(11-01-2018 02:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

Using a duplicitous claim of asylum seems copacetic you. Got it.

What other forms of lying do you condone and wish to have happen to obtain a result you want?

By the way, they are not 'showing up at ports of entry' mind you. I guess the fact that they dont present themselves to La Migra at the checkpoint and make this claim, and only make this claim after they have been nabbed doing the 40 meter Rio Regatta means nothing to you. Again, very illuminating.

I am glad to know that every singe point along the continuous border is now a 'port of entry' to you. Very unique perspective. Another example in the annals of Lad-definition?

I haven't seen any indications that these carvans, or any others, have attempted mass crossings as you suggest. Just that they are attempting to make it to ports of entry to claim asylum. I never once stated that every single point along the border was a port of entry - point out where I did that. Your continued insistence to put words in my mouth is tiresome.

I see. The caravan are all headed to the Santa Fe street bridge in El Paso in your mind with valid visas, green cards, valid claims of asylum, or they are simply going to shop for the day in (what remains of) the Segundo Barrio (the shops that Beto and family havent bulldozed yet) and trek back to Honduras after that day. Quite the optimist, at the very least.

I guess the members of the caravan are not going to attempt a mass crossing. Kind of like they failed to do by smashing down the gate to Mexico. But in your mind they are out for some spring long distance hike for ***** and giggles, I guess ?

Common sense kind of friggin tells you what they want and will do. From the evidence from them crashing the gate into Mexico as well. By the way, since you fail to characterize the smashing of the gate into Mexico as not an '*indication* of attempting a mass crossing', how the **** *do* you characterize that? Im fairly interested to hear.

I find your characterization of me as 'sticking my head in the sand' kind of farcical with your 'well..... I see no evidence that they are trying to illegally enter the United States' on this, as well as your comment of 'no apparent evidence of them attempting mass crossing' (which they already have done, mind you, but you seemingly have either forgotten that or it didnt register with you when you typed that.)

Quote:But it's also not copacetic to me calling the caravans that explicitly state they're trying to gain entry through a lawful manner (asylum) as trying to enter illegally.

I guess all umpteen thousand have valid asylum claims, valid visas, or valid green cards in your book. Interesting.

As for 'putting words in your mouth' Lad, I am not doing so at all. I *am* showing that your 'words' are kind of missing the boat.

(11-01-2018 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...

Then if they have their home with the intention of illegally immigrating to the US....they are illegal immigrants.

That's like saying I am a college grad because I have enrolled with the intention of earning a degree.

Truth is, they are not immigrants of any sort until they have crossed the border. How they do that determines their legality.

and even crossing the border does not make them immigrants. Thousands of people cross the border either way daily to work or shop without being immigrants. When I went into mexico all those times was I an "immigrant"? I had employee who were mexican citizens and lived in Mexico. When they came to the office, were they immigrants? No. They had no intention or desire to live in the US or to be american citizens. Taxes, for one thing.

So they become illegal immigrants when they cross the border unlawfully with the intent to stay.

And they become legal immigrants when they cross the border lawfully with the intent to stay.

But until they cross the border with the intent to stay, they are just Guatemalans, Mexicans, whatever their birth nationality is.

(11-01-2018 02:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

I guess you surmise all the members of the caravan have valid visas. Got it. Say no more.

Huh, news to me that you need a visa to claim asylum.

Talking about legal means of entering the US, Lad. You are correct that the members of the caravan are not yet illegal immigrants to the United States. They are in Mexico. They crashed the gate en masse. They have refused entreaties to stop and stay in Mexico and not be prosecuted.

My best uninformed guess is that their intent is to enter the United States illegally. And I include lying about asylum status in that category.

Somehow by your statements you dont think the mass of personage is not headed north, do not intend to enter the United States legally, and seems to a person to be capable entering the United States as a legal visitor of some sort. I am making a snarky as hell comment about your assumptions.

(11-01-2018 03:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...

Then if they have their home with the intention of illegally immigrating to the US....they are illegal immigrants.

That's like saying I am a college grad because I have enrolled with the intention of earning a degree.

Truth is, they are not immigrants of any sort until they have crossed the border. How they do that determines their legality.

and even crossing the border does not make them immigrants. Thousands of people cross the border either way daily to work or shop without being immigrants. When I went into mexico all those times was I an "immigrant"? I had employee who were mexican citizens and lived in Mexico. When they came to the office, were they immigrants? No. They had no intention or desire to live in the US or to be american citizens. Taxes, for one thing.

