#Resistance?

[HomerThompson]

When in doubt Jack, project! Obfuscate and call them a liar, huh? What a slimeball.

His assertions are correct.

 

[Fawlty]

You claimed that Clinton supports open borders (referring to immigration). That was a lie. You also claimed that she supported a border wall in 2016, which contradicts your other claim and was also a lie.

This is how it becomes untenable for politicians to make accurate, nuanced statements. There are always vultures circling, looking for anything they can misrepresent.

 

[Greoric]

His assertions are correct.

That Anung is a liar? I don't think so.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You claimed that Clinton supports open borders (referring to immigration).That was a lie.

Nice attempt at spin. How do you figure?

You also claimed that she supported a border wall in 2016, which contradicts your other claim and was also a lie.

More spin.

This quote is from 2016:
"You want a wall then," Ramos interjected.

"No, we’ve --" she said.

"You said that."

"Well, I voted for border security and some of it was a fence," Clinton said. "I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall."
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trump-right-hillary-clinton-once-wanted-wal/

She doesn't deny voting for it and she doesn't retract support for it.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is how it becomes untenable for politicians to make accurate, nuanced statements. There are always vultures circling, looking for anything they can misrepresent.

How are her words being misrepresented here?

 

[HomerThompson]

That Anung is a liar? I don't think so.

He's lying in this thread right now. He also lied about my views in the Media thread I made, despite me repeatedly stating my position. It's called being disingenuous in a discussion. I'm sure you're quite familiar with it.

@Anung Un Rama

 

[Greoric]

This is how it becomes untenable for politicians to make accurate, nuanced statements. There are always vultures circling, looking for anything they can misrepresent.

I actually agree with this, though its certainly not limited to just politicians. You see it on here too, despite all communication being in text nonetheless.

His assertions are correct.

Do you guys have a panic button or something, when one of you gets caught looking like an ass?

 

[Greoric]

He's lying in this thread right now. He also lied about my views in the Media thread I made, despite me repeatedly stating my position. It's called being disingenuous in a discussion. I'm sure you're quite familiar with it.

@Anung Un Rama

Yeah, no idea on that, but from my disagreements with him, disingenuousess has never been an issue. Actually, despite your gif shit-posting neither have you from what I recall. Jack is a completely different animal. I throw around psychopath casually on here, but there's something not right with the guy. His dishonesty is pathological.

If you weren't as ideologically aligned with him, it would be blatant.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

He's lying in this thread right now. He also lied about my views in the Media thread I made, despite me repeatedly stating my position. It's called being disingenuous in a discussion. I'm sure you're quite familiar with it.

@Anung Un Rama

Well, now this is a downright lie.

I didn't lie about your view in your shitty media thread. I actually quoted your position and you subsequently changed it.
Are you denying that sequence of events?

And I'm not lying in this thread either. I've used 2 direct quotes of Hillary Clinton to support the facts that:
1. She supports open borders
2. She supported building a barrier along the Mexican border and as recently as 2016 in on the record as not denying it, or, as she usually does when its politically expedient, reversing direction on her decision.

 

[aitkenmike]

Well, now this is a downright lie.

I didn't lie about your view in your shitty media thread. I actually quoted your position and you subsequently changed it.
Are you denying that sequence of events?

And I'm not lying in this thread either. I've used 2 direct quotes of Hillary Clinton to support the facts that:
1. She supports open borders
2. She supported building a barrier along the Mexican border and as recently as 2016 in on the record as not denying it, or, as she usually does when its politically expedient, reversing direction on her decision.

a) Do you think supporting some sort of fencing in certain areas = building a multi billion dollar wall across the entire border?

b) Do you think that your claim that she wants both a wall, and open borders is in any way disingenuous?

c) Who gives a fuck what Hillary says, She lost, get over it.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Nice attempt at spin. How do you figure?



More spin.

This quote is from 2016:
"You want a wall then," Ramos interjected.

"No, we’ve --" she said.

"You said that."

"Well, I voted for border security and some of it was a fence," Clinton said. "I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall."
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-trump-right-hillary-clinton-once-wanted-wal/

She doesn't deny voting for it and she doesn't retract support for it.

Seems clear to me after reading everything Clinton said on the subjects that she wants:

a) To build a wence.
b) Clopen borders.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I don't care

You do not care about the character (or lack thereof) of the people you admire?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

a) Do you think supporting some sort of fencing in certain areas = building a multi billion dollar wall across the entire border?

b) Do you think that your claim that she wants both a wall, and open borders is in any way disingenuous?

c) Who gives a fuck what Hillary says, She lost, get over it.

