4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Dude go read the last page or so. It wasnt me who was "assuming" what he said.  I assumed the woman misquoted/misframed his argument and I was right.   

She couldve included a link to the video in her tweet but didnt.  A dead giveaway that she was making ish up.

 

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

Another disingenuous post from the king of disingenuousness.  

Of course he is against illegal immigration as we all should be

The topic of discussion was that he is also advocating an end to LEGAL immigration and bragged about ruining the lives of refugees.  Shes framing it as some great evil that only she and her ilk can save us from.  Classic.

Of course we just have to take her word for it based on a random screen shot and her paraphrasing. Im glad you guys are cool with blindly accepting some rando's biased summarization of what was likely an hours-long discussion, just to make her divisive and self-gratifying point.  

Gonna go ahead and assume thats not even close to what he said, and that shes a lying POS.  Prove me wrong.

this level of stupidity should be illegal

1 minute ago, Mike31mt said:

But I can read and follow a conversation, so....

Yeah? you sure about that? 

6 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Dude go read the last page or so. It wasnt me who was "assuming" what he said.  I assumed the woman misquoted/misframed his argument and I was right.   

She couldve included a link to the video in her tweet but didnt.  A dead giveaway that she was making ish up.

If you weren't assuming then what video did you watch that shows Stephen Miller saying he wanted restrict legal immigration to merit based entry and not pause it completely?

I haven't seen that part of the video yet and I'm pretty sure I watched the whole thing. Can you give me the timestamp so I can see that part for myself?

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

this level of stupidity should be illegal

Yeah? you sure about that? 

You literally just proved my point.  

1.  Woman tweets paraphrasing Miller without any link or source

2. I say that Im assuming she lies and misquoted him

 

These semantical arguments are boring.  They may entertain you and the other simpletons in here but theyre worth nothing to me.  Just classic WGB injecting himself into a conversation and re-directing it into the toilet

6 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

You literally just proved my point.  

1.  Woman tweets paraphrasing Miller without any link or source

2. I say that Im assuming she lies and misquoted him

 

These semantical arguments are boring.  They may entertain you and the other simpletons in here but theyre worth nothing to me.  Just classic WGB injecting himself into a conversation and re-directing it into the toilet

So which one is it? Did she paraphrase or quote? Because those are two entirely different things. The inconsistency and contradiction make your posts very difficult to follow.

3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

You literally just proved my point.  

1.  Woman tweets paraphrasing Miller without any link or source

2. I say that Im assuming she lies and misquoted him

 

These semantical arguments are boring.  They may entertain you and the other simpletons in here but theyre worth nothing to me.  Just classic WGB injecting himself into a conversation and re-directing it into the toilet

It wasnt me who was "assuming" what he said.

...

Gonna go ahead and assume thats not even close to what he said

5 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

So which one is it? Did she paraphrase or quote? Because those are two entirely different things.

Only if you live in a world where people are educated and words have meanings. Mike, on the other hand, lives in West Virginia.

I also don't get the side talk and dancing around the advocation of the philosophy that the browns need to be stopped from entering the country. Like... the one lasting change that Trump made to the Republican party is that it's now OK to say that part out loud and not be ostracized by your peers. There's no need to try and keep that kind of talk at arms length anymore.

Stephen Miller obviously feels entirely comfortable saying it out loud and on video. Shouldn't you?

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

So which one is it? Did she paraphrase or quote? Because those are two entirely different things. The inconsistency and contradiction make your posts very difficult to follow.

Lol jesus the semantics

I dont know, I can't recall if she included quotation marks in her stupid tweet.

The better question is who the F cares when you know exactly what my point is??

The world without education.

1 hour ago, Mike31mt said:

When Trump took office it was under 5%   And how about during Trumps term?    It was at 3.5% pre-pandemic.  

It actually just ticked up again from the previous month, and does anyone believe we're in a period of stability right now??  

Its not time to increase immigration except for skilled labor.  Its amazing Im having this argument with now-former libertarians

Self own?  Its hilarious you think so highly of yourself on here and you cant even track a conversation for more than 5 min

Most libertarians are for completely open borders, and I'm far from for that. It was 3.7 before Covid

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

A lot of people are choosing not to work because of the welfare so there's that. If you want to make the argument that we need to end that, I'll buy that. However we shouldn't be in the business of protecting the jobs of poor unskilled slobs just because they were born here. Cheap labor benefits everyone except said poor unskilled slobs and I couldn't care less about catering to them. 

