Posted on 12/21/2015 11:50:15 AM PST by Isara
Add to that Trump's record on legalization amnesty which isn't good.
Though, amusingly, you've quoted articles from literally a day later where he does exactly that. If you want to call it a flip flop, it's the type of flip flop that is straight into the right direction, unlike Cruz, who for 6 months was trying to have it both ways :).
Sessions works in engineering & technical field? I spent my lifetime working in that field. I will take my opinion over a life long politician.
Boasting about your IQ and grades on a webpage like this is a recipe for a quick schooling. FYI.
What a superb post! Must read by all intelligent people.
In response to another poster (apparently still an undergraduate) boasting about her superiority. I'll school the wretches as I ordinarily do :)
Yes, as I've pointed out, is was about July 30th that Trump finally said that all illegals must go...But..but..he also said that he would expedite the good ones back. And that has been his position since.
It was six days later, and what is amusing is that somebody must have told him that a legalization amnesty without deportations isn't cool.
You didn't read my post. Go back and address what I said.
1. Those weren't debates, they were discussions.
2. After repeated attempts to educate you on Senate procedures and the conduct of committees within the Senate, you stopped answering questions and or shifted to different topics.
3. I hope law school instills better reasoning skills. You might consider interning at a Senator's office. Always best to see how laws are actually made before diving into the legal profession.
Which were, of course, entirely irrelevant, since Cruz supported legalization after the gang of eight fight was over. Hence why, assuming you're telling the truth, I began ignoring your posts :)
I am overjoyed to finally see a candidate appear on the scene who is unabashedly America First! I was born and raised in a country where patriotism was a big thing. Coming to America in my teens, I kinda missed that no holds barred patriotism. I know Trump is not pure as wind driven snow, and I am not 100% in tune with him or for any other candidate for that matter.
But I am won over by the fearless display of patriotism by Trump. He is the only one who will stop us getting screwed by China and others. He is the only one who talks about deporting ALL illegals, first, and then allow those whom we want and need to come back legally. All others are relentlessly pushing the cheap labor express, legal & illegal (via path to legal status).
Re:”This is what happens to supporters of an unctuous, arrogant, bombastic man whose appeal rests solely on his ability to cater to the baser emotions of the simple-minded masses.”
What he said.
That ought to leave a mark.
What's really amusing is how desperate you are to prove Trump is a flip flopper, because you know that Cruz is lying about his past.
That's the worst side of an argument to be on!
Engineers getting laid off is a separate issue. It has much more to do with $450 Billion YEARLY trade deficit with China. And back in 1960^s, 70^s and 80^s when engineers had plenty of jobs, even then there was a shortage of really brilliant people in the field.
So if a foreign student displays extra-ordinary achievement, it is asinine to kick her/him out and approve another legal immigrant who has neither the skills or money to bring with them, based on sponsorship by a close relative.
Cruz said: “The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,â€-- because, as I pointed out to you before, amendments in the committee cannot change the underlying framework of a bill unless they are Sponsor substitute amendments. Cruz was absolutely right: his amendment did not seek to strip the work permit legalization language in the Gang of 8 bill because--by rule-- HE COULD NOT. Sessions, Lee, and Cornyn also did not submit amendments seeking to strip the legalization language: because they could not offer such amendments.
To accuse Cruz, or Sessions, of supporting legalization because of what their amendment did not say is a logical fallacy. They did not support legalization. How do we prove this? Because they fought, with amendments, with speeches, with legislative trickery and with filibusters to prevent legalization and other forms of amnesty. Those are actions easily verified proving their non-support of legalization. All you have to offer as evidence for their support for legalization is the lack of language negating the Gang of 8 legalization within amendments, but as I have already told you, they were not permitted to include such language in their amendments.
What has "common sense immigration reform" always meant for Cruz? You need look no further than his current website or his comments during the 2012 Senate campaign. He has always opposed amnesty and advocated for the rule of law. Those laws, by the way, mandate deportation. Did you work for the Dewhurst campaign? Your "pro-amnesty" attacks on Cruz, the attack on Mrs. Cruz being a supporter of globalism within CFR, and the language you use is right out of the Dewhurst playbook. "The Christian church in America is sick." That is a value statement with no supporting evidence. It also speaks to a sickness within your own soul far more than as an interpretive tool for Cruz's candidacy.
You have never offered evidence that Cruz or Sessions supported legalization. Actually, you tried to present as evidence their lack of legalization stripping language in their amendments, but then you received a lesson in how laws are made.
Bump
And even this thread!
Actually, you tried to present as evidence their lack of legalization stripping language
You're a shameless liar.
I’m going to choose not to be offended by your insult, as you freely call Ted Cruz and even Jeff Sessions liars. Being called a “liar” by you has become something of a badge of honor. Just a hint though, failing in your argument and then resulting to name calling is not going to get you very far in a law career (unless you choose to be one of the TV lawyers on FOX).
Your prior “evidence” that Cruz and Sessions supported legalization is just the same as what you presented here: statements made by Cruz or amendments offered by Cruz which do not strip the “underlying work permit” from the Gang of 8 bill. Do I need to use smaller words when explaining how that is the opposite of proof?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.