Donald Trump falsely claims Democrats 'oppose any effort to secure our border'

I would be offended as a Republican candidate. Trump doesn't seem to think that a Republican can win without him campaigning lies to their base. Shame on him and shame on them for letting him do it.

NVM

Original Happy Camper said:

Quote from the article
"Trump went on to claim that construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall was underway: "We started the wall, $1.6 billion, another $1.6 billion, and we have another, but we want to build it very quickly all at one time, and we'll get it done."

It’s Mostly False that his promised border wall is under construction — what’s in the works is replacement fencing."

That it is mostly false is a false statement in it self, refuted by the Washington Post article below

Donald Trump's border wall begins construction in California
June 1, 2011 2, 2018 ... A 14-mile section of President Trump's border wall is under construction in San Diego, at a cost of $147 million.

Click to expand...

Trump's new wall v Obama's fence.
Trump's New Border 'Wall' Resembles Fence Obama Constructed That Illegal Aliens Recently Hopped Over | Breitbart

Hank77 said:

I would be offended as a Republican candidate. Trump doesn't seem to think that a Republican can win without him campaigning lies to their base. Shame on him and shame on them for letting him do it.

Click to expand...

Hmm ...platform says "The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken."

For more see : Party Platform - Democrats

But that is not what we are seeing from new Democratic leaders and candidates.

It seems hard to miss in the last 6 months.
The new guard of the Democratic Party absolutely supports open borders

And to the point both Dick Durbin (2nd ranking Dem Senator) and Chuck Schumer (Top Dem Senator) have tried to block votes (even sponsored by their own party) that would have improved immigration law.

The tug of war is about sound-bytes before the election next Tues.
Dems want the conversation to be about health care, Reps want it to be about the attempted Borking of Kavanaugh, protecting jobs and public resources for the poor citizens, border security from drug/sex traffickers as well as organized crime, gangs, and terrorists. DACA which appears to most as buying illegals votes, hardly seems like a solution.

Democrats oppose the wall, want to accept all people crossing the boarder as asylum seekers, encourage sanctuary cities and oppose mass deportation and we're supposed to think Trump is wrong in saying this?

What are the democrats proposing in terms of boarder security that makes his claim false?

Uber Genius said:

Hmm ...platform says "The Democratic Party supports legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security. People should come to the United States with visas and not through smugglers. Yet, we recognize that the current immigration system is broken."

Click to expand...

But that's not going to stop people from pretending it's otherwise, is it?

I suppose you could see what they did when they were running things...

Of all those removed from US soil in 2009, Obama's first year in office, 35% had been convicted of a crime. That percentage increased to 50% in 2010, according to ICE, and then hovered between 55% and 59% for the remainder of Obama's time in office.
Is Trump deporting more convicted criminals than Obama? - CNN

So Obama was deporting more people than previous administrations, but he had ordered that illegal aliens who had committed serious crimes would be taken first. Trump has relaxed that rule, and included things like traffic offenses as causes for deportation.

It has the attraction that people committing minor crimes are generally easier to find and arrest. The downside is that it leaves more dangerous criminals at large in the United States.

I don't see how Obama's policy, which the democrats supported, in any way was a call for open borders. But as you know, Trump lies a lot.

The Barbarian said:

But that's not going to stop people from pretending it's otherwise, is it?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the meaning of the word "It's" is.

If you read my post you would see that there seems to be a deep conflict with the Democrats platform and what the leaders and people who are running for various offices are proposing.

The mainstream media isn't out there saying, "Hey everyone, lets all remember that the Dems platform is x,y, and z." They are showing footage of screaming Democratic Representatives from South Central LA saying we need to go after Republicans wherever we see them in public. We see the top two Democratic Senators blocking Democratic legislation from being voted on in the senate.

Calling for abolishing ICE:
candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first to call for abolition
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) first senator to call for abolition
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) thought to be running for President in 2020
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) Chair of the Progressive Caucus
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

So the OP was suggesting that Dems don't hold to these ideas. But unfortunately the mainstream media is giving coverage to Dem. leaders and candidates who are misrepresenting the plank in their platform.

Fack check - Trump is right to call out Dems for wanting open boarders and then lead them straight to the polls to vote Democratic.

Election fraud is the next place where this same discussion can be had. Platform for the Democrats says they want to assure access and fairness. Leaders however want to bus in illegals to vote Democratic by the 10s of millions to assure permanent Democratic dominance. If they aren't stopped they will have achieved colluding to rig elections. Now you can't put that on your platform overtly right?

The real issue at this point isn't with the falsehoods Trump states but the fact that there's still folks who will believe them.

Uber Genius said:

I'm not sure the meaning of the word "It's" is.

If you read my post you would see that there seems to be a deep conflict with the Democrats platform and what the leaders and people who are running for various offices are proposing.

Click to expand...

I don't see that. There are always outliers. Republicans like David Duke's call for a "white nation." That's not the republican platform, but a number of republicans are calling for it.

I see one republican official arguing that the Constitution can be overturned by an executive order. Yes, I know that most republicans have been furious about executive orders. You don't see overthrowing the Constitution in the republican platform, but one froot loop wants to do it.

Would you like to see more? There's a lot more.

(five democrats call for abolishing ICE)

I had no idea that five democrats set party policy. Link?

President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build...And in 2006, 26 Senate Democrats voted to build 700 miles of walls and fences on the southwestern border. Mr. Schumer was among the Democrats who supported that proposal — a fact that even Mr. Trump has repeatedly acknowledged, as recently as last week.
No, Democrats Don’t Want ‘Open Borders’

Yes, I know Trump lies, but that's a pretty big one, even for Trump.

