#Resistance?

[Anung Un Rama]

I accused you of being disingenuous because you clearly were. Her policy position can't both be for open borders and a wall, and you are disingenuous for suggesting so. I'm not going to read 4 years worth of statements because you have cherry picked one or two bits out of a couple of emails and speeches to disprove something so obviously flawed.

It only seems disingenuous to you because you don't understand the open borders concept. Thats okay that you don't, just don't pretend you can tell when somebody is being disingenuous about it until you do.

 

[tonni]

You do not care about the character (or lack thereof) of the people you admire?

Who said I admired him?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, no idea on that, but from my disagreements with him, disingenuousess has never been an issue. Actually, despite your gif shit-posting neither have you from what I recall. Jack is a completely different animal. I throw around psychopath casually on here, but there's something not right with the guy. His dishonesty is pathological.

If you weren't as ideologically aligned with him, it would be blatant.

When have I ever been dishonest? Seriously, I don't think you will be able to show a single example ever. It's just something you say because I make you feel inadequate. While in this thread, we have Anung straight up busted lying, and you're defending it.

 

[KantoTerror]

Clinton was a senator from 2001-2009. Illegal border crossing was a legitimate problem for most of that period. Net crossings have been negative since then. And Democrats still support tight borders.

nothing wrong with dems or reps supporting tight borders...it's when they mellow down on immigration during election and after election because Trump won...all of a sudden they're bffs with illegal immigrants....

 

[Jack V Savage]

nothing wrong with dems or reps supporting tight borders...it's when they mellow down on immigration during election and after election because Trump won...all of a sudden they're bffs with illegal immigrants....

But, again, illegal border crossings was a legitimately serious issue at one point, and we had a variety of policy responses that were effective, and it's no longer a serious issue. Further, we've about maxed out the benefits to stronger physical borders. If you take the arguments at face value (and don't appreciate that it's really about stirring racial resentment), it's quite strange that it would suddenly burst into attention as an issue in 2015 after roughly a decade of net negative crossings. Also, FYI, even Republicans are becoming increasing positive about immigrants so explanations that tie changes in sentiment among the public politics or to opposition to Trump don't seem adequate.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

When have I ever been dishonest? Seriously, I don't think you will be able to show a single example ever. It's just something you say because I make you feel inadequate. While in this thread, we have Anung straight up busted lying, and you're defending it.

Your opinion and spin on direct quotes are far from evidence that I'm even mistaken let alone lying. The opposite is actually true; that calling me a liar without me actually lying is dishonest and a lie on its own. Typical garbage from you.

 

[KantoTerror]

But, again, illegal border crossings was a legitimately serious issue at one point, and we had a variety of policy responses that were effective, and it's no longer a serious issue. Further, we've about maxed out the benefits to stronger physical borders. If you take the arguments at face value (and don't appreciate that it's really about stirring racial resentment), it's quite strange that it would suddenly burst into attention as an issue in 2015 after roughly a decade of net negative crossings. Also, FYI, even Republicans are becoming increasing positive about immigrants so explanations that tie changes in sentiment among the public politics or to opposition to Trump don't seem adequate.

Republics are becoming increasing positive. nothing wrong about immigration support for new immigrants...but once you put "illegal" before the word immigrant...it then starts to become an issue, and that's one of the primary reasons why Trump is now at the office. There is a distinction between immigrants and illegals...after all..US is a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants...like I said. there was strong and strict border policies...it's when it gets closer to election that it seems one party becomes mellow with these issues....

 

[Jack V Savage]

Your opinion and spin on direct quotes are far from evidence that I'm even mistaken let alone lying. The opposite is actually true; that calling me a liar without me actually lying is dishonest and a lie on its own. Typical garbage from you.

You made two contradictory claims and insisted they were both true. Since you know that's impossible, one of them (at least) had to be a lie. Then you posted Clinton talking about energy and supporting free trade in defense of your claim that she's for open borders in terms of immigration, which again is both false and something you know to be false (since you posted the quote). There's not really any way you can defend yourself on that. And then you posted a comment with Clinton saying she didn't want a wall and used that as evidence that she did. Again, you were objectively wrong, and there's no way you didn't realize that.

