2020 Field

57Brave said:
This is the policy of the (R) candidate:

Beto O'Rourke
@BetoORourke
·
8h
This administration finally admitted what we’ve known all along:

They think the Statue of Liberty only applies to white people.

Cuccinelli:
That statue of liberty poem was about "people coming from Europe."

Josh Marshall
@joshtpm
2/ Understandably getting lost in the shuffle here is that Cucc is arguing that "wretched" didn't mean "wretched". He appears to be saying it referred to people who weren't part of the nobility or simply one of the lower classes/commoners

3/ in other words, the doors were open for Tom in addition to Lord Grantham.
Click to expand...

Trump supporters: "If you want to come here, do it the legal way!!!"

Also Trump supporters: "People with disabilities shouldn't be allowed in!!!!"
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
Trump supporters: "If you want to come here, do it the legal way!!!"

Also Trump supporters: "People with disabilities shouldn't be allowed in!!!!"
Click to expand...

So what are you saying? Should we allow people in that have to be supported by the rest of the nation?
 
Joe Walsh
@WalshFreedom
·
7h
There must be a Republican primary referendum on Trump.

Not a referendum on tariffs. Not on the debt & deficits.

Not on the wall.

It’s gotta be a referendum on Trump. A referendum on his unfitness.

His dishonesty. His disloyalty. His cruelty. His incompetence. His narcissism.
 
57Brave said:
Joe Walsh
@WalshFreedom
·
7h
There must be a Republican primary referendum on Trump.

Not a referendum on tariffs. Not on the debt & deficits.

Not on the wall.

It’s gotta be a referendum on Trump. A referendum on his unfitness.

His dishonesty. His disloyalty. His cruelty. His incompetence. His narcissism.
Click to expand...

You guys love this guy now. Do yiu know what he said about obama in the past?
 
thethe said:
So what are you saying? Should we allow people in that have to be supported by the rest of the nation?
Click to expand...

Yes. Anyone that goes through the legal process should absolutely be allowed in, and without stipulation.

For someone who thinks so highly about immigration laws, you should absolutely be in favor allowing people in without stipulations when they do it the legal way. But again, this is just another example of your hypocrisy.

It's honestly pretty despicable if you view disabled people as some sort of burden on the nation.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
Yes. Anyone that goes through the legal process should absolutely be allowed.

For someone who thinks so highly about immigration laws, you should absolutely be for this. But again, this is just another example of your hypocrisy.

It's honestly pretty despicable if you view disabled people as some sort of burden on the nation.
Click to expand...

the hardliners on immigration law are rather selective about which laws they want to see enforced

and they fail to note that the current administration's failure to adhere to the law is going to cost the taxpayer plenty once all the class action lawsuits work their way through the legal system
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
Yes. Anyone that goes through the legal process should absolutely be allowed in, and without stipulation.

For someone who thinks so highly about immigration laws, you should absolutely be in favor allowing people in without stipulations when they do it the legal way. But again, this is just another example of your hypocrisy.

It's honestly pretty despicable if you view disabled people as some sort of burden on the nation.
Click to expand...

Whats despicable is using disabled people as a shield against those that are able bodied who abuse the system.

How many disabled immigrants do you think there are?

Just another example of the left injecting feelings over facts.

Further, I have been on record numerous times that I believe in welfare systems for disabled individuals so naturally I wouldn't hold this against any immigrant going through the legal process.

But, back to the original question - You support allowing people into this country that can't support themselves? Lets disassociate the less than .01% of the entrants that would be disabled ok?
 
Last edited:
Individual-1 said:
Republicans, as cajun has said, are playing the game on a different field than the dems caude they constsntly change the rules to whenever it suits them.
Click to expand...

I've heard the inverse of this from Republicans several times in recent years. After Prop 8 and DoMA were overturned in court, after Harry Reid used the Nuclear Option for confirmations, after the Stupak coalition was smashed, after ACA thumbed its nose at the Hyde Amendment, after a multitude of executive actions by the Obama administration, after several executive actions by Trump were stayed by various courts.

I don't think either party can claim a monopoly on playing hardball.
 
thethe said:
Whats despicable is using disabled people as a shield against those that are able bodied who abuse the system.

How many disabled immigrants do you think there are?

Just another example of the left injecting feelings over facts.

Further, I have been on record numerous times that I believe in welfare systems for disabled individuals so naturally I wouldn't hold this against any immigrant going through the legal process.

But, back to the original question - You support allowing people into this country that can't support themselves? Lets disassociate the less than .01% of the entrants that would be disabled ok?
Click to expand...

.01 percent seems incredibly low. I'm sure you've done extensive research into these numbers....

And I've already answered that question. Yes, absolutely I am fine with allowing ANYONE in that does so legally. It's far more likely the people abusing the system are among the .01% than vice versa. Statistics show the vast majority of people (whether immigrants or natural born citizens) that are covered by Medicaid and other similar federally funded programs are primarily Children, people over 65, or people with disabilities. The Trump administration's proposal is who this would affect the most.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
.01 percent seems incredibly low. I'm sure you've done extensive research into these numbers....

And I've already answered that question. Yes, absolutely I am fine with allowing ANYONE in that does so legally. It's far more likely the people abusing the system are among the .01% than vice versa. Statistics show the vast majority of people (whether immigrants or natural born citizens) that are covered by Medicaid and other similar federally funded programs are primarily Children, people over 65, or people with disabilities. The Trump administration's proposal is who this would affect the most.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure your number are equally researched.

There is absolutely no reason why the American people should have to be burdened with those that can't support themselves from other countries when we have millions of AMERICAN CITIZEN HOMELESS people on the streets.

Lets fix up our house first.
 
Carp said:
.01 percent seems incredibly low. I'm sure you've done extensive research into these numbers....

And I've already answered that question. Yes, absolutely I am fine with allowing ANYONE in that does so legally. It's far more likely the people abusing the system are among the .01% than vice versa. Statistics show the vast majority of people (whether immigrants or natural born citizens) that are covered by Medicaid and other similar federally funded programs are primarily Children, people over 65, or people with disabilities. The Trump administration's proposal is who this would affect the most.
Click to expand...

Many immigrant families (including mine) will sponsor an elderly relative once they have citizenship. My grandmother was in her 80s when she came over here and did receive government benefits provided under the legal procedures in place. It was an exceptionally good deal for the rest of the country when considering the taxes (net of benefits) that her children, grandchildren and now great grandchildren have payed. We didn't bring her over with the idea of claiming these benefits. We did not even know she was eligible. But when we found out she was it made sense to avail ourselves of them. I like to think we have asked for little and contributed much during our time in this country.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
And I'm sure your number are equally researched.

There is absolutely no reason why the American people should have to be burdened with those that can't support themselves from other countries when we have millions of AMERICAN CITIZEN HOMELESS people on the streets.

Lets fix up our house first.
Click to expand...

My numbers actually are researched. That's why I stated "statistics show" in my post. Here's a link for reference

Again, calling people burdens (especially disabled people) is despicable. Many of these people are already a part of "our house", and such policies significantly affect their ability to live. Disabled people and the elderly are already among the poorest demographics, precisely because they can't easily find work. Now you want to take their benefits away from those already here and ban such people from entering the country.

And why? Because a small subset of people abuse the system? Brilliant.

Regarding the homeless problem, you do realize that Republicans fight tooth and nail to cut funding of such programs that aim to help the homeless issues in America don't you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top