So they become illegal immigrants when they cross the border unlawfully with the intent to stay.

And they become legal immigrants when they cross the border lawfully with the intent to stay.

But until they cross the border with the intent to stay, they are just Guatemalans, Mexicans, whatever their birth nationality is.

Lad has forgotten they already are illegal immigrants in Mexico with his steadfast defense of this. I am sure they will obey every stricture of US immigration law with far more respect than the gate crashing that they performed into Mexico a few days ago. I am sure of it because Lad has said so.

(11-01-2018 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 03:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...

Then if they have their home with the intention of illegally immigrating to the US....they are illegal immigrants.

That's like saying I am a college grad because I have enrolled with the intention of earning a degree.

Truth is, they are not immigrants of any sort until they have crossed the border. How they do that determines their legality.

and even crossing the border does not make them immigrants. Thousands of people cross the border either way daily to work or shop without being immigrants. When I went into mexico all those times was I an "immigrant"? I had employee who were mexican citizens and lived in Mexico. When they came to the office, were they immigrants? No. They had no intention or desire to live in the US or to be american citizens. Taxes, for one thing.

So they become illegal immigrants when they cross the border unlawfully with the intent to stay.

And they become legal immigrants when they cross the border lawfully with the intent to stay.

But until they cross the border with the intent to stay, they are just Guatemalans, Mexicans, whatever their birth nationality is.

Lad has forgotten they already are illegal immigrants in Mexico with his steadfast defense of this. I am sure they will obey every stricture of US immigration law with far more respect than the gate crashing that they performed into Mexico a few days ago. I am sure of it because Lad has said so.

I would be OK with this if they were all sent to California. Or next door to Lad.

(11-01-2018 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 03:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...

Then if they have their home with the intention of illegally immigrating to the US....they are illegal immigrants.

That's like saying I am a college grad because I have enrolled with the intention of earning a degree.

Truth is, they are not immigrants of any sort until they have crossed the border. How they do that determines their legality.

and even crossing the border does not make them immigrants. Thousands of people cross the border either way daily to work or shop without being immigrants. When I went into mexico all those times was I an "immigrant"? I had employee who were mexican citizens and lived in Mexico. When they came to the office, were they immigrants? No. They had no intention or desire to live in the US or to be american citizens. Taxes, for one thing.

So they become illegal immigrants when they cross the border unlawfully with the intent to stay.

And they become legal immigrants when they cross the border lawfully with the intent to stay.

But until they cross the border with the intent to stay, they are just Guatemalans, Mexicans, whatever their birth nationality is.

Lad has forgotten they already are illegal immigrants in Mexico with his steadfast defense of this. I am sure they will obey every stricture of US immigration law with far more respect than the gate crashing that they performed into Mexico a few days ago. I am sure of it because Lad has said so.

So glad you’re judging their actions prior to their arrival in the US. Haven’t you been a big proponent of the presumption of innocence on this board?

(11-02-2018 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 03:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...

Then if they have their home with the intention of illegally immigrating to the US....they are illegal immigrants.

That's like saying I am a college grad because I have enrolled with the intention of earning a degree.

Truth is, they are not immigrants of any sort until they have crossed the border. How they do that determines their legality.

and even crossing the border does not make them immigrants. Thousands of people cross the border either way daily to work or shop without being immigrants. When I went into mexico all those times was I an "immigrant"? I had employee who were mexican citizens and lived in Mexico. When they came to the office, were they immigrants? No. They had no intention or desire to live in the US or to be american citizens. Taxes, for one thing.

So they become illegal immigrants when they cross the border unlawfully with the intent to stay.

And they become legal immigrants when they cross the border lawfully with the intent to stay.

But until they cross the border with the intent to stay, they are just Guatemalans, Mexicans, whatever their birth nationality is.

Lad has forgotten they already are illegal immigrants in Mexico with his steadfast defense of this. I am sure they will obey every stricture of US immigration law with far more respect than the gate crashing that they performed into Mexico a few days ago. I am sure of it because Lad has said so.

So glad you’re judging their actions prior to their arrival in the US.

I have to give you kudos. I cant tell if you are serious or this is just a really good serious troll about this.

Okay..... I'll bite.

Quote:Haven’t you been a big proponent of the presumption of innocence on this board?

