like_that;1758479 wrote:Big reason on why I don't think integrity means that much to people these days.

People care, but for about 80% of the country they only care when it's the party they don't vote for.

BoatShoes;1758488 wrote:I think it is a mistake to refer to people who do not support the candidates we like as stupid. I personally have been shocked by the number of professional individuals who are supportive of Trump (at least in this stage of the game...I think they will eventually come around to a more establishment choice).

But then again anti-immigration sentiment is often very persuasive and this goes above and beyond race. In the early 20th century when my family came to America from Germany there was a lot of anti-immigrate sentiment as well.

Using "stupid" in a figurative sense, in that support for for that candidate is not well thought out. I mean, do you really want a president that is a polarizing figure rather than a leader of all Americans? Besides, xenophobia has never worked out well, nor is it becoming for America.

In terms of the Dems and Hilary...bottom line...if there's big trouble, it's 3 o'clock in the morning and you have to call someone for help....do you really want to hear Hilary at the other end of the line?

BoatShoes;1758488 wrote:I think it is a mistake to refer to people who do not support the candidates we like as stupid. I personally have been shocked by the number of professional individuals who are supportive of Trump (at least in this stage of the game...I think they will eventually come around to a more establishment choice).

But then again anti-immigration sentiment is often very persuasive and this goes above and beyond race. In the early 20th century when my family came to America from Germany there was a lot of anti-immigrate sentiment as well.

Can we stop with the "anti-immigration" crap?

Most conservatives have NO PROBLEM with legal immigration. We have a problem with river jumpers and desert crossers coming over illegally. WE WERE ALL immigrants at one point. That's the fabric of the US. So stop with the "conservatives hate immigrants" bull crap.

I love immigration, my family immigrated from Scotland back about 100 years ago. But they, like many others, came through legally.

jmog;1758633 wrote:Can we stop with the "anti-immigration" crap?

Most conservatives have NO PROBLEM with legal immigration. We have a problem with river jumpers and desert crossers coming over illegally. WE WERE ALL immigrants at one point. That's the fabric of the US. So stop with the "conservatives hate immigrants" bull crap.

I love immigration, my family immigrated from Scotland back about 100 years ago. But they, like many others, came through legally.

I think this is largely true. However, there is a significant portion within the conservative movement who are backing Trump e.g. Ann Coulter who are against more legal immigration; particularly from non-western countries. There as an even greater number of conservatives who are against a pathway to citizenship in any form for the illegal immigrants here currently and that is the basis being used to allege that Rubio, Bush, Paul Ryan, Lyndsey Graham, etc. are not sufficiently conservative for the members of the House Freedom Caucus.

QuakerOats;1758420 wrote:Listening to her opening remarks at the Benghazi hearing this morning ----- quite simply, I want to puke.

I felt the same thing, but about the whole thing. I just got around to reading some recaps on the 11 hour hearing. My god. Dodging questions left and right. And some of the questions asked to her just scream "I'm a republican and i'm trying to ruin you Hillary instead of actually trying to get answers on Benghazi!!"

Both political parties piss me off so much these days. This didn't need to be an 11 hour hearing, but because of the partisan biases, it was.

I also hate hearing the "this has taken longer than Watergate!!" Well no shit, Hillary didn't turn over her information. Nixon eventually did. It's that easy.

if you leave a dog in a lock car and it dies you get arrested and potential jail time. If you let 4 Americans die you get pass to run for President .... does any of this make sense to anyone how this can happen...

lmao...dynamite drop in as always.

Automatik;1758641 wrote:lmao...dynamite drop in as always.

I think Belly's the political version of Footwedge. Always saying stuff that you get the idea sounded good to them at the time...and everyone else just shakes their head and laughs.

EVIDENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S CONFLICTING BENGHAZI NARRATIVE is revealed exclusively to Fox News by the father of Ty Woods in his diary notes taken after encountering then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the ceremony to receive the bodies of the four victims, including his son. 'We are going to have the filmmaker arrested,' Woods said Clinton told him, a reference to the obscure anti-Islamic video she blamed for the attack — while at the same time she was telling others that she knew it was a planned terror attack.

• 'SERIAL LIAR': Families of victims blast Clinton on Benghazi | FACT CHECK: Clinton and critics on Benghazi, emails

pathological ........

BoatShoes;1758636 wrote:I think this is largely true. However, there is a significant portion within the conservative movement who are backing Trump e.g. Ann Coulter who are against more legal immigration; particularly from non-western countries. There as an even greater number of conservatives who are against a pathway to citizenship in any form for the illegal immigrants here currently and that is the basis being used to allege that Rubio, Bush, Paul Ryan, Lyndsey Graham, etc. are not sufficiently conservative for the members of the House Freedom Caucus.

1. Your opinion about supporting zero immigration from "non-western countries" unless you can post a link?
2. A path to citizenship for those that came here illegally is so "radical"? How is it "radical" to believe that those who came here illegally should go to the back of the proverbial line vs those that have been trying for months/years to get in legally? Why should they get to "cut the line" just because they (or their parents) ran across the Rio Grande? If that is a radically conservative viewpoint, they by all means call me a radical.

I am for the believe that the immigration system should be more "simple" than it is now, but that doesn't change the fact that people skipped the system and did it illegally. If it were someone buying a ton of guns illegally you KNOW you and the liberals in politics would be up in arms about it, but because instead people are skipping the system to come into the country they get a pass? Come on, be consistent there BS.

jmog;1758684 wrote:1. Your opinion about supporting zero immigration from "non-western countries" unless you can post a link?
2. A path to citizenship for those that came here illegally is so "radical"? How is it "radical" to believe that those who came here illegally should go to the back of the proverbial line vs those that have been trying for months/years to get in legally? Why should they get to "cut the line" just because they (or their parents) ran across the Rio Grande? If that is a radically conservative viewpoint, they by all means call me a radical.

I am for the believe that the immigration system should be more "simple" than it is now, but that doesn't change the fact that people skipped the system and did it illegally. If it were someone buying a ton of guns illegally you KNOW you and the liberals in politics would be up in arms about it, but because instead people are skipping the system to come into the country they get a pass? Come on, be consistent there BS.

1. Here are the links to Coulter which you could have easily searched for yourself.

Ann Coulter: It's not just illegal immigration that's the problem; it's all immigration

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150603-ann-coulter-stop-all-immigration.ece

EVERY PRO-IMMIGRATION CLAIM IS A LIE

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-07-15.html


2. I never said that being a against a pathway to citizenship in some form or another is "Radical" but it is the consensus position among so-called "Establishment Republicans" like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Lyndsey Graham, John McCain and George W. Bush, Rupert Murdoch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

The position among these folks is that proactive deportation of those who entered the United States is impractical with regard to all of them and maybe even unjust when it comes to people who were brought as children and made no concious effort to break the law.

Romney was to the right of this position in believing that we could make the U.S. inhospitable to undocumented immigrants enough to encourage them to leave voluntarily.

Donald Trump has gone farther and believes we can build a wall and actively deport them with a large increase in the size of the Border Patrol and the INS. This has garnered him significant support among people who, like you, disagree with the premise that it is impractical to deport people who skipped in line.

I am not being inconsistent. I'm simply pointing out that your position on Immigration is more in line with Trump than the rest of the Republican field - hence the resistance to people like Paul Ryan lately who are considered "pro-amnesty." Indeed, Trump is actually to the left of some of his supporters in that he wants to let "the good ones back in." As the links demonstrate, there is a burgeoning element of folks who are against immigration generally - even more so in Europe.

Ann Coulter: Trump doesn’t go far enough on immigration . . . ‘There are no good ones’

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/07/28/ann-coulter-trump-doesnt-go-far-enough-on-immigration-there-are-no-good-ones-230015#ixzz3pQMIaeYL

I wasn't talking about a link from Trump or Coulter, I could obviously find that easy. I meant a link showing most conservatives support that...

I actually was listening to a good amount of the investigation the other day while I was out and about. There was one thing that really stood out to me amongst all of her testimony.

The fact how she stated over and over, in great detail, was how she was so informed. She had one-on-one meetings daily with people who updated her on all the latest info, read hundreds of pages of info daily, even got locked briefcases sent to her by courier daily that she had to read.
* Emails
* Meetings
* Memos
She clearly testified that she was inundated with information all day long, every day.

And then... she turns around and says she didn't know about "this" or "that". There's a disconnection somewhere in her testimony. Things just don't add up to me and it came across as unbelievably... unbelievable.

CenterBHSFan;1758731 wrote:And then... she turns around and says she didn't know about "this" or "that". There's a disconnection somewhere in her testimony. Things just don't add up to me and it came across as unbelievably... unbelievable.

Because she's an absolute liar. Probably never actually did the job, and was just flying around raising money for her "foundation". I'll bet 90% of the emails she sent were personal business - someone should do that math.

jmog;1758699 wrote:I wasn't talking about a link from Trump or Coulter, I could obviously find that easy. I meant a link showing most conservatives support that...

I never said most conservatives. I said significant in reference to the 25% or so amount of support Trump currently has and as evidenced by, leading conservative voices such as Ann Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc. which is all about his position on immigration - take this as an example:

He's the only semi-nationalist politician in the US. Nationalism must grow in every western nation if we are to survive this century.The Republicans and other greedy capitalists want open borders for cheap labor, while the leftists want open borders due to their white guilt and hatred of western civilization. The leftists who hold power want open borders to secure future votes
Already in Europe multicult and immigration is considered a failure. Many in North America feel the same way, but due to leftist suppression, and years of pro-multicult indoctrination, these people are unable to state their true feelings regarding immigration. Years from now, we will consider leftist immigration and cultural policies to be a great mistake.

this is what I wrote:

However, there is a significant portion within the conservative movement who are backing Trump e.g. Ann Coulter who are against more legal immigration

Again, I never said most conservatives consider immigration to be the be-all-end-all and therefore they will support a tax-hiking, single-payer loving blow hard...but there is a significant portion who do.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter's stance on it "Who is going to vote for all of these tax cuts and wars that the GOP presidential candidates want when there is more immigration?"

Belly35;1758640 wrote:if you leave a dog in a lock car and it dies you get arrested and potential jail time. If you let 4 Americans die you get pass to run for President .... does any of this make sense to anyone how this can happen...

I agree. Rarely does your comments make sense.

Hope this helps.

Heretic;1758643 wrote:I think Belly's the political version of Footwedge. Always saying stuff that you get the idea sounded good to them at the time...and everyone else just shakes their head and laughs.

BoatShoes;1759048 wrote:I never said most conservatives. I said significant in reference to the 25% or so amount of support Trump currently has and as evidenced by, leading conservative voices such as Ann Coulter, Savage, Levin, etc. which is all about his position on immigration - take this as an example:



this is what I wrote:



Again, I never said most conservatives consider immigration to be the be-all-end-all and therefore they will support a tax-hiking, single-payer loving blow hard...but there is a significant portion who do.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter's stance on it "Who is going to vote for all of these tax cuts and wars that the GOP presidential candidates want when there is more immigration?"

So do you have a link then that shows "25%" of conservatives want to completely stop immigration all together, even the legal type? Or is this just opinion?

jmog;1759297 wrote:So do you have a link then that shows "25%" of conservatives want to completely stop immigration all together, even the legal type? Or is this just opinion?

I know reading is hard but I never made the claim that 25% of Conservatives want to stop all legal immigration generally. I made a generalized claim that there is a strong anti-immigrant sentiment against even legal immigrants and I cited people like Ann Coulter who want to stop all legal immigration as evidence of this phenomenon. Then I made the inference that this is the base of Trump's support.

This poll is not just referring to illegal immigrants. Like I said, there is a pretty strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States generally. Even a third of Democrats have a negative opinion with regard to the impact that immigrants have in the country.

For Example, Pew had a poll in February that showed 39% of Americans want less legal immigration - this was considered a record low. These are the Trump supporters.

Here is a poll showing that 43% of Republican Voters want to find and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. This pertains to illegal immigration but it also shows the support for Trump given that Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Kasich and all of the rest in the so-called "Republican Establishment" disagree with this approach.

So, you put a poll that shows that the they want to deport those who break the law and come here illegally like that is some radical view? Come on BS, you are better than that.

