The Republican Utopia

[Big Red 40]

8 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

As I have pointed out...repeatedly now...Democrats generally and Schumer specifically do not want the immigration problem to be solved. They need the issue to keep their base riled for elections. If comprehensive immigration reform were passed, certainly in the way I described earlier, the issue would largely disappear. If that happened, it would have a considerable impact on Demoratic turnout.

 

Schumer and other Democrats will continue to propose legislation that they know won’t pass and stage votes that don’t matter. It’s all for show. So the best way to know what he thinks is to track his statements over time. Schumer’s statements are trending against immigration enforcement, as are those of the rest of the party.

Not to play the whataboutism game but the Republicans don't want to stop illegal immigration either, just for different reasons. They want to provide a cheap exploitable stream of labor for their corporate buddies at all costs. Reagan pardoned millions of them with a weak agreement that that would somehow solve the problem. Illegal border crossings were at an all time high through the W Bush years, and he made little or no meaningful attempts to stop it. Companies willing hired and even recruited these people without any repercussions all through his eight years. A major reason the current problem even exists is because of that. 

[Ric Flair]

8 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

Not to play the whataboutism game but the Republicans don't want to stop illegal immigration either, just for different reasons. They want to provide a cheap exploitable stream of labor for their corporate buddies at all costs. Reagan pardoned millions of them with a weak agreement that that would somehow solve the problem. Illegal border crossings were at an all time high through the W Bush years, and he made little or no meaningful attempts to stop it. Companies willing hired and even recruited these people without any repercussions all through his eight years. A major reason the current problem even exists is because of that. 

 

There are certainly some Republicans that's true of. The most rabidly pro-business wing wants the cheap labor. That's absolutely true.

[Ric Flair]

12 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Here's why what you're trying to use as evidence doesn't work

 

 

"I think it’s a mistake to make political debates personal."

 

"Agreed. Trump should have known better than to let her anywhere near the White House."

"I don’t like his language, as I’ve said a few times now. He should be less inflammatory and much more precise."

 

"I share your dislike of Trump’s methods"

 

"As I said, I disagree with Trump’s statements on a relatively frequent basis."

 

"i don’t like some of the things Trump says. I think his language is harsh, overly broad, boorish, crude, and offensive. I was appalled that he made that statement about how there were good folks on both sides after the Charlottesville debacle. When people are marching the streets in white hoods and burning torches, screaming vile nonsense, how hard is it to condemn that?"

 

"No doubt Trump has some cronies that are slimy."

"Trump is a worse version of Hitler and every night is Kristallnacht."

 

"That being said, hell yes I condemn Trump."

 

"Trump is a philandering douchebag and scummy guy generally"

 

 

 

I'd conclude based off of this collection of quotes of yours that you are unabashedly anti-Trump. But... you're not.

 

Actually, in some ways I am anti-Trump. In other ways I support the guy. A review of my posts over time will explain how I feel and why...just as they do with Schumer.

[BigRedBuster]

13 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

I don’t remember bringing up that  aspect of the argument I may have been responding to flairs post though. 

I agree with the things you stated in this post . 

 

You were the one that tried claiming that if there were better jobs that people actually wanted to work at, there would be fewer people on government assistance because they would actually go to work.

[BigRedBuster]

OK...let's go towards a worthy part of this discussion.  It really boils down to if people are contributing to paying our bills or causing the bills to be higher.  At least that's the argument that many times gets thrown around.  This boiled over a number of years ago when the Republicans were outraged at the 47% that doesn't pay federal income tax.  

 

So, let's start there and find the facts.

 

Who doesn't pay federal income tax - Tax Policy Center

[ZRod]

I'd just like to commend Ric for having a civil discussion this time around. Crazy how we can all find some common ground when we're actually listening, and not at each other's throats.

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

You were the one that tried claiming that if there were better jobs that people actually wanted to work at, there would be fewer people on government assistance because they would actually go to work.

Making Chimichangas and Ric were having a discussion and Ric threw out the Republican talking point about workers stealing the fruits rich peoples labors . I don't agree with that so i posted my opinion.

The conversation turned to another Republican talking point of able bodied people refusing to take a job and staying on welfare instead. I don't think that problem is nearly as rampant as many do, so i posted my opinions on that too. 

Nobody wants to work a crappy job, but there was a time when that crappy job would provide good enough pay and benefits to afford a decent quality of life for workers, and their families, so those jobs were always filled.. Now those same jobs are more work, less pay, and less benefits making it very possible to bust ones ass all day and still not be able to maintain a decent quality of life. I don't support, or respect, an able bodied persons refusal to work, but like it or not, i can understand it.

Most of the "Republican Utopia vision" is one i don't share, but i enjoy a civil exchange of opinions /facts about it anyway. 

I don't really think any aspect of the discussion is any more worthy than another,

 

[RedDenver]

20 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

As I have pointed out...repeatedly now...Democrats generally and Schumer specifically do not want the immigration problem to be solved. They need the issue to keep their base riled for elections. If comprehensive immigration reform were passed, certainly in the way I described earlier, the issue would largely disappear. If that happened, it would have a considerable impact on Demoratic turnout.

 

Schumer and other Democrats will continue to propose legislation that they know won’t pass and stage votes that don’t matter. It’s all for show. So the best way to know what he thinks is to track his statements over time. Schumer’s statements are trending against immigration enforcement, as are those of the rest of the party.

What you've pointed out repeatedly is your opinion without any supporting evidence as I have repeatedly given you the chance to find and use. So I am forced to conclude that you're simply repeating talking-points and/or are espousing opinions but you don't know why you have them.

