MOUNTAINH33L
Member
- Messages
- 17
Does anyone here think that Trump is not a racist?
Border walls are no longer racist
- Thread starter Croatoan
- Start date
- Replies: 261
- Views: 4K
ZenMode
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 277
Isn't it funny how that works? The public opinion winds of border security have shifted to the point that the Dem presidential candidate now wants to build more wall.
Don't get me wrong, we all know this is how politics works - you say what you have to say to win....and then implement little of what you ran on.
I don't think you are characterizing her position correctly. It's not that she "wants to" build more wall. It's that she's willing to go along with building more wall if that's what gets a more comprehensive immigration bill done.
ChileG
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 303
is there a quote or something from Harris that suppprts the claim that she “wants to build more wall?” (It isn’t in the Axios article).
I’d be interested in hearing her arguments for that. Thanks in advance.
CFordUNC
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,798
You mind sharing a link to a quote where Harris says she wants to "build more wall"? I can't seem to find one, though that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
BlooVooDoo
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 176
Seems like it was supported by a majority of both houses until Trump decided he was against it. Kind of like vaccines.
Same. And that tells you all you need to know about the assumptions the OP spins for himself, or his trollish intentions to bait.
- Messages
- 850
Even during the trump term the primary argument was and still is that the wall is a waste of money because it's not effective.
I guess when Mexico pays for it to be built, it will at least be them wasting money.
It's interesting that a party that constantly complains about government spending and government inefficiencies supports an effort for something that is so clearly inefficient and costly.
heelinhell
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 389
Do you know what was in the bill ?
rhetorical question
Do you really give a shit about the "border crisis" ?
rhetorical question #2
haroldminer
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 286
- Messages
- 850
So you see taking action to solve a problem with a bipartisan bill as a political move equal to killing a bipartisan bill and continuing the status quo?
Even if they are both political maneuvers, one actually gets something done while the other doesn't.
I'm sure you can figure out which does which.
- Messages
- 850
Does she want to build more wall or is she willing to give up that fight to get a bill passed?
- Messages
- 850
rodoheel
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 329
The idea of a legislative compromise is too complicated for Trump voters
CFordUNC
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,798
I want to see if I understand the ZZLP Board Republican stance correctly:
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "THE BORDER IS A DISASTER! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE COMING HERE BY THE BAZILLIONS! WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE! WE NEED THE STRONGEST BORDER SECURITY THAT EVER BORDER SECURITY'D!"
Very Republican Senator Representing Very Republican State: "No worries, fam, I got you. Here, look at this sweeping, comprehensive immigration system reform and border security package that I've worked tirelessly on for four months, reaching across the political aisle at great peril to my own career prospects. This package is a Republican's wet dream. I mean, this is the kind of legislation that would prevent Ronald Reagan and both Bush's from sleeping facedown at night. The Democrats had to make enormous concessions on, like, basically everything in the bill!"
Democrats in the Senate: "Alright, yeah, the border is a problem that we need to fix. The best way to fix this problem at the border, which we agree is a problem, at the border, is to vote 'yes' to pass this sweeping, comprehensive immigration system reform and border security bill proposed by our colleague Jim Lankford, who is very Republican, and from a very Republican state."
Donald Trump: "Don't pass that bill. It'll help the incumbent presidential administration in an election year."
Republican Senators, including the very Republican Senator who drafted the bill in the first place: "Yes sir, whatever you say, sir, we will vote to tank our own comprehensive and sweeping border security bill because, reasons, even though it was the stuff of the old GOP's wet dreams."
*Bill fails to pass the Senate*
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "THE LIBS DON'T WANT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM AT THE BORDER WHICH IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE HISTORY OF ALL PROBLEMS EVER! THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS! THEY WANT TO IMPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS BY THE BAZILLIONS TO HELP THEM WIN THE POPULAR VOTER BY EVEN MORE BIGLY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF VOTES THAN THEY ALREADY DO!"
Democrats, Moderates, Independents, and sane current and former Republicans that frequent the ZZLP: "I mean, we literally just had the most bipartisan and most comprehensive border security bill- drafted by a very bigly Republican from a very bigly Republican state- ripe for vote and passage, but the Republicans tanked their own bill."
