If the US doesn't add barriers and take border security seriously, then it'll continue to be a problem as it has for decades now. I know you just view it as essentially slave labor, but there really are people who get hurt as a result of the unsecured border and if you don't care about the human suffering it really does cost the US billions of dollars every year. Estimates for the cost of illegal immigration range from between half of Greece's total GDP every year and all of Greece's GDP every year. It's literally the worst illegal immigration problem in the developed world. The point of my analogy is that you can't say that you support border security if you are against adding border barriers that have already proven to be effective just like you can't say that you support someone getting better from appendicitis if you are against surgery. It simply doesn't work that way.
Were you going to keep beating up on that straw man or did you want to re-join the conversation with me?
I wonder why wall street pays Hillary big bucks for her little speeches if she is such a huge socialist leftist - sure she probably wouldn't have given 1% the tax break they got from Trump, but she sure as hell wouldn't have risen their taxes. It's funny to hear you "TDS" spouting lot blame democrats for obstructionism when GOP basically assimilated the term into their political platform for the last 8 years and they have been hard at work reversing Obama policies for the last 2 years and couldn't care less about trying to work with the democratic minority from their position of power to solve your little illegal immigration "crisis". They were too busy giving Trump his tax break, so he could transfer his supposed billions to Jervanka & Co without having to pay 50% estate tax. US lost billions it needs for the border security just from supposed billionaire Trump not being taxed properly on estate transfer and allowing systemic nepotism to proliferate. It boggles the mind how people are looking for conspiracies when politicians' actions are as clear as day indicators of their priorities and are right in front of the electorate thanks to the American bastion of democracy, the free press..
Haha. Yes I totally invented it. I organized and paid the caravan to bust through the Mexican border and all the rest.
It's little because tax on trump alone could satisfy you in terms of money needed to fix it. can you read? (and I don't mean "between the lines" here. actual black on white words..)
Uhhhhh.....I quoted your words. It's hilarious when someone can't defend their position with reason and logic; gets rebutted on their position; and then goes "RRRRR, can't you read?" It happens a lot here. (Yes, I read good and clear writing quite well, thank you.) As for Hillary and Wall Street -- you're correct. And it is strange that Wall Street would cozy up to a socialist -- but only on the surface. Wall Street was very comfortable with Obama (another socialist) -- why wouldn't they be, when he bails them out? This whole topic is an interesting and complex one, and would probably need a longer analysis to fully explain. But, I think the short version is that Wall Street sees HRC as "status quo" -- and they prefer that over another candidate that is going to come in and "shake things up" -- they could have viewed Trump as too much of a wildcard. This is assuming, of course, that Wall Street is a monolith -- and very rarely is anything a monolith.
This probably explains a lot. Most of the press doesn't report the real news; or, if they do, their reporting is so biased that it is quite literally "fake news."
Did you read any of the linked articles? It would seem not. Let's take a look at just one example, and from Democratic leadership: "Walls are immoral". Ok, what do walls do? They form a barrier (ie, close a border). Yet that is immoral. The ONLY conclusion one can logically draw from that, then, is that open borders are in fact the 'moral' solution. Why would Pelosi say such a thing, if a great number of people in her caucus didn't believe that? I could list a bunch of others, many much more direct than this, but as you aren't reading the links...don't see the need to bother. I also never said that was my position. I said it was an easy argument to make...and given all the Dems making such statements...it is an easy argument to make. If you want them to stop advocating for open borders...direct that at those within the party doing so, not towards me for merely pointing it out. It's also an easy argument to make for political reasons...being for a wall is much easier to articulate than the various reasons for being against it (another reason why Nancy went with 'walls are immoral). It's an easier talking point...hence an easier argument to make. Throw in (as I mentioned initially) all the corroborating statements many Dems have made, AND that they were all for walls when Obama proposed them...it's conclusive that it is indeed an easy argument to make.
Ahh, but it absolutely IS true. Not all...but many. Definitely enough to cause Pelosi and others problems.
