So you consider Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review - the leading magazine for conservative intellectuals - to be a "simplistic right-wing bigot"? And Politico, which has a well-known pro-beltway bias, is just randomly giving him a platform because I'm sure that in your mind, they're secretly right-wing bigots as well.





exactly, in the past, before they completely lost their minds on this particular issue, the democrats did indeed back measures like the one we're talking about right now. as recently as 2006, they supported a bipartisan bill which increased border security by, among other things, physical barriers.
can you name me any bill or law that the democrats supported during the last decade which has led to a significant reduction in the inflow of immigrants over the southern border, or would have done so if it had been passed?


it's simply irrefutable that the dems have sharply turned left on immigration since 2006. see, for example here:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/02/culture-war-liberals-conservatives-trump-2018-222095

quote:
"IMMIGRATION
Percentage of Democrats and Republicans who answered that immigration was, on the whole, a good thing for the country at that time:"


Note how the stance of Republicans has remained mostly steady in this chart, while the Democrats have gotten a ton more pro-immigration in recent years.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 2 2019 11:45pm

stop deflecting. your post clearly suggests that democrats question the legitimacy of having a border at all - which is completely ridiculous considering they not only increased spending for border security in the past, but also agreed to it in during the most recent negotiations.

so please spare me the lazy pivot about general opinions on immigration (which, if you noticed, even a majority of republicans think is a positive thing) - that is NOT what i argued against or identified as right wing propaganda.

again, democrats do NOT question the legitimacy of borders - that is pure fabrication. portraying this shutdown as an fight over different ideologies concerning the legitimacy of borders is simply dishonest, only gullible idiots would uncritically accept such a blatant misrepresentation of facts.
in reality it's simply a result of trump backing down from a reasonable compromise after getting bullied on conservative media.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 3 2019 12:13am

Did you guys know r/drumpfisfinished is a thing? I normally hate reddit but not bad finds there

it's not a fabrication it's a fallacy that many leftist politicians express on a regular basis.

democrats dont "want open borders", but some politicians call for all economic migrants to be taken in while also magically excluding the drug dealers and criminals. they have no plan on how to accomplish this Minority Report feat, nor how many they would be willing to take in, nor studies on what the financial burden would be. This leads the right to mockingly imply they "want open borders". it's not their implicit want, it's the logical inference of the accomplishment of their goals.

you say: i want to eat dinner in bed each night

I say: you want ants in your bed?

you respond: what are you an idiot? i didnt even mention ants.

and yet, it's the logical inference of your accomplished goal.

people tend to do this a lot, "I DID NOT SAY EXACTLY THE WORDS YOUR ASCRIBING TO ME" when the aren't ascribing them to you, they're confronting you with the logical inference of your plan that you may or may not have contemplated. in the case of politicians they're simply speaking out of both sides of their anus. "let in all who need help"....."we'll find a plan to keep the bad ones out" etc

the only way to ensure you let in all the good ones is to let in everyone, thus open border.

feel free to deny this simple and inarguable point tho. i just assume you'll take the "if i dont specifically state it you cant say that" angle. perhaps its the language gap, you fall in that trap a lot. ill understand if you cant accept it, bit close to home.

u can call for things implicitly and explicitly. that's a basic function of communication.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 4 2019 09:38am

your kin was very fond of walls. That big one in Berlin was up for a bit.

As much as I disagree with Fender, this point is simply stupid. The East German government erected a wall to lock in their own people and force them to endure the shitty conditions of socialist rule, while the walls we're talking about in the present day are supposed to lock others out and keep ourselves safe and prosperous. It's like comparing the door of an apartment with the door of a prison cell.

great post my friend! there were plenty of walls in those camps designed by his ancestor joseph as well

The wall here would be for national defense though, not for carrying out some sort “final solution” like it was in National-Socialist land.

Let me mess with Fender, dude.

cute attempt, but you're so desperate to disagree with me that you don't even realise the logical leaps you have to make and the facts you have to ignore, in order to fabricate an 'argument' in support of that obvious right wing spin:

nothing that the corporate democrats negotiating with trump support even suggests they question the LEGITIMACY OF HAVING A BORDER. that is pure fabrication, they have spoken out against illegal immigration AND supported policy to combat it on a regular basis, while in charge AND while in opposition.
so the claim that their general support for legal immigration somehow implied they "question the legitimacy of having borders at all" (remember, THAT is what blacky is arguing) - even though their expressed intentions AND legislative history clearly disprove that, is nothing short of idiotic.
i mean, i get why cultists and bigots fall for this kind of fear mongering and uncritically repeat it, i get why trump and the pundits on the right claim it in the first place - but that our interactions in the past have triggered you so hard that even YOU fall for this kind of propaganda, is almost a bit sad - although not entirely surprising.

again, there are NO FACTS supporting that stupid talking point - it's a transparent attempt deflect from the fact that trump initially supported a COMPROMISE including INCREASED funding for border security (just not outright billions for a WALL - that mexico was supposed to pay for anyway), and only withdrew that support after conservative pundits attacked him for it on his favourite tv and radio shows. that alone should expose the moronic attempt to portray this as an ideological fight between 'border safety' and 'open border' proponents as the lazy pivot that it is to halfway intelligent people, but apparently even such basic logical reasoning is lost on you nowadays...