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "IT WAS ALL AN ELECTION YEAR STUNT! WE CAN'T TRY TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT HAS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ALL LEGISLATION THAT AIMS TO HELP PROTECT AMERICA CAN'T BE DISCUSSED DURING AN ELECTION YEAR BECAUSE IT WOULD HELP TOO MANY AMERICANS!"
Do I have that all correct?
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "THE BORDER IS A DISASTER! ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE COMING HERE BY THE BAZILLIONS! WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE! WE NEED THE STRONGEST BORDER SECURITY THAT EVER BORDER SECURITY'D!"
Very Republican Senator Representing Very Republican State: "No worries, fam, I got you. Here, look at this sweeping, comprehensive immigration system reform and border security package that I've worked tirelessly on for four months, reaching across the political aisle at great peril to my own career prospects. This package is a Republican's wet dream. I mean, this is the kind of legislation that would prevent Ronald Reagan and both Bush's from sleeping facedown at night. The Democrats had to make enormous concessions on, like, basically everything in the bill!"
Democrats in the Senate: "Alright, yeah, the border is a problem that we need to fix. The best way to fix this problem at the border, which we agree is a problem, at the border, is to vote 'yes' to pass this sweeping, comprehensive immigration system reform and border security bill proposed by our colleague Jim Lankford, who is very Republican, and from a very Republican state."
Donald Trump: "Don't pass that bill. It'll help the incumbent presidential administration in an election year."
Republican Senators, including the very Republican Senator who drafted the bill in the first place: "Yes sir, whatever you say, sir, we will vote to tank our own comprehensive and sweeping border security bill because, reasons, even though it was the stuff of the old GOP's wet dreams."
*Bill fails to pass the Senate*
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "THE LIBS DON'T WANT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM AT THE BORDER WHICH IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE HISTORY OF ALL PROBLEMS EVER! THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS! THEY WANT TO IMPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS BY THE BAZILLIONS TO HELP THEM WIN THE POPULAR VOTER BY EVEN MORE BIGLY MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF VOTES THAN THEY ALREADY DO!"
Democrats, Moderates, Independents, and sane current and former Republicans that frequent the ZZLP: "I mean, we literally just had the most bipartisan and most comprehensive border security bill- drafted by a very bigly Republican from a very bigly Republican state- ripe for vote and passage, but the Republicans tanked their own bill."
Republicans (including and especially those that frequent the ZZLP): "IT WAS ALL AN ELECTION YEAR STUNT! WE CAN'T TRY TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT HAS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ALL LEGISLATION THAT AIMS TO HELP PROTECT AMERICA CAN'T BE DISCUSSED DURING AN ELECTION YEAR BECAUSE IT WOULD HELP TOO MANY AMERICANS!"
Do I have that all correct?
- Messages
- 129
I hope you were better at football than you are at cheerleading.
CFordUNC
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,798
I'll take that a 'yes' that I have your stance correct?
Look, man. Here's the deal. I don't know you and I don't know what motivates you. I don't really care. But what I do know is that if you're going to try to come sit at the big boys' and girls' table and try to talk politics with the adults, you're going to have to up your game significantly. I'm not sure I've seen someone start a thread and then get their ass handed to them on their own thread this badly since the last time douglas started one on the old board. Feel free to send me a private message if you'd like some free coaching on how to put forth a better argument.
Last edited:
Can you supply a critique of the border bill that Trump killed? I'm no expert on it, but my understanding is it gave Republicans a lot of what they say they want in terms of being able to control the flow of unauthorized immigrants. If it's just that it didn't go far enough, let me know what you would have added to it. Instead of just griping about being a victim on the old board and mischaracterizing what Harris is actually for/against why not take this opportunity to provide some actual insight into your policy beliefs?
ZenMode
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 277
Fair enough. Again, I'm not taking a stance on a border wall. I'm more talking about how dysfunctional is politics. Given how the border wall has been portrayed by Harris, and Democrats in general, this "want" vs "willing" is largely a distinction without a difference IF what they're saying is accurate. Harris has called a border wall unamerican. Other Democrats have called proponents of a border wall racist and a border wall has been described as immoral to inhumane, which means she's willing to support a bill that would implement something that is somewhere, presumably, between unamerican to racist to immoral?
It would be much easier, for both parties, to keep rhetoric and finger pointing out of discussions.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 277
She expressed support for the bi-partisan border bill during her DNC speech. That bill, if it's the one that was nixed a few months ago, included funding for more border wall.