[knapplc]

11 hours ago, ZRod said:

this time around

 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

What you've pointed out repeatedly is your opinion without any supporting evidence as I have repeatedly given you the chance to find and use. So I am forced to conclude that you're simply repeating talking-points and/or are espousing opinions but you don't know why you have them.

 

I’ve posted a column that details Schumer’s voting record and duplicity on the issue as well as a collection of Schumer’s quotes on the issue going back years.

 

Please enlighten me about how that isn’t evidence of Schumer’s votes or feelings on the issue, but rather is simply my “opinion.”

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’ve posted a column that details Schumer’s voting record and duplicity on the issue as well as a collection of Schumer’s quotes on the issue going back years.

 

Please enlighten me about how that isn’t evidence of Schumer’s votes or feelings on the issue, but rather is simply my “opinion.”

You've posted an opinion piece and a massive collection of quotes that may or may not support your argument. Try again.

[Ric Flair]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You've posted an opinion piece and a massive collection of quotes that may or may not support your argument. Try again.

 

I’ve posted a column that lays out the facts and a collection of quotes from the person we’re talking about that make his opinions clear...as well as how those opinions have changed over time.

 

if you think Schumer is pushing for border security and tougher immigration enforcement, then produce some evidence of that.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I’ve posted a column that lays out the facts and a collection of quotes from the person we’re talking about that make his opinions clear...as well as how those opinions have changed over time.

 

if you think Schumer is pushing for border security and tougher immigration enforcement, then produce some evidence of that.

Here's the post with your linked article:

On 8/13/2018 at 1:12 PM, Ric Flair said:

No doubt a majority of the country wants a secure border. I just doubt whether many Democrats do. Schumer and other Democrats have been playing games woth immigration policy for decades. They claim to want tougher border security, but refuse to support it or actually vote for it. They put together these BS bills that purport to call for it, but then fill them full of poison pills that they know Republicans will never vote for. So they can claim they favor border security and tougher enforcement, when neither is true. 

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/chuck-schumers-three-decades-immigration-lies/

 

The entire article is a hit-piece which tries to equate Schumer threatening to shutdown the government to his history on immigration but never actually addresses the DACA promise that the Dems were threatening a shutdown over, which you can find out if you follow the link in that article to the Politico story they're referencing. Instead it attempts to paint such figures as Tom Cotton and Stephen Miller as immigration heroes of some sort and tries to blame all the immigration woes on the Democrats. Stephen. Miller.

 

The weird thing is that they show Schumer has supported merit-based over family-based immigration as if that's some sort of gotcha. But none of that shows that Schumer or many Democrats want an insecure border. In fact the article has a video where Schumer talks about enforcing immigration laws and that illegal immigrants shouldn't be treated the same as American citizens, which directly refutes your contention.

[knapplc]

On 8/13/2018 at 2:12 PM, Ric Flair said:

No doubt a majority of the country wants a secure border. I just doubt whether many Democrats do. Schumer and other Democrats have been playing games woth immigration policy for decades. They claim to want tougher border security, but refuse to support it or actually vote for it. They put together these BS bills that purport to call for it, but then fill them full of poison pills that they know Republicans will never vote for. So they can claim they favor border security and tougher enforcement, when neither is true. 

 

The claim is that Democrats - Schumer in particular - don't want a secure border.  "BS" bills are propagated, but they are toothless, and inherently designed to fail. The result of that - and Schumer's desire - is an unsecure border. 

 

We've asked repeatedly for proof of this, and as "proof" one link to one piece of conservative propaganda has been pawned off.

 

But maybe we need to define the parameters of the question better. 

 

What, specifically, do you mean by "unsecure border" @Ric Flair ?  

 

How, specifically, has Schumer's voting record been used to obfuscate his actual desire for an "unsecure border," ie, what specific action has he done that made the border unsecure?

 

Then, so we have an example of the right way of doing things, contrast Schumer's record with someone who has a correct approach to the border issue.

 

That will go a long way toward showing us where you're coming from, RF.

[Ric Flair]

9 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

The claim is that Democrats - Schumer in particular - don't want a secure border.  "BS" bills are propagated, but they are toothless, and inherently designed to fail. The result of that - and Schumer's desire - is an unsecure border. 

 

We've asked repeatedly for proof of this, and as "proof" one link to one piece of conservative propaganda has been pawned off.

 

But maybe we need to define the parameters of the question better. 

 

What, specifically, do you mean by "unsecure border" @Ric Flair ?  

 

How, specifically, has Schumer's voting record been used to obfuscate his actual desire for an "unsecure border," ie, what specific action has he done that made the border unsecure?

 

Then, so we have an example of the right way of doing things, contrast Schumer's record with someone who has a correct approach to the border issue.

 

That will go a long way toward showing us where you're coming from, RF.

 

I appreciate that. I’ve watched Schumer for years and his views on immigration seem to have trended leftward over those years, with the rest of his party. I haven’t been able to find a more detailed breakdown of his specific votes on border security over the years, aside from those I already posted. But it’s apparent to me that he doesn’t take border security seriously.

 

i don’t really care if there is a physical wall across the border or not. I’ll defer to the experts on what works best. But we need some sort of physical or virtual barrier to prevent entry to anyone who doesn’t have a right to be here. If we mandated employers use E-Verify, and made it illegal to rent homes to those here illegally, denied them government benefits, etc. that would also make coming here less appealing.