Durbin has a history of lying about private meetings but you libs still believe him over three other witnesses. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...y_of_lying_about_private_meetings_431501.html
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump reportedly was bragging about it to colleagues saying it was going to play well with the base (he's right). Until it got a little out of hand internationally.Senator Cotton doubled down saying he didn’t hear it. He a liar too?
A. That website acted like a Stormy Daniels site.Durbin has a history of lying about private meetings but you libs still believe him over three other witnesses. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...y_of_lying_about_private_meetings_431501.html
A. That website acted like a Stormy Daniels site.
B. Lindsey Graham concurred with Durbin, correct?
Trump reportedly was bragging about it to colleagues saying it was going to play well with the base (he's right). Until it got a little out of hand internationally.
To think that Cory Booker has not had death threats is silly.
The same could be said about Obama, which is not justification for the truth they both spoke about shithol- countries, but I never read you crying about Obama's antics.I for one am sorry I have spent as much time on this as I have. So what if Trump is a lying, immature potty mouth? He's duly elected and it's not like he did anything during his campaign to make himself appear to be a paragon of truth, dignity and maturity.
The point misses that it's not about the 4 letter word. It's about his input into policies that are the worst of your grumpy uncle from Thanksgiving trying to institutionally limit people who don't look like him or who don't pray like him (as if that SOB prays).The same could be said about Obama, which is not justification for the truth they both spoke about shithol- countries, but I never read you crying about Obama's antics.
policies that are the worst of your grumpy uncle from Thanksgiving trying to institutionally limit people who don't look like him or who don't pray like him (as if that SOB prays).
institutionally limit people who don't look like him or who don't pray like him (as if that SOB prays).
Also, I have suprisingly heard from a lot of friends on the left (including some I have not heard from in general in awhile) that were very turned off by Booker’s tirade. I have not seen all that much positve feedback to it on social media either. I think Booker may have taken it a bridge too far.
No.Are you for open borders?
Yes.Do you think there should be limits on immigration numbers?
Yes, but that should be only part of the immigration system. See answer to next question for context.Do you believe that we should have quotas to bring people in specifically from certain countries?
Yes, qualified. I think we should have fairly generous immigration for people who will be productive pretty much from the get-go. If you can contribute to our society in a concrete way, we want you. But I also think we should be taking a significant number of the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free" that are described on the Statue of Liberty. That is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation, and I can't fathom abandoning it.Do you think merit should be considered?
Yes. I already discussed merit in response to the prior questions. Regarding ability to or willingness to assimilate, the United States has witnessed countless waves of immigration over the decades. In every one of those waves, the immigrants themselves rarely assimilated. They maintained their original culture, including language, diet, and dress. Their children straddled cultures, familiar with the old but also comfortable with the new. Their grandchildren were fully American, with little connection to their grandparents' homeland.Do you think we should give special consideration to people who come from specific countries, regardless of their merit or ability to or willingness to assimilate?
He was screaming at and being very hostile to a woman. If a Republican senator talked in that tone to a female witness, all we'd hear about is how sexist he was for approaching her that way and"mansplaining" at her.
And they would be wrong just as the RNC and their parrot media sites are for pushing the "mansplaining" narrative now.
I do not blame Booker, he is just getting some publicity for the next Presidential race.
Basically I'd just like to see us treat applications as individuals and not as ethnic groups.
He's got me convinced that he's passionate about this issue. With that said, he and others are most certainly looking to create soundbites that become viral.
Hypocrite. Where was he in 2008 when the Dems could have passed legislationI'm sure Booker was a political opportunist in that moment. He's got me convinced that he's passionate about this issue. With that said, he and others are most certainly looking to create soundbites that become viral.
Hypocrite. Where was he in 2008 when the Dems could have passed legislation
I agree with you, mostly. The issue I think is that we aren't nuanced enough to separate country from ethnic group. That NJ guy is pretty sharp. I could not improve on his writing one bit. I think the real issue is that our President thinks and, at times speaks, in terms of "Haiti, they all have aids"...."Nigeri, they're all in huts and send me weird emails"...."El Salvador....they're all Mexicans (despite the fact that the whole implosion of that country is part of some of our own meddling)"..."Norweigans, they're good, I met their Prime Minister this week..." He needs to let some of the moderate GOP folks shape his views on this and not the Stephen Miller's of the world.Without quoting all of NJ's responses, I think that most Americans who aren't running a political party and have a reasonable amount of common sense would agree with those principles. The variables to me seem to be the numbers, the actual commitment level to border security that will accompany them, and the level of importance that country of origin has in the selection process. (Did I leave some things out?)
I do think that it makes sense to focus at least to some degree on countries where there's some level of hardship. To the extent that the person comes in and is able to contribute without immediately going on assistance, has a skill set that is in demand in the current job market, and is from a culture that isn't essentially hostile to our current culture (yes... if someone believes Sharia law should be implemented at a community level, they don't need to be coming here), and to the extent that the person is not bringing over handfuls of relatives which exponentially increase the admitted number of immigrants, then I don't think most people have an issue.
Basically, it seems to me that we're just wrangling at this point over the words Trump chose, and not the actual policy (which we don't actually know at this point.) I just don't think there's that much objection to ending (or at least dramatically curtailing) chain migration and ensuring that any lottery program is not, in fact, a pure lottery, but does include merit factors. Basically I'd just like to see us treat applications as individuals and not as ethnic groups. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.
The other issue for me is what the rank and file democrats on the street want and what their leaders are trying to accomplish are - in my opinion - substantially different.
"El Salvador....they're all Mexicans
In every one of those waves, the immigrants themselves rarely assimilated. They maintained their original culture, including language, diet, and dress. Their children straddled cultures, familiar with the old but also comfortable with the new. Their grandchildren were fully American, with little connection to their grandparents' homeland.