Fack check - Trump is right to call out Dems for wanting open boarders and then lead them straight to the polls to vote Democratic.

Click to expand...

But you can't name any? I think I know why.

Election fraud is the next place where this same discussion can be had.

Click to expand...

Good point. In the 2016 presidential election, there were four voters who voted fraudulently. Would you like me to show you them? No, you probably don't. But here:

A woman in Iowa who voted twice. Terri Lynn Rote had the enormous misfortune of bad timing. Right as the candidate she supported, Trump, was drawing attention to fraud cases, Rote decided to try to vote twice in Des Moines, and got caught. The case made national headlines simply by virtue of the fact that it happened when it did, and that she voted for Trump.


For what it's worth, she suggested that the fault lay with Trump. “The polls are rigged,” she said to a local radio station by way of explaining her multiple votes, echoing another of Trump's complaints.


A man in Texas who voted twice. Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump's campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn't an employee of the campaign — and the polling location's security worked perfectly well, it seems.


A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and sent it in. The ballot will not be counted.


A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots. Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was caught in the act and arrested. There's no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...udulent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c483cc434dbf

There are actually five if you count one of Trump's appointees fraudulently voting:
Voter Fraud? A Trump Nominee Looks as if He Cast an Illegal Ballot
Voter Fraud? A Trump Nominee Looks as if He Cast an Illegal Ballot

Platform for the Democrats says they want to assure access and fairness. Leaders however want to bus in illegals to vote Democratic by the 10s of millions to assure permanent Democratic dominance.

Click to expand...

That's what the republicans say. But there's a little problem. No evidence. If you don't know, evidence is the stuff you see above, showing that republicans repeatedly committed voter fraud in the last election. See what you can find and get back to us. "Donald Trump tweeted it" will not be considered evidence.

If they aren't stopped they will have achieved colluding to rig elections.

Click to expand...

Like Gerrymandering and voter suppression? Republicans are already doing it. Supreme court had to step in put an end to the worst of it.

Now you can't put that on your platform overtly right?

Click to expand...

You can. You just have to call it "election security." But that's been a problem, too. Turns out the republican party got our from under court supervision because of repeated cases of voter fraud, in which the party conspired to take away the rights of qualified voters.

It was one of the first national embarrassments for Mike Pence. Soon after the Indiana Republican was added to Donald Trump’s ticket, he assured voters, “I will tell you that the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee are working very, very closely with state governments and secretary of states all over the country to ensure ballot integrity.”


The RNC quickly announced that Pence had no idea what he was talking about, and he’d really just made all of that up. The reason Republican officials contradicted Pence stems from a court-imposed consent decree imposed on the RNC many years ago, which prevents the party from doing exactly what Pence said the party was doing...

The campaign was not subtle: Republicans put up warning signs, telling locals that their precincts were being monitored, and creating quasi-official arm bands for the party’s monitors to wear while physically patrolling polling places in areas made up mostly of minority voters.

In one sense, the heavy-handed scheme worked: the Republicans successfully intimidated people of color and narrowly won New Jersey’s gubernatorial election that year. But the victory came at a price: the RNC’s scare tactics were so outrageous, and the scheme targeted black voters so brazenly, that the Republican Party faced a court fight that they lost.

At the time, the RNC felt compelled to accept a 35-year consent decree that included legal restrictions on the party’s efforts to monitor polling locations.

It’s also why the party was so eager to distance itself from Pence’s 2016 claim: the RNC desperately wanted to get out from under the court-imposed constraints, which meant, among other things, that Republican officials were honoring the terms of the agreement.
Why the end of the RNC's 'ballot security' consent decree matters

The Barbarian said:

I don't see that. There are always outliers. Republicans like David Duke's call for a "white nation." That's not the republican platform, but a number of republicans are calling for it.

Click to expand...

Again, these are not outliers. That is misrepresentation. They have taken up enormous news cycles for the last several months, the fact that you "Don't see it," is probably a function of how you spend your time, rather than pursuing what Dems have said. The individuals I mentioned and concomitant stories supporting my point could have been easily researched in about 1/4 the time it took to right your post.

Strange, I am talking about the leaders and the new candidates, and you are talking about David Duke. Hardly analogous.

Ballotopia states the following:
Duke was elected as a Republican to the Louisiana House of Representatives in the special election of 1989, winning the runoff election 51 percent to 49 percent against John Treen (R), the other top vote-getter in the state's general election.[6] The Daily Beast described the race, writing, "Duke, who touted himself as a pro-life fiscal conservative, was known as an ex-Klan leader; he eschewed overtly racist language and instead pointed to crime in the city, criticizing affirmative action and minority set-asides."[7]Duke served in the House until 1993.[2]

Duke ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana State Senate in 1975 and 1979, for governor of Louisiana in 1991, for the U.S. House in 1999, and for the U.S. Senate in 1990, 1996, and 2016. He also ran for president unsuccessfully in 1988 and 1992.[8]

So you are suggesting that David Duke is the face of the Republican Party?

As I have noted other places, when one is intent on using propaganda, they must be subtle.

The Barbarian said:

Mr. Schumer was among the Democrats who supported that proposal —

Click to expand...

So you must have not read my post at all.

Why put so much effort into attacking strawmen of your own creation.

If you don't want to engage people's points then just write a blog.

"Ignored" due to propaganda.