Republics are becoming increasing positive. nothing wrong about immigration support for new immigrants...but once you put "illegal" before the word immigrant...it then starts to become an issue, and that's one of the primary reasons why Trump is now at the office.

Well, immigration restrictionists among Republicans apply that broadly (that is, they want to have less immigration, not simply reduce illegal immigration). But we're seeing a general support for increased immigration and less-punitive measures taken toward unauthorized immigrants. Plus, two-thirds of Republican voters support citizenship for DACA recipients.

There is a distinction between immigrants and illegals...after all..US is a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants...like I said. there was strong and strict border policies...it's when it gets closer to election that it seems one party becomes mellow with these issues....

Again, there has been increasing acceptance of immigrants, but it's bipartisan. Can't be explained by an anti-Trump reaction.

I think it's similar to what happened in CA. There was a wave of immigrants from Mexico and a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, but over time, people realized that their fears were unfounded, and they chilled out about it. The country as a whole is going through the same process.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You made two contradictory claims and insisted they were both true. Since you know that's impossible, one of them (at least) had to be a lie. Then you posted Clinton talking about energy and supporting free trade in defense of your claim that she's for open borders in terms of immigration, which again is both false and something you know to be false (since you posted the quote). There's not really any way you can defend yourself on that. And then you posted a comment with Clinton saying she didn't want a wall and used that as evidence that she did. Again, you were objectively wrong, and there's no way you didn't realize that.



Well, immigration restrictionists among Republicans apply that broadly (that is, they want to have less immigration, not simply reduce illegal immigration). But we're seeing a general support for increased immigration and less-punitive measures taken toward unauthorized immigrants. Plus, two-thirds of Republican voters support citizenship for DACA recipients.



Again, there has been increasing acceptance of immigrants, but it's bipartisan. Can't be explained by an anti-Trump reaction.

I think it's similar to what happened in CA. There was a wave of immigrants from Mexico and a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, but over time, people realized that their fears were unfounded, and they chilled out about it. The country as a whole is going through the same process.

Hillary Clinton made the claims that you interpret as contradictory. I've posted her quotes. You've read them. And now you're lying about them.

"Well, I voted for border security and some of it was a fence," Clinton said. "I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall." - Hillary Clinton 2016

And they're not contradictory and I explained why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary Clinton made the claims that you interpret as contradictory. I've posted her quotes. You've read them. And now you're lying about them.

What's the lie?

"Well, I voted for border security and some of it was a fence," Clinton said. "I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall." - Hillary Clinton 2016

So she didn't support building a wall in 2016, right?

And they're not contradictory and I explained why.

Didn't see it, but was it because one was about energy trade and the other was about immigration? If so, you'd be admitting that you were lying, no?

 

[zebby23]

nothing wrong with dems or reps supporting tight borders...it's when they mellow down on immigration during election and after election because Trump won...all of a sudden they're bffs with illegal immigrants....

Welcome to politics

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What's the lie?

That I posted evidence that she didn't want a wall.

So she didn't support building a wall in 2016, right?

Where do you see that?

Didn't see it, but was it because one was about energy trade and the other was about immigration? If so, you'd be admitting that you were lying, no?

There is that dishonest spin. You wish she was talking about green energy, but she was talking about open borders, which means open borders, in addition to other things like green energy and trade, etc.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That I posted evidence that she didn't want a wall.

You posted her discussing supporting a fence when she was a senator. No support for your assertion that she wanted a wall in 2016, right?

Where do you see that?

In the quote you posted.

There is that dishonest spin. You wish she was talking about green energy, but she was talking about open borders, which means open borders, in addition to other things like green energy and trade, etc.

Why would I wish anything with regard to her comments? That doesn't even make sense. She said what she said. There's nothing in that quote that hints that she was discussing immigration, though, and you know it. You're just repeating GOP spin.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You posted her discussing supporting a fence when she was a senator. No support for your assertion that she wanted a wall in 2016, right?

How is that evidence that she didn't want a wall? When in that interview she admitted to voting for a barrier that she admits may have been called a wall in parts???? And my assertion is that she wanted a barrier; any argument about wall vs. fence is semantics.

In the quote you posted.

I don't see it. Please quote where she says she doesn't want a wall.

Why would I wish anything with regard to her comments? That doesn't even make sense. She said what she said. There's nothing in that quote that hints that she was discussing immigration, though, and you know it. You're just repeating GOP spin.

