Dem candidate says "I'd welcome all illegals to my state." Trump should call his bluff

One of the telltales of crappy "reasoning" is that if you follow it, eventually you find an internal contradiction.

Simple example: Democrats claim there is one set of laws for everyone.  But astonishingly, when their candidate is found to have sent beyond-Top-Secret material to her unsecured private server--a blatant violation of the rules for safeguarding classified material--the very Director of the FBI (James Comey, in case you were too young to have followed this) declines to charge her.

He doesn't say "This was not a violation of federal law"--a statement that would easily be proven to be a lie--but fastballs his corrupt decision by you voters by saying "No prosecutor would indict her."

Voila:  Two different sets of laws.  Contradiction.

And that ALWAYS, INEVITABLY happens when someone uses obviously flawed thinking.

Now:  Leading Democrats have claimed that unlimited illegal immigration has NO deleterious effects WHATSOEVER. They have to claim this is true in order to con their dumb supporters into supporting their decrees of "sanctuary states" or cities. 

So the Dem leaders simply CANNOT admit that unlimited illegal immigration has any disadvantages or down-sides whatsoever.  Cuz if they did, the citizens of those states might suddenly wake up and think "Wait...if they're admitting there's a down-side, then by continuing to push for open borders they're implicitly willing to inflict the damage on us, their citizens.  While they live in guarded mansions and are protected around the clock by armed men paid for by us!  Somethin' wrong there!

Okay, with that as background:  At 9:45 Eastern time last night, Dem governor and presidential candidate Jay Inslee said sending "refugees"--i.e. illegal immigrant invaders--to his home state of Washington isn't a problem AT ALL, and that he would welcome them.

Well OF COURSE you would, moron--because you live in a guarded mansion and are surrounded by a security detail--again, armed, of course.  So you have NO skin in the game.

So here's the point of this whole post:  The czars of the 9th circuit court have decreed that the administration must release anyone who invades this country with a kid into the interior, without any identifiers or locators.  But the court didn't say which cities the administration had to send the invaders TO.  So Trump should direct federal agents to send every damn one of 'em to Washington state--preferably Seattle.

See, Jay Inslee can't complain.  Can NOT.  Cuz he just mendaciously went on the record in front of the whole country as saying he'd welcome the illegals.  Then we can watch as Seattle--already drowning in a shit-flood of druggies--tries to cope with 80,000 unskilled, uneducated illegal aliens every MONTH.

See, one of the tactics Obama used to hide the number of people he demanded be let in was to spread them out over every state.  If you instead send every one of 'em to Seattle, how long before everyone in the country realizes the consequences, eh?

Of course the consequences COULD BE that all the folks in Seattle who can afford to hire others to mow their lawns save money, and the city looks better.

Yep yep yep.  I do think that's a definite possibility.

But hey, why not try it and SEE, eh?  Give that lying sack of Gruber (Inslee) what he's said he wants, and let him try to wiggle out of his own words.

Hey, I'd pay good money to see that.