|
 | Under biden | |
|
| |
Prelude to Agony
Super Regular
Sniper Harassment
Duty
|  | | P: | 02/10/2024 21:32 EST | | E: | 02/10/2024 21:33 EST |
| | |
 | Ignorant_Florist wrote:
| Backalleybuttlove wrote:
| Ignorant_Florist wrote:
*ahem*
https://youtu.be/YSE5ALz-naM?si=JGp4YMVM3-XB3SAi
Edit: Also.... what's your excuse for Republicans NOT passing the "secure the border" bill that gave them everything they demanded? I'm REAL curious how you guys are going to justify that one. | |
It's a shit bill. | |
Who told you that? Wait... let me guess....
Someone with the skin tone of a Cheeto.... or one of his promotional experts....
Tell me, tell US..... in your own words (and not those spoken by some propaganda specialist) WHY you think it's a "shit bill".
I'm honestly curious why you believe that, when it literally gave Republicans pretty much everything they demanded and were holding out for. | |
Easy enough...
If they come to the US illegally, choosing not to go to a Port of Entry, they still get a chance to be screened for the possibility of Asylum and obtain a 90 day visa.
If you choose to enter illegally, that should be an automatic Fuck No and you get rejected. If you're not going to follow the law for getting in, you shouldn't be allowed a 'screening' to see if you could claim asylum.
Expanding the program to track families while they wait on their asylum claim is also 'shit'. Detain them....if you're going to expand detention, then detain them all. Don't just let them go while we rely on the ineffective as fuck government to track them.
Why are we waiting for illegal crossings to reach 'certain' numbers before they're denied. Auto deny illegal crossings. Period.
Not to mention it doesn't do anything against those that have already come here illegally, it sets up 'aid' for those that have come here illegally, and we're still giving 60b to Ukraine and 14b for Israel...plus the humanitarian aid for the Palestinians caught up in a conflict...even though you could argue it's their fault for supporting Hamas in the first place.
You don't need a bill to shut down the border and get back to enforcing existing laws.
And it's not giving the Republicans what they want. Give them HR 2 (2023). Discuss your aid package that you think you need after you pass HR 2. There's probably enough votes to get your aid package if you relent on HR 2.
edit: pulled from the AP, so you're clear on that. | |
|
|
level1nobody
Super Regular
Evil Medic
| | P: | 02/10/2024 23:04 EST | | E: | 02/10/2024 23:19 EST |
| | |
Pretty much agree, but Palestinians have Hamas because Netanyahu funded and encouraged them. The PLO apparently were too easy to work with, so they needed a flame that Israel could "control the height of." In other words, by encouraging Hamas to revolt so they could massacre civilians at will. Also half of Gaza's population is under 18 and the last elections they held were 2005/2006.
Israel is still an occupying force, with or without setting foot in Palestinian territories. They control entry, egress, food, electricity and water. An occupied force is justified in armed revolt and an occupying force cannot claim self defense. | |
|
|
R2hG4TQ2
| | P: | 02/11/2024 01:37 EST | | E: | 02/11/2024 02:08 EST |
| | |
| angry_salad wrote 'To the usual crowd of right-leaning sycophants, what say you? Your border wish was granted and your party gave you the finger. | |
(keep in mind - angry_salad is not from the United States....)
also keep in mind that congress still has not approved a budget to keep the government funded for 2024 (although they did pass a 'continuing resolution' to keep the government funded for a few more months)
In the 'border' bill that the republicans rejected
(it should have been called the 'industrial corporate military complex' bill)
Ukraine $58.6BILLION
Israel $10.6BILLION
Border $8.7BILLION
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4343720-senate-funding-p...
-
(smiling politely at those with opinions from other countries around the world)
| |
|
| |
| | |
I agree with your sentiment about the bill and where the money's going.
But as long as the U.S. insists on retaining hegemonic control of every country they can, I'd say it's just fine for foreigners to weigh in on our goings on. | |
|
| |
| | |
| level1nobody wrote 'But as long as the U.S. insists on retaining hegemonic control of every country they can, I'd say it's just fine for foreigners to weigh in on our goings on.' | |
hey - I said I smiled politely (that means I still respect them - but I am very wary of the opinions of others from other countries - especially hostile countries - which many are towards the U.S.)
| |
|
|
Matt_tfc
Super Regular
Shotgun Quick
Draw
| | | P: | 02/11/2024 11:10 EST |
| | |
| angry_salad wrote:
To the usual crowd of right-leaning sycophants, what say you? Your border wish was granted and your party gave you the finger. | |
Border wish? Nonsense, the border bill was packed with pork barrel spending. For example, if it includes a penny or more in funding to Ukraine, it's a disaster of a bill and shouldn't be passed under any circumstance. | |
|
| |
| | |
The border bill more or less allows for illegal immigration through artifice and subterfuge. It taps into the light switch brain of, "hey! Look at the Republicans not voting on the border bill!" The devil is always in the details. | |
|
| |
| | |
I'm trimming this down a bit to focus on certain parts.
Also, I respect your views, even if I disagree with parts of them. I also respect your citation of the AP, and appreciate it.
Also, you weren't the one I was specifically referring to, but of course, all opinions and replies are welcome. That's how a discussion works, right? =D
| Prelude to Agony wrote:
Easy enough...
If they come to the US illegally, choosing not to go to a Port of Entry, they still get a chance to be screened for the possibility of Asylum and obtain a 90 day visa. | |
Why not declare that a "Point of Entry", if so many are coming that way? Put up the station, give it the funding needed to make it work, and sort out those who wouldn't be a benefit to our society.
| If you choose to enter illegally, that should be an automatic Fuck No and you get rejected. If you're not going to follow the law for getting in, you shouldn't be allowed a 'screening' to see if you could claim asylum. | |
Also, consider what these people have gone through just to make it that far. These people have trekked through very dangerous territory hoping for a new life (in most cases) where they can be safe, and productive members of our society. Try talking to some of them yourself. It will enlighten you in ways you can't imagine, IF you can get them to open up to you.
| Expanding the program to track families while they wait on their asylum claim is also 'shit'. Detain them....if you're going to expand detention, then detain them all. Don't just let them go while we rely on the ineffective as fuck government to track them. | |
As much as you (and many others) bash the government for being inept, you sure aren't doing anything to change that. But okay, detain them while their identity is established.... but we need somewhere TO detain them, and people to care for them while they are detained. That's what the money in the bill would do. But I also agree that someone should be auditing where that money goes. That's another job someone (or lots of someones) will have to do. More jobs created. Win/win.
| Why are we waiting for illegal crossings to reach 'certain' numbers before they're denied. Auto deny illegal crossings. Period. | |
Except that we actually rely on those illegals to do certain jobs, at those pesky below minimum wages in order to keep certain prices down. Plus, Americans don't want those jobs in the first place, and certainly not for those wages.
| Not to mention it doesn't do anything against those that have already come here illegally, it sets up 'aid' for those that have come here illegally, and we're still giving 60b to Ukraine and 14b for Israel...plus the humanitarian aid for the Palestinians caught up in a conflict...even though you could argue it