Elizabeth Warren counts on her supporters being stupid

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Um...




For someone who claims to be a critical thinker and immune to lies and half truths you certainly don't mind regurgitating them:

From you own source:

"The analysis holds only if all national emergency and executive action funding is upheld in court challenges" ( which it has failed to do) .

"replacement wall"

"Funding to build a 18 foot wall not the 32 foot wall Trump says is necessary"


Also that website is garbage propaganda . It literally says " for patriots only" on the banner. Jeesus
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Not hypocritical - she has virtually zero ability to do that. Even if she could compel Congress to pass it, she can't do anything about the 38 states approval, nor could she even hint at a timeline.



Last I checked, ISIS is defeated.

During campaigns and especially during SOTU addresses, Presidents propose such things, but usually if it's popular and reasonable, it goes through. This is why Obama could propose things in an SOTU and wham - it goes through.

The bizarre thing about the wall is that Congress had previously approved BILLIONS more dollars for it - but opposed it because Trump wanted it,
even among members who had themselves voted in favor of it and were on record as being in favor. And he couldn't sweeten the deal enough, by adding the Dream Act or any form of amnesty. They were having none of it. It should have been a slam dunk mainly because previously, the Dems were on board with it. They just turned on it because he wanted it.


They approved billions for security upgrades, like cameras, repairs to existing structures and increased man power.

Not a physical wall.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
They approved billions for security upgrades, like cameras, repairs to existing structures and increased man power.

Not a physical wall.
Yeah, that's working out GREAT.

Clearly, they have ZERO desire to eliminate illegal immigration - even taking offense at the term "illegal", wanting to eliminate ICE, provide sanctuary cities, Pelosi even objecting to MS-13 being called animals.

They don't want to stop the flow - they want it to continue. It's their best chance to secure power in the future.
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
Yeah, that's working out GREAT.

Clearly, they have ZERO desire to eliminate illegal immigration - even taking offense at the term "illegal", wanting to eliminate ICE, provide sanctuary cities, Pelosi even objecting to MS-13 being called animals.

They don't want to stop the flow - they want it to continue. It's their best chance to secure power in the future.


I was merely pointing out your lie that they somehow only decided not to do something because of Trump.

I thought the talking points were that Trumps tough talk had cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Now you claim it is not working?

You seem a bit confused
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
I have no idea what the talking points are - I'm not a mindless drone leftie.


Well you certainly seem to be espousing them even if to your own detriment.

First you say Democrats had previously provided billions for the wall then changed their minds once they knew Trump wanted it which is clearly untrue.

Then you say the system we currently have is not working despite crossings slowing to very low levels.

So you are either just parroting talking points or unclear on what exactly you want or are trying to say
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I was merely pointing out your lie that they somehow only decided not to do something because of Trump.

I thought the talking points were that Trumps tough talk had cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Now you claim it is not working?

You seem a bit confused

And what the offered was a pittance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...114048-14f1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html

In 2019, the federal government will spend a whopping $4.407 trillion. Yet Congress and the president are shutting down the government in a dispute between the $1.3 billion the Democrats have approved for border security and the $5.7 billion the president is demanding — the difference being precisely 0.0998 percent of the total federal budget. In Washington, that is considered a rounding error.

Worse, Democrats are doing it over a border wall strikingly similar to one that they almost unanimously supported just five years ago. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) now says that “a wall is an immorality,” back in 2013, she supported a bill that required the construction of 700 miles of border fencing. (Trump has called for a wall of “anywhere from 700 to 900 miles” long.) The bill negotiated by the Gang of Eight, which included current Democratic leaders Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), declared that “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall establish . . . the ‘Southern Border Fencing Strategy,’ to identify where 700 miles of fencing (including double-layer fencing) . . . should be deployed along the Southern border.”

That’s not all. The bill further said that “the Secretary may not adjust the status of aliens who have been granted registered provisional immigrant status . . . until 6 months after . . . [the Secretary submits] a written certification that . . . there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing.” In other words, Democrats agreed that no illegal immigrants could get a path to citizenship until all 700 miles of border fencing had been fully completed.


Every Senate Democrat voted for the Gang of Eight bill — including 36 Democratic senators still serving today. President Barack Obama agreed to sign it. Indeed, he praised the bill for including what he called “the most aggressive border security plan in our history” and said that “the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I — and many others — have repeatedly laid out” (emphasis added). That bears repeating: Obama said building a 700-mile fence on the southern border was consistent with the principles of the Democratic Party.
Pelosi supported the Gang of Eight bill, saying at the time that “every piece of this legislation has had bipartisan support” (emphasis added). But now we are shutting down the government over a wall much like the one that Pelosi and Senate Democrats fully supported just five years ago?


Care to guess how much THIS proposal was supposed to cost?
Sorry - they changed their mind because it was Trump. Period.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Not hypocritical - she has virtually zero ability to do that.

She does have ability to do it now. Right now. And for the past seven years of her Senate run. Or at least get it started.

I note that she has attempted no such thing.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
Irony alert!!

CCS-2036.png
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
"Yeah, that's working out GREAT."

That's your quote.

So that was not sarcasm. You agree the system we have in place is clearly sufficient

I'm saying "increased border security" ain't done jack crap. You really are trying to make the case that CAMERAS made the difference?
(I know it can't be repaired walls, since as you say, walls don't do it, so a fixed wall is the same thing).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/08/donald-trump-border-arrests-results-1712730

What HAS worked? Two things - Trump actually enforcing the laws at the border and especially Mexico assisting us with migrants from Guatemala.
That, and the "stay in Mexico" thing has dissuaded people from bothering.

EDITED TO ADD - I didn't say jack crap.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I did mean "defend"

As in, when Trump does it... it is perfectly OK because "we all know it is just an empty campaign promise.

Chief Thinblood does it and it is a big deal and something to make fun of.

Ya' know... the hypocrisy and all...
I guess it depends on the promise, really.

Trump promises to defend the nation's border with an unachievable goal (Mexico will pay for a border wall), and we all go "yeah, we know he can't do it but he's got his heart in the right place." Result, Mexico agrees to "first nation entered" concept, holds on to the border invaders at their cost not ours, etc. Net result - a virtual border wall.

Chief Thinblood (I like that) says she'll destroy our Republic with an unachievable goal, and we laugh at her stupidity. Because, even if she were somewhat successful in her attempt, that would be bad for the nation.

So, not necessarily hypocrisy, but context.
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
I'm saying "increased border security" ain't done jack crap. You really are trying to make the case that CAMERAS made the difference?
(I know it can't be repaired walls, since as you say, walls don't do it, so a fixed wall is the same thing).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/08/donald-trump-border-arrests-results-1712730

What HAS worked? Two things - Trump actually enforcing the laws at the border and especially Mexico assisting us with migrants from Guatemala.
That, and the "stay in Mexico" thing has dissuaded people from bothering.

EDITED TO ADD - I didn't say jack crap.

So then the systems we have in place are working and we don't need to waste money on a physical wall. Glad we agree
 

Monello

Smarter than the average bear
PREMO Member
Call her old school. Then old school would want the electoral college. 200+ years old.

It's the new whippersnappers that want the popular vote.

If we went with the popular vote and NO voter ID requirements, I know which party would reign in the white house for centuries.
 
Top