at a bit over a million) that number won't be seen as a compromise; it'll be seen as the upper limit. If there is no number given, he might be able to the number he wants as the compromise choice.

    However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position, and no Republican made him do that.

    I agree that Republicans are concerned that immigrants will vote for Democrats, and I would guess that a reason Democrats favor more immigration as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is the belief that it advantages them politically. There are other reasons to be wary about uncontrolled immigration, including cultural changes the country might not be ready for.

    What others might view as outrageous partisan behavior from Republicans, I view as hardball in response to similar stuff. If Obama had truly been bipartisan on health care reform, he could have split it into multiple bills, some of which would have gotten much more support.

    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required. There were other ways Obama could have handled it. If he picked a Republican, Hillary would be President right now. If Hillary had pledged to nominate Merrick Garland, it would have made Republicans look petty.

    With the fact-checking, the willingness to increase border patrol in exchange for a path to citizenship doesn't mean Democrats want border patrol. Republicans would have gladly gone with a bill that just focused on border funding. A stated concern from conservative lawmakers is that the border wouldn't be secured until after a path to citizenship which would lead to new waves of illegal immigration.

    The main limitation suggested by any Democratic lawmaker was on whether green-card holders can sponsor adult children, although it's not clear anyone voted for that thinking it would pass, and it was part of a larger deal that allowed for a pathway to a sympathetic group of people who didn't come to the country through legal means.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  7. #102922
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The Democratic party had a two year window in which they held both houses of Congress and the White House, so their ability to get something done on immigration by themselves was limited. That was also eight years ago, and the party is in a different place (witness the popularity of arguments like Medicare for All, as well as the changing conversation on gay marriage.)
    Yes. They used their majority to give us health care on a bill that there is zero way would've gotten any real Republican response because you know that the conservative position on health care was born out of their goal to make Obama a one term president. I guess starting with the RomneyCare, Heritage Foundation plan wasn't enough of an olive branch for conservatives.

    I get that there are strategic advantages to being vague on a party's position on an issue. If Schumer were to say he thinks legal immigration should have a limit of three million people per year (it's currently at a bit over a million) that number won't be seen as a compromise; it'll be seen as the upper limit. However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position.
    A T-shirt by an unelected official is not a political position for the party or for the elected officials or a bill in the House and Senate and no bill ever considered, many of which nearly did pass during the Obama years and were often left to die in the Senate under McConnel's 'leadership' reflected an open border position.

    I agree that Republicans are concerned that immigrants will vote for Democrats, and I would guess that a reason Democrats favor more immigration as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is the belief that it advantages them politically. There are other concerns, including cultural changes the country might not be ready for.
    Oh for pete's sake.

    What you view as outrageous partisan behavior from Republicans I view as hardball in response to similar stuff. If Obama had truly been bipartisan on health care reform, he could have split it into multiple bills, some of which would have gotten much more support.
    This is abject nonsense.

    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required.
    Garland was /widely praised/ by conservative senators. He was exactly the kind of moderate, compromise pick you'd expect a liberal justice facing a conservative Senate to pick. They didn't have to accept him. They could have rejected him with an actual frigging vote, but instead, they simply refused to do their own side of the job all together. Pretending that this is simply 'hardball' mischaracterizes the extent and intent of the malfeasance and now you're going to get what you wanted out of this, a 5-4 Federalist Society Supreme Court, so I guess the rest is explainable in some way that keeps it palatable to you, so long as you can characterize the Democrats as being at fault.

    With the fact-checking, the willingness to increase border patrol in exchange for a path to citizenship doesn't mean Democrats want border patrol. Republicans would have gladly gone with a bill that just focused on border funding.
    My eyes are rolling out of my head at this point.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 07-09-2018 at 09:36 PM.

  8. #102923
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position, and no Republican made him do that.
    I disagree -- I think (or rather know) that's it's just more divisive politics and an attempt to paint the "left" as extremists when the Democratic party is far more moderate than the Republican party has been in decades.

    Again -- this is all rhetorical regardless: what you say on these boards is not what happens in reality with regards to the Republicans in office.

    The Republicans (like McConnell and Sessions) are not interested in bipartisanship -- they are interested in making their base happy and remaining in office. If that means demonizing immigration by lying about it's statistical effects on our nation then, just as with health care and climate change, lying is exactly what they will do.

    And if that means locking children up hundreds of miles away from their parents then that is what they will do as well.

    You can continue to defend that as you will but now the whole world is starting to realize that the problem isn't the "Americans" -- it's the Republican party.

    (Many already knew that anyway as most of them don't get their information from Fox News.)

    -----
    "EU Raises Stakes for Trump by Aiming Levies at GOP Heartland"

    "The European Union is preparing punitive tariffs on iconic U.S. brands produced in key Republican constituencies, raising political pressure on President Donald Trump to ditch his plan for taxing steel imports.