I guess you missed the gate crash into Mexico. And the mountain of reporting from the caravan and about the caravan.

That kind of meets the burden for me. And apparently for 99.9 per cent of the US population that can put their pants on all by their lonesome.

If this is a troll, undoubtedly one of the best I have seen in a long, long, long time. Probably, for its scale, better than the 4chan troll of Shia LeBeouf.

Either way, best gaslight I have seen in years.

Cruz wins by roughly 2 1/2 percent with both candidates getting over 4 million votes, which is remarkable for a midterm election. I'm pretty sure O'Rourke got well more votes than Cornyn did in 2014 when he won his Senate race.

I bet you O'Rourke ends up running for another significant race in 2020 - perhaps not in Texas though

I saw a rather stunning note that said Beto carried Texas by 3 percentage points among voters who were born in Texas. But Cruz carried Texas by 15 percentage points among voters who moved to Texas (my category). I would imagine many folks here are in that first category.

(11-08-2018 06:50 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I saw a rather stunning note that said Beto carried Texas by 3 percentage points among voters who were born in Texas. But Cruz carried Texas by 15 percentage points among voters who moved to Texas (my category). I would imagine many folks here are in that first category.

I wonder what the numbers are for people who moved here from Mexico?

I would have thought those numbers would have been reversed, given the number of transplants and retirees I know from Michigan and California who still support the left.

(11-08-2018 06:50 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I saw a rather stunning note that said Beto carried Texas by 3 percentage points among voters who were born in Texas. But Cruz carried Texas by 15 percentage points among voters who moved to Texas (my category). I would imagine many folks here are in that first category.

What was the survey size?

CNN Exit Poll - 2431 respondents.

The other questions and answers seem pretty accurate. How many folks here were born in Texas? I wasn't (but voted for Beto obviously but no one polled me after my vote - go figure).

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-p...xas/senate

Born outside of TX, voted for Lyin’ Ted.

(11-08-2018 09:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  CNN Exit Poll - 2431 respondents.

The other questions and answers seem pretty accurate. How many folks here were born in Texas? I wasn't (but voted for Beto obviously but no one polled me after my vote - go figure).

https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-p...xas/senate

Born in Texas - barely. Two miles north of the Rio Grande. Mom was in Mexico the day before.

Raised in Texas. Other than a short stint living/working in Mexico, always lived in Texas.

I voted for Cruz, obviously, as the lesser evil.

Never been polled in any year, in any way.

Born outside Texas. Voted for Cruz, like Tanq, as the lesser of two evils.

Not fond of Cruz, or Trump, for that matter, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is one where I would love to have voted libertarian, but decided I just couldn't take that chance.

I still cannot believe how bad a campaign Cruz ran. I mean, it was Claytie Williams bad. Robert voted with Pelosi 90+% of the time, but you wouldn't know it from Cruz adverts. And a week before Election Day, I had people tell me that they were voting for Robert because he was the Hispanic in the race.

(11-08-2018 11:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And a week before Election Day, I had people tell me that they were voting for Robert because he was the Hispanic in the race.

A. So the nickname worked.

B. I don't think anybody should vote for anybody merely because of their race, ethnicity, sex, age, religion, place of birth, height, weight, minority status, majority status, anything other than their stances on the issues. However, voting for somebody on these bases seems to be the bedrock of the Democrat Party.

O'Rourke got 62 percent of the Latino male vote and 66 percent of the Latino female vote according to this exit poll. I'm not sure that means his 'name' worked. How does that compare to past Texas votes?

As for point #2 of your post, I guess you're saying the 72 percent of white men who voted for Cruz are doing it based on issues, but all the other races, sexes, etc., who are voting for O'Rourke over Cruz are basing their votes on the fact they're Democrats? Gotcha.

(11-09-2018 06:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  As for point #2 of your post, I guess you're saying the 72 percent of white men who voted for Cruz are doing it based on issues, but all the other races, sexes, etc., who are voting for O'Rourke over Cruz are basing their votes on the fact they're Democrats? Gotcha.

Nobody voted for either one based on the issues, because neither one brought the issues into the race.

I can't blame O'Rourke. If I were running on his 90+% with Pelosi congressional voting record in Texas, I'd run adverts showing selfies of my toothy grin from all 254 counties in Texas, and avoid issues like the plague.