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

I also don't get the side talk and dancing around the advocation of the philosophy that the browns need to be stopped from entering the country. Like... the one lasting change that Trump made to the Republican party is that it's now OK to say that part out loud and not be ostracized by your peers. There's no need to try and keep that kind of talk at arms length anymore.

Stephen Miller obviously feels entirely comfortable saying it out loud and on video. Shouldn't you?

Demonizing others for their perfectly legitimate opinions about uncontrolled immigration will lose Dems elections

Not everything is racist.  Sometimes its just common sense that illegal immigration is bad and legal immigration under certain circumstances is also bad

The one lasting change Obama made to the Democrat Party is that everyone who disagrees with you is racist

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Most libertarians are for completely open borders, and I'm far from for that. It was 3.7 before Covid

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

A lot of people are choosing not to work because of the welfare so there's that. If you want to make the argument that we need to end that, I'll buy that. However we shouldn't be in the business of protecting the jobs of poor unskilled slobs just because they were born here. Cheap labor benefits everyone except said poor unskilled slobs and I couldn't care less about catering to them. 

I dont think thats true.  I know there are some, but I dont think "most".  Its a theoretical position that obviously doesnt work in the real world.

I dont consider limiting unskilled labor "protecting poor unskilled slobs".  I look at it as importing more unskilled slobs that just so happen to live in an even ish-ier country.

I agree we shouldnt cater to unskilled slobs, but I dont want to double their numbers.  Its not like if we import unskilled labor then the current "slobs" disappear.   I think that would lead to more entitlements, more welfare, less education, more social strife

 

2 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

I also don't get the side talk and dancing around the advocation of the philosophy that the browns need to be stopped from entering the country. Like... the one lasting change that Trump made to the Republican party is that it's now OK to say that part out loud and not be ostracized by your peers. There's no need to try and keep that kind of talk at arms length anymore.

Stephen Miller obviously feels entirely comfortable saying it out loud and on video. Shouldn't you?

What if the same people that want to stop illegal immigration and greatly reduce legal immigration from brown countries also want to stop it from European countries? Racism still?

5 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Are you seriously this naive? Do you not know who Stephen Miller is at all?

If you see a tweet that says Trump called a political opponent a juvenile name, are you likewise this incredulous until you see video evidence? 

Seriously, it's like I'm arguing with a child.

 

This guy is such a piece of crap. HE needs to be deported. 

Well we know who is against bipartisanship. 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-blasts-1-trillion-bipartisan-160047439.html
Trump blasts $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package as 'a disgrace' before key vote, criticizes McConnell's leadership

GOP megadonors flock to Tim Scott, building 2024 buzz

Oracle's Larry Ellison is the biggest name in a group of major Republican donors sending big money to South Carolina's Scott.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/09/tim-scott-mega-millions-fundraising-502764

 

1 hour ago, DaEagles4Life said:

GOP megadonors flock to Tim Scott, building 2024 buzz

Oracle's Larry Ellison is the biggest name in a group of major Republican donors sending big money to South Carolina's Scott.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/09/tim-scott-mega-millions-fundraising-502764

 

I don't have a feel for Scott. I don't think he ever went full MAGA-****. But I can't say I know him really well.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't have a feel for Scott. I don't think he ever went full MAGA-****. But I can't say I know him really well.

I can tell you guys with 1000000000% certainty that whoever the pick is for the GOP, it won't be somebody rational like Tim Scott or Haley.

 

Right now the field has to look something like:

1.  Trump

2.  Trump Jr.

3.  Tucker Carslon

4.  Yosemite Sam

5.  desantis.

44 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

I can tell you guys with 1000000000% certainty that whoever the pick is for the GOP, it won't be somebody rational like Tim Scott or Haley.

 

Right now the field has to look something like:

1.  Trump

2.  Trump Jr.

3.  Tucker Carslon

4.  Yosemite Sam

5.  desantis.

Aubry Huff probably has a better chance of getting a nomination

I'd vote for Yosemite Sam.

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

I can tell you guys with 1000000000% certainty that whoever the pick is for the GOP, it won't be somebody rational like Tim Scott or Haley.

 

Right now the field has to look something like:

1.  Trump

2.  Trump Jr.

3.  Tucker Carslon

4.  Yosemite Sam

5.  desantis.

I’d switch Jr and Carlson. It’s either Trump or if Trump’s dead it’s a three man race between Tucker, Kyle Rittenhouse and one of the Jan 6 terrorists.  

They keep saying it…

Instead of appealing to voters, they want to abandon democracy. 

2 minutes ago, toolg said:

They keep saying it…

Instead of appealing to voters, they want to abandon democracy. 

Yeah we’re basically discussing the same topic in the Tucker Carlson thread