    Targeting 2.8 billion euros ($3.5 billion) of American goods, the EU aims to apply a 25 percent tit-for-tat levy on a range of consumer, agricultural and steel products imported from the U.S. if Trump follows through on his tariff threat, according to a list drawn up by the European Commission and obtained by Bloomberg News. The list of targeted U.S. goods -- including motorcycles, jeans and bourbon whiskey -- sends a political message to Washington about the potential domestic economic costs of making good on the president’s threat.

    Paul Ryan, Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, comes from the same state -- Wisconsin -- where motorbike maker Harley-Davidson Inc. is based. Earlier this week, Ryan said he was “extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war” and urged Trump to drop his tariff proposal..."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...taliation-plan
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 10:24 PM.

  9. #102924
    Ultimate Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    14,338

    Default

    Attachment 68073


    Reminded of this.

  10. #102925
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required. There were other ways Obama could have handled it. If he picked a Republican, Hillary would be President right now. If Hillary had pledged to nominate Merrick Garland, it would have made Republicans look petty.
    I had to single this out specifically -- the fact that you actually might believe something like this just further illuminates why our conversations are relatively useless in the end.

    Do you honestly think the modern Republican party would pick a Democratic justice under any circumstances? Really?

    You criticize Obama for allegedly "wanting to change the composition of the court" but remain hypocritically silent while Trump does exactly that as we speak -- where's your criticism when Republicans do the same -- or worse -- than the Democrats in matters of "bipartisanship" and integrity?

    Rarely if ever to be found -- which is why Trump is the perfect Republican president at this point.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 07-09-2018 at 10:31 PM.

  11. #102926
    Ultimate Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    12,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Attachment 68073


    Reminded of this.
    So does this mean Mets is a right wing journalist?

  12. #102927
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    13,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The Democratic party had a two year window in which they held both houses of Congress and the White House, so their ability to get something done on immigration by themselves was limited. That was also eight years ago, and the party is in a different place (witness the popularity of arguments like Medicare for All, as well as the changing conversation on gay marriage.)

    I get that there are strategic advantages to being vague on a party's position on an issue. If Schumer were to say he thinks legal immigration should have a limit of three million people per year (it's currently at a bit over a million) that number won't be seen as a compromise; it'll be seen as the upper limit. If there is no number given, he might be able to the number he wants as the compromise choice.

    However, it does mean that Democrats have been murky on their own preferences for this topic in the last few years. The DNC Vice-Chair wearing a shirt advocating for no borders does suggest it's a popular position, and no Republican made him do that.

    I agree that Republicans are concerned that immigrants will vote for Democrats, and I would guess that a reason Democrats favor more immigration as well as a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is the belief that it advantages them politically. There are other reasons to be wary about uncontrolled immigration, including cultural changes the country might not be ready for.

    What others might view as outrageous partisan behavior from Republicans, I view as hardball in response to similar stuff. If Obama had truly been bipartisan on health care reform, he could have split it into multiple bills, some of which would have gotten much more support.

    The selection of Merrick Garland was political posturing from a guy who wanted to change the composition of the Supreme Court at a time when the other party held the branch of government whose advice and consent is required. There were other ways Obama could have handled it. If he picked a Republican, Hillary would be President right now. If Hillary had pledged to nominate Merrick Garland, it would have made Republicans look petty.

    With the fact-checking, the willingness to increase border patrol in exchange for a path to citizenship doesn't mean Democrats want border patrol. Republicans would have gladly gone with a bill that just focused on border funding. A stated concern from conservative lawmakers is that the border wouldn't be secured until after a path to citizenship which would lead to new waves of illegal immigration.

    The main limitation suggested by any Democratic lawmaker was on whether green-card holders can sponsor adult children, although it's not clear anyone voted for that thinking it would pass, and it was part of a larger deal that allowed for a pathway to a sympathetic group of people who didn't come to the country through legal means.
    This whole post makes me wonder why you even come into this thread.

  13. #102928
    Really Feeling It! Kevinroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    13,253

    Default

    https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/st...48011155918848

    Donald Trump’s campaign manager IS IN JAIL.

    5 members of his campaign have PLEAD GUILTY to charges brought by the Mueller probe.

    And the media is acting like it’s perfectly normal that this obviously guilty man is going to NAME HIS OWN JUDGE.

    WAKE THE **** UP.

  14. #102929
    Silver Sentinel BeastieRunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    15,263

    Default

    All Trump's SCOTUS pick did was confirm 45 is guilty.

    And 3 GOP Senators are no on him already.
    "Always listen to the crazy scientist with a weird van or armful of blueprints and diagrams." -- Vibranium

  15. #102930
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    All Trump's SCOTUS pick did was confirm 45 is guilty.

    And 3 GOP Senators are no on him already.
    Crossing our fingers more will follow that lead.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •