Oh I get it. You literally can’t read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

The border security bill – nearly identical to legislation House Republicans passed last year – was an attempt by House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana to quell growing hard-right dissatisfaction

Jerry Nadler of New York, said the bill was a “foolhardy attempt to pass for a second time one of the most draconian immigration bills this Congress has ever seen. This rehashing of H.R. 2 is a joke.”

https://dondavis.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-conservatives

The 370-page border bill that Democrats signed off on reads like a GOP wish list. Perhaps that’s because Republicans helped write the bill (though many of them promptly turned around and helped tank it after Donald Trump announced his opposition) … the legislation is a complete concession to the worst aspects of Trumpism that Biden and Democrats purportedly ran against in 2020

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/harris-trump-election-border

While policies narrowing access to asylum and expanding the border wall were once demonized by Democratic Party leaders, they are now a core element of party orthodoxy,

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/

If passed in its current form, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act would be the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century. It would overhaul the process for seeking asylum in the United States—and impose an “emergency authority” that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years. It would attempt to address issues like work permits and years-long waits for asylum seekers, and also raise the initial standard a person must pass in order to access our asylum system.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill

Literally can do this all day. You want me to go on? Probably no since you’re not gonna read any of that anyways or pretend those things don’t actually say what they say. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative).

republicans killed the bill ‘because it goes too far to crack down on the border’, then that’d be democrats moving to the right of Republicans

Lol, desperate, desperate, desperate. That’s not that I said and that’s not why they killed it. The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house. As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn’t want to give Democrats a “win”. Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the “best one” they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they’re fascists. But it doesn’t change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.

First off…technically,

So she didn’t substantively say what you’re straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.

She gave an open-ended answer about gender affirming care

So “open ended” that she actually said nothing of substance. I’ve been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. It’s a yes or no question and she refused to answer.

Timestamp me the part where she says “no”.

She didn’t say no. But that’s not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. “I support M4A”) When you don’t support something you weasel out of it. (“Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors”). That’s how politics works and only a literal child doesn’t understand that.

to because it was too hard

Because it was irrelevant and you were rambling. I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow and you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there’s so many other places in this conversation that you’re also making stuff up that need to be addressed.

Those voters don’t want Kamala to end the filibuster or to reign in the SCOTUS because that’s bad for moderate and conservative politics, the politics those people believe in.

Bro they don’t want any of Kamalas policies either! That’s the point. If you want ANY chance of getting these people out of the grasp of fascist Trumpian progapanda you need to… articulate. a. clear. alternate. vision. to. fascism. You are NEVER going to win them over by doing fascism lite. You are never going to win them over by running to the right - because the fascists can always just move more right. You will never win them over with feckless centrism. You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong. If you are not confronting the MORAL implications of fascism because you are agreeing with the base premises you are going to lose.

Are you saying I’m wrong to assume YOU aren’t voting for Kamala, or to assume you’re talking about not voting for Kamala in general? I’ll hold onto both those assumptions for a bit longer…

Again, I personally am not voting for Kamala because our election system is a joke and I live in a safe blue state and do not have to vote for her. I have not said anything about telling anyone else how to vote - I can’t speak to anyone else’s personal situation.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what targets of Trump’s appeal think.

Do you not know how arguments work? Do you know where you are right now? What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me. I am arguing the things to you that I believe are correct. Because that’s how arguments work. Did you expect me to come out here and argue for the opposite of what I believe?

Even though that’s just what YOU want, hence my accusation of projection that you’ve so far not addressed.

Yes, it’s the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don’t believe the same which is why you’re arguing something different. That’s how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it’s back…