Because your argument depends on it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How is that evidence that she didn't want a wall? When in that interview she admitted to voting for a barrier that she admits may have been called a wall in parts???? And my assertion is that she wanted a barrier; any argument about wall vs. fence is semantics.

That was in reference to earlier votes. It's pretty clear in context that the interviewer is trying to spring a "gotcha" and she's trying to avoid it right? Ask yourself why it would be a "gotcha" and why she'd avoid it if her current position was that she wanted a wall? She openly supported increased border security so if your point is just that she wanted stronger border security and not necessarily a wall, that's true. But you were making the claim that she supported a wall in 2016, which is not true.

I don't see it. Please quote where she says she doesn't want a wall.

Read it again. And try to be honest (practice can help you).

Because your argument depends on it.

Heh. Most people aren't like you, friend. My argument follows my observation; it doesn't create it. Clearly, she is not in that quote (or anywhere else) supporting open borders with regard to immigration. What's more, you know that. You just realize that open borders with regard to immigration are unpopular are so are trying to tie it to someone you have an irrational hatred for.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

That was in reference to earlier votes. It's pretty clear in context that the interviewer is trying to spring a "gotcha" and she's trying to avoid it right? Ask yourself why it would be a "gotcha" and why she'd avoid it if her current position was that she wanted a wall? She openly supported increased border security so if your point is just that she wanted stronger border security and not necessarily a wall, that's true. But you were making the claim that she supported a wall in 2016, which is not true.

I'll let her words speak for themselves, thank you. Of course she's trying to avoid it, she's trying to work herself to the left of Sanders. Thankfully Ramos didn't let her do that. It wasn't a gotcha. But I think we can agree that you're either wrong or lying on this part of the discussion.

Read it again. And try to be honest (practice can help you).

I've read it enough. Dodge noted.

Heh. Most people aren't like you, friend. My argument follows my observation; it doesn't create it. Clearly, she is not in that quote (or anywhere else) supporting open borders with regard to immigration. What's more, you know that. You just think realize that open borders with regard to immigration are unpopular are so are trying to tie it to someone you have an irrational hatred for.

Nice attempt at a narrative, but here it is again:
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.

She is clearly saying that she wants free trade, open borders, with green energy to power it.

I think I've debunked your claims that I'm lying pretty plainly here so I'll bid you adieu.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'll let her words speak for themselves, thank you. Of course she's trying to avoid it, she's trying to work herself to the left of Sanders. Thankfully Ramos didn't let her do that. It wasn't a gotcha. But I think we can agree that you're either wrong or lying on this part of the discussion.

You say you'll let her words speak for themselves, but then you lie about them. I think it's very clear that you don't think you have a point if you don't lie about what other people say--here and elsewhere.

Nice attempt at a narrative, but here it is again:
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that's as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.

She is clearly saying that she wants free trade, open borders, with green energy to power it.

I think I've debunked your claims that I'm lying pretty plainly here so I'll bid you adieu.

How did you debunk my claims? You are lying. The speech says nothing about immigration, does it? Further, your dishonest claim that she supports open borders in terms of immigration clearly contradicts your other dishonest claim. There's no way you can make both of those claims without admitting that you're lying about at least one of them.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You say you'll let her words speak for themselves, but then you lie about them. I think it's very clear that you don't think you have a point if you don't lie about what other people say--here and elsewhere.



How did you debunk my claims? You are lying. The speech says nothing about immigration, does it? Further, your dishonest claim that she supports open borders in terms of immigration clearly contradicts your other dishonest claim. There's no way you can make both of those claims without admitting that you're lying about at least one of them.

You’re just repeating yourself and your comments don’t fly in light of the evidence I’ve supplied. I could see if you agreed to disagree for personal or partisan reasons, but that facts speak for themselves. You could have at least tried to provide additional sources to support your argument. Crying “liar” over and over again when the evidence clearly supports the position I’ve taken is sad, and a waste of time for me and anybody who hasn’t already tuned out.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You’re just repeating yourself and your comments don’t fly in light of the evidence I’ve supplied.

Your own evidence definitively refutes your claims (without even getting into how they are logically contradictory), as I think you know.

 

[tehend]

Open borders has nothing to do with immigration?