Of course, if I were running against him, I'd make that voting record an issue. I tough Cruz committed political malpractice almost on the Claytie Willians scale. In the end it did not hurt him. But I do think Robert was able to give some political tailwind to democrats in down ballot races.

Democrats make races about personalities, because they win identity politics. Republicans do better on issues. The one time republicans made it strictly about issues--and stayed on message--was 1994, and that was their biggest midterm victory ever. Then they promptly forgot how to stay on message.

As long as Trump is around, republicans are going to have a hard time making it about issues, because he is all about identity politics. I've said it before, but I pretty much like is first year. I haven't liked his second year nearly as much, primarily because I don't like where he has gone on the wall and tariffs. Aside from appointing judges, I'm not sure that Trump hasn't about outlived his usefulness to republicans. If social conservatives think control of the courts is so important to punt other things, then so be it. I don't.

I think republicans need to do what Newt did in 1994. Look at the issues of the day, come up with solutions that a majority of Americans support, and run on those solutions. Here's the way I would go:
1. Health care - democrats say they ran on this and won, which is remarkable because Obamacare is a terrible system, combining the worst aspect of our old system (tying health insurance to employment) with the worst aspect of single-payer/provider (replacing the doctor-patient relationship with bureaucratic edicts); republicans just need to find something better; push Bismarck, and they have all the ready-made arguments about ow it works better than single-payer or single-provider.
2. Welfare - I think it's time for a universal basic income; do that at the federal level and let the states take over any parts of the old system that they want to keep, with the money that they save when Medicare becomes redundant.
3. Taxes - Europe manages both to pay for a more comprehensive welfare system and to provide a more tax-efficient climate for investment by getting around 30% of its tax revenues from consumption taxes; a national VAT/GST also provides significant trade protection.
4. Immigration - we need more legal immigration, secure borders, and a method for dealing with illegal immigrants already here and established; I don't think the wall is worth the money, at least not a complete wall, so spend the money on more cost-effective measures; guest worker status with no path to citizenship for the illegals already established here, a merit-based system going forward, and an end to anchor babies when parents are not here legally.
5. Foreign Policy - treat your friends better than you treat your enemies.
6. Defense - never fight a war that you don't intend to win.
7. Marijuana - legalize or decriminalize.

Okay, you may say that republicans would never run on that. Well, democrats sure as hell would never run on it.

(11-09-2018 06:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  O'Rourke got 62 percent of the Latino male vote and 66 percent of the Latino female vote according to this exit poll. I'm not sure that means his 'name' worked. How does that compare to past Texas votes?

As for point #2 of your post, I guess you're saying the 72 percent of white men who voted for Cruz are doing it based on issues, but all the other races, sexes, etc., who are voting for O'Rourke over Cruz are basing their votes on the fact they're Democrats? Gotcha.

No sir. None of that is even remotely what I am/was saying.

Owl69 said he ran into some people who were voting for beto because he was the Hispanic. My point A is that at least some people voted for beto thinking he was (the? A?) Hispanic. I suspect that is one reason why the nickname was prominently featured,, to gain a few votes in that way. I cannot prove my suspicion. I can have it, though. So if my suspicion is right, it garnered beto at least a few votes, and if so, then it worked to that extent. I have no idea what percentage voted for him because they thought he was Hispanic, because the exit poll did not have the questions "did you cast your vote because the candidate was hispanic" and "If so, which candidate did you vote for?" But if it gained him ANY votes or support, then IMO it worked. If you have any data showing that nobody voted for him because they thought he was Hispanic, please give us a link.

There are those who will vote for a candidate based on his/her race, ethnicity, gender, etc, and I think Cruz got very few of those votes. Most of the people who let superficial things like being a black female or a gay man influence their vote are on the left, not the right. In this particular race, there was little to choose from in identity politics. Both male, neither black, both about the same age.

Bur what I SAID was that I don"t think anybody SHOULD vote on the basis of these demographic traits, that everybody SHOULD vote on issues. Do you disagree? If so, state your differences with that statement.

I am not interested in electing officials who will take a pretty picture reflecting the racial/sexual make up of the US. I am interested in electing officials who will govern and legislate in ways I prefer. I don't give a damn about race or gender. All I hear from the left is race and gender, or other demographic things like how many Muslim women they elected.

(11-08-2018 11:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And a week before Election Day, I had people tell me that they were voting for Robert because he was the Hispanic in the race.

That's hilarious, in a depressing sort of way.