Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

You appear to be conflating bills.

HR 3602, the focus of your first 2 quote blocks AND your first link is a REPUBLICAN bill. It was shot down overwhelmingly by democrats. Even Jerry Nadler, the guy your 2nd quote mentions, is a Democrat badmouthing the bill. (You conveniently cut right through the part of the text that said he was a Dem, which could've clued you in that this doesn't back you.)

HR 3602 IS a clone of HR2, the Republican immigration proposal from last year, but it's the wrong bill. The bipartisan border bill was HR815, before the border provisions were ripped out. BEFORE that happened, your very own 2nd link had this to say about the bill's substance:

Beyond the enforcement measures, the scuttled Senate bill she supports includes 50,000 more green cards for employment and family-based visas for each of the next five years, which would be the first increase to legal immigration since 1990; funding for more asylum officers; government-funded legal representation for migrant children, which would be a first; and a pathway to citizenship for Afghans paroled in after helping the U.S. government during the war. The Democratic Party platform moreover includes plans to strengthen the legal immigration system, address case backlogs, increase digitization of immigration processing, and maintain high levels of refugee resettlement.

Your "thenation" quote acknowledges that it is, in fact, written in part by Republicans. But it otherwise doesn't really get into policy details so as far as I'm concerned it's just prose.

And your "americanimmigrationcouncil" quote conveniently leaves out the very next sentences: "It would expand additional visas and future green card availability and offer a pathway to citizenship to Afghans, while also significantly increasing detention capacity. It is a mixed bag." I wouldn't interpret "mixed bag" to mean "right of fascism".

That's not what I said and that's not why they killed it.

What you said was it's "right of fascists". To me "right of fascists" either means there're Republicans saying "whoa, this might be too extreme" or it means that comparing the democratic proposal and the republican proposal, the democratic proposal goes further right. In this case, HR2 is the republican proposal, HR815 was the bipartisan proposal. Can you come up with substantive differences where HR815 is MORE radical? If not, what you meant by your exaggeration doesn't matter, it's still an exaggeration.

The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house.

We agree that Democrats moved right on immigration. But that'd necessarily mean that this proposal is to the right of previous compromises made in the House. Doesn't mean "to the right of fascists".

As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn't want to give Democrats a “win”.

Yes

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.

Slow down a sec. "Every" Republican said it gave them "everything they wanted and more"? Again, you're exaggerating. Yes, "some" Republicans admitted that it was 'the toughest deal they were gonna get', but that just means it was 'the best compromise Dems were willing to give'. (Like your own 2 links said, the substance of the bill contained stuff obviously to the left of Republicans.) From my POV, this was 2 parties meeting in the middle, closer to the right than democrats have ever gone, but still the middle.

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

Lol, you don't have to make it a big deal, just proof-watch your own stuff next time

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.

Firstly, when you have to say you've been "arguing with people on the internet for decades", either that's true and...something you should reflect on, or you're just a kid lying about his/her age.

Secondly: again, her answer was “that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I'm not going to put myself in a position of a doctor” How is that not equivalent to “we shouldn't be restricting access to gender-affirming care”, gender-affirming care being the specific focus of the question she was asked?

She didn’t say no.

Yay! We agree!

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.

Disagree with your analogue. The real question/answer is closer to "Broadly speaking, do you support abortion" - "Well, I belive that Americans should be able to have that conversation with their doctors, and I shouldn't have a say in that". I'm personally fine with that answer to that question.

I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow

No, you said we should be "taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is". And the most appropriate action combat a threat of that magnitude is to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow. But that's obviously not pracical, because it can lead to backlash and the US doubling down harder on fossil fuels. So the point is: where do we draw the line between urgent climate action and practical, long-term climate action?

you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about.

"get big mad about"? Kinda outting yourself further as a kid there, lol

I feel like we're going back and forth as far as the next paragraph is concerned, except for this nugget:

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.

I agree with you on that. I think that's what many of those people need - someone to confront them with patience and empathy, who can slowly deradicalize them over time. But it's not Harris' job to deradicalize them, or to show them an "alternate worldview", that's the job of a Trump supporter's loved ones. Harris' first job is to win the election, no matter what she needs to say ('we'll be tougher on immigration going forward') or not say ('we're gonna overhaul the courts'). Her second job is to do the things that need to be done as president. And if Harris gets elected and she neither does anything about the courts, nor does she do anything about the filibuster by end of 2028, then you'll have been right to suspect her of not being "THAT strong" on abortion. But no matter what she says now, we simply won't know that until end-of-term.

What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me.

Yes, a discussion between you and me...that started with being about Trump supporters. The beliefs that Trump supporters have is relevant to a discussion about Trump supporters.

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.

Not saying I don't want her to BE a progressive candidate. I'm saying it's foolish for her to campaign like she's the polar opposite of Trump. I don't really care how she campaigns, as long as her campaign sits literally anywhere on the spectrum between "unabashedly socialist/communist" and "a little left-of-center". I think she's closer to left of that spectrum than you'll admit, but regardless of how she actually leans, I don't think it's wise for her to campaign to the left side of that spectrum - there are MILLIONS of centrists looking for an excuse not to vote for Trump, and there are WAY MORE of them than progressives who will ONLY vote for her if she campaigns like a radical leftist.

Oh I get it. You literally can’t read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative). this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I’ve EVER seen. 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. Do you not know how arguments work? 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…

The harder you go on the insults, and the exaggerations, the more convincing it is that you're either too chronically online for your own good, or a kid, or both.

But I'm actually not saying those things to insult you, just trying to point out behaviors that you should consider toning down on. I'm sure flaming can be fun, but it's not very good for your own mental health - it can degrade your ability to empathize and affect your real life relationships more than you might think.

I know I'm just a random internet stranger...but just food for thought.