You did say that a "significant portion" of the republicans support Trump and Coulture and their views on stopping legal immigration. You changed the gist of your argument once questioned on it. You then put it out like I can't read (thanks, but if you want to compare IQs I am will to go down that route, but I prefer abstaining from ad hominem, you should too).

About your other pew poll, saying one wants less legal immigration is NOT the same as saying they want legal immigration stopped (which you insinuated).

I also don't find it a "radical" view to only accept some refugees and some of the "brightest" from other countries. Why do we have to accept EVERYONE? No other country, to my knowledge, does this.

Liberals like to state how much they love the European way of life and want to strive to be that way, do you realize that Italy, Switzerland, and Germany are 3 of the top 5 countries with the strictest immigration laws?

[QUOTE=BoatShoes;175931.....I cited people like Ann Coulter who want to stop all legal immigration as evidence of this phenomenon. Then I made the inference that this is the base of Trump's support.

This poll is not just referring to illegal immigrants. Like I said, there is a pretty strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States generally. Even a third of Democrats have a negative opinion with regard to the impact that immigrants have in the country.[/QUOTE]


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421485/ann-coulter-adios-america-immigration-book-review


May help with your understanding of Ann Coulter's actual opinion etc...etc...etc....Hard to disagree with one word she writes, when you have the full context of the matter.

Good luck.

jmog;1759321 wrote:So, you put a poll that shows that the they want to deport those who break the law and come here illegally like that is some radical view? Come on BS, you are better than that.

Man, this is really getting quite silly. Once again, I know reading is hard but this is what I wrote in post #660 in this thread:

I never said that being a against a pathway to citizenship in some form or another is "Radical" but it is the consensus position among so-called "Establishment Republicans" like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Lyndsey Graham, John McCain and George W. Bush, Rupert Murdoch, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Moreover, the poll does not suggest it is a "radical" view - your word not mine.

I'm sure you are way smarter than I am but you are either deliberately or negligently misreading what I have written. I did not change "the gist of my argument once questioned." You are the one acting like I said Most and then 25% of conservatives oppose legal immigration when I never wrote either of those. I used conservatives who do want a moratorium on legal immigration as examples.

You are way smarter than me. Act like it an read what I actually wrote.

This immigration debate is stupid. People can ignore federal laws....another country can literally ignore us and let it happen and we just ignore it.

Last time I checked..... I wasn't allowed to just ignore the law. People should be sent back. It's the damn law.

BoatShoes;1759369 wrote:Man, this is really getting quite silly. Once again, I know reading is hard but this is what I wrote in post #660 in this thread:



Moreover, the poll does not suggest it is a "radical" view - your word not mine.

I'm sure you are way smarter than I am but you are either deliberately or negligently misreading what I have written. I did not change "the gist of my argument once questioned." You are the one acting like I said Most and then 25% of conservatives oppose legal immigration when I never wrote either of those. I used conservatives who do want a moratorium on legal immigration as examples.

You are way smarter than me. Act like it an read what I actually wrote.

You keep moving the goal posts and then saying I can't read...interesting.

You said 25% originally, not me.

You originally meant to say that Trump/Coulture want to completely stop legal immigration and they had a significant conservative support for this. Now its just a "moratorium". You can play semantics all you want but you can't keep saying someone else can't read when you posted this...

Originally Posted by BoatShoes However, there is a significant portion within the conservative movement who are backing Trump e.g. Ann Coulter who are against more legal immigration; particularly from non-western countries.

If you want to play semantics so can I. Proper grammar would mean that the two bolded parts go together. That your sentence subject (the significant portion of the conservative movement) is described by the prepositional phrase (who are against more legal immigration). If you truly wanted ONLY the "against more legal immigration" to apply to Trump/Coulter then you needed a comma after Coulter I believe (although I am not an English major, but I was quite good at the grammar parts of it).

So, maybe I can read and you just can't properly express what you really mean?

You directly said there was a significant portion of conservatives that are against legal immigration and want it to stop. You later clarified that to "25%" rather than a majority. You then moved it to Trump/Coulture wanting legal immigration to stop and conservatives support them. Now it is that Trump/Coulture just want a moratorium on legal immigration and conservatives support them.

Care to move the goal posts again?