I'll answer in reverse if you don't mind.

c) the thread is about the hypocrisy of the DNC and Clinton was brought up before I even entered the thread. I responded to a Clinton supporter who was discussing Clinton.

b) First off, to be clear, these aren't my claims, they are Hillary Clinton's. Those are her words I've posted. If you don't believe the two positions are compatible, then your concerns of insincerity should be directed at Hillary Clinton.

Now, I believe they're compatible, and that you, and a few others, are confused as to what the concept of open borders actually entails.
For one, it isn't limited to the physical borders that nations share (ie Mexico/ USA, USA/ Canada). The open border concept includes citizens of countries we don't share borders with like Haitians, Yemenis, Nigerians, Burmese, etc.

c) Arguing semantics like fence vs. wall is sillly, don't you think? The concept is an enhanced barrier and both support it.

 

[aitkenmike]

I'll answer in reverse if you don't mind.

c) Arguing semantics like fence vs. wall is sillly, don't you think? The concept is an enhanced barrier and both support it.

Not really no. A less expensive fence where it is a sensible addition to border security is completely logical. A massively expensive wall across the entire border is not. It's not like this is a really tiny nuanced detail, the two positions are totally different. Your inability to grasp this is why you are seeing contradiction that really isn't there. You can be for enhanced border security AND be against Trump's wall at the same time.

Fair enough on Clinton being brought up earlier - you are completely right. It was more a general cry of why is Hillary important right now -' but Hillary...' posts everywhere get tiresome.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not really no. A less expensive fence where it is a sensible addition to border security is completely logical. A massively expensive wall across the entire border is not. It's not like this is a really tiny nuanced detail, the two positions are totally different. Your inability to grasp this is why you are seeing contradiction that really isn't there. You can be for enhanced border security AND be against Trump's wall at the same time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, your only issue with the wall is the price?

Fair enough on Clinton being brought up earlier - you are completely right. It was more a general cry of why is Hillary important right now -' but Hillary...' posts everywhere get tiresome.

Okay. How about the open borders comment?

 

[RockstarChris]

resistance is futile....im bing watching star trek and i think i am in a time vortex of reality and sub reality.....eh im just gonna play The Eve of Destruction on my guitar.

 

[aitkenmike]

Correct me if I'm wrong, your only issue with the wall is the price?


Okay. How about the open borders comment?

"where it is a sensible addition to border security"

I don't know the full context behind the open borders quotes, but I would note, open borders in relation to trade can be, but isn't necessarily the same thing as open borders in the context of immigration. Otherwise, from the brief read I had, it also seemed like a big picture utopian dream sort of statement than a coherent policy position. I admit I am a bit straw clutchy here, but it's because I haven't looked into it this comment much, and to be honest, really can't be bothered as Hillary's 2016 statements really just aren't that relevant.

 

[Roaming East]

He looks like Rachel Maddow's final form.

he doesnt look like he'd have a penis big enough for that.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

"where it is a sensible addition to border security"

So if a wall were only built where it was a sensible addition to border security you would support it?

I don't know the full context behind the open borders quotes, but I would note, open borders in relation to trade can be, but isn't necessarily the same thing as open borders in the context of immigration. Otherwise, from the brief read I had, it also seemed like a big picture utopian dream sort of statement than a coherent policy position. I admit I am a bit straw clutchy here, but it's because I haven't looked into it this comment much, and to be honest, really can't be bothered as Hillary's 2016 statements really just aren't that relevant.

Pro-tip: Maybe in the future don't suggest somebody is being disingenuous about a subject mater you know nothing about.
Another pro-tip is to avoid involving yourself in conversations you can't be bothered with. I do it all the time (avoiding them) and its great.
One more, cuz I'm generous: 2 years ago isn't ancient history. Its actually very relevant. I would suggest you follow important candidates; what they say and what they do; because they will lie about it if when nobody is paying attention.

 

[aitkenmike]

I accused you of being disingenuous because you clearly were. Her policy position can't both be for open borders and a wall, and you are disingenuous for suggesting so. I'm not going to read 4 years worth of statements because you have cherry picked one or two bits out of a couple of emails and speeches to disprove something so obviously flawed.