Trump says Clinton could let 650 million new immigrants into U.S.

1. So now you want a list of politicians in the US that favored gay marriage 20 years ago? Ok.

When I present that list and show that it isn't "virtually no", will you admit your argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

2. France and Germany are two seperate countries the same way Virginia and New York were two seperate countries in 1781.

3. Where is your evidence to support this? It clearly won't be based on her own statements.

4. In America, the vast majority of the population favors birthright citizenship, not just "the Left". Your xenophobic ilk are a minority.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that's not what she said.

 

Yes it is, here are her words, exactly.

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,”

 

Often misquoted intentionally or taken out of context.

The entire sentence, for the factually inclined.

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

She was clearly, very clearly, so clearly, talking about energy, not o immigration.

The perpetuation of the lie that she was talking about immigration seems to be a but of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spewed by Trump.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/bus...ve-open-trade-and-open-borders-on-9985508.php

 

Democracy fails when it's co-opted, yes. We have a decent system of checks and balances, but it didn't cover political parties and their capacity to virtually take over national politics. Clearly it's getting to be high time for some changes to be made to correct this issue. We really should have more choices on election day. It wasn't meant to be this way, with usually just two parties being 'electable' to public offices every two years and the entire nation subject to their power and control. There is no escaping either party right now; no one can put together a coalition to defeat them. Not when they're so well entrenched and it's a winner-take-all system which doesn't leave room for any outsiders. It might be different if it weren't for the spoiler mentality that arises from the current situation, where voters could truly vote their conscience rather than feel compelled time and again to compromise and vote for one of the two ruling parties in order to vote against the other one.

 

That was my point all along, right there in post # 38. I'm not responsible for you changing the arguments I make to better suit your strawman attempts.

Since we both know that "list" is going to be extremely small, comprised of politicians of no real significance, and not supported highly on the issue, I'd say it's not really worth it, but feel free to produce said "list" and pretend it was a widely accepted position 20 years ago.

No, they are separate countries then, just like they are separate countries now. US states are not separate countries. You're comparing two very different things for some silly reason.

Sure it would, she's admitted to wanting open borders.

.

The vast majority want less immigration, as well.

Socialists are in the minority as well, doesn't stop you from supporting socialism.

 

Na, they will just continue to pretend to be royals rather than politicians. That's what they do anyways.

 

And that dream would require the multi-lateral cooperation with the rest of the hemisphere, would it not?

 

True enough, however it's difficult to say whether the fault lies with the parties which took over national politics or with the voters who are not willing to make an effort to vote their conscience.

As usual, I would say that the answer is: both.

 

Yeah, it's not easy to pin down blame in a situation like this - everyone contributes a little bit and it happens pretty much naturally within the framework of the rules we're all subject to.