R u questioning that ellison straight up doesn't support borders?

i'm questioning the intelligence of someone acting like such an interpretation of his statement outweighs the party's official stance, legislative record, and concrete funding plans.

l2r, poor little propaganda victim...

This post was edited by fender on Jan 4 2019 08:57pm

Lol now ur just lying I never said anything of the sort and stated otherwise. I said it was 10 secs or research. Not that it outweighed anything on its own.

Interpretation? Lol. Hes been clear for years. That's one single quote. Youre clearly uninformed.

You're getting desperate. Keep it up

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 4 2019 09:08pm

ya right, just act like you were not supporting that simplistic narrative to begin with.


that article was YOUR reply when i asked you to source your claim that democrats have an 'END GOAL' that requires open borders - so why did you link it when you now pretend that's not what you wanted to prove by it?

you do that a lot, you know? claiming "I DID NOT SAY EXACTLY THE WORDS YOUR[sic] ASCRIBING TO ME" when the [sic] aren't ascribing them to you, they're confronting you with the logical inference of your [...] (claims) that you may or may not have contemplated.


just when i thought you couldn't get any more dishonest...





This post was edited by fender on Jan 4 2019 09:26pm

Spin spin spin with a trump supporter closer lol

she has a point

Lol u can't even read

so you admit it was a pivot, and not an reply to me asking you to source your moronic 'end goal of the democratic party' claim?
the problem is not my ability to read but your inability to construct a proper argument. i asked you to support your idiotic point about the democrats' 'end goal', and your source just did not provide that - you admitted it yourself in your 'tHaTs noT eXaCTlY WuT i sAId!!1!' reply. so by all means, resort to your usual deflections, but the simple truth is:

neither their policy suggestions nor their concrete budget proposals support the 'democrats question the legitimacy of borders' talking point. it's the desperate attempt to portray this issue as an ideological standoff, when in reality both parties already AGREED to INCREASE funding for border security. trump only rejected the compromise after he got bullied into insisting on funding for his ridiculous campaign promise (conveniently ignoring the 'mexico will pay for it' part) by conservative tv and talk radio hosts.

and yet you're desperate to defend it as a reasonable and fact based accusation, just think about that for a minute if you can, poor little propaganda victim...

This post was edited by fender on Jan 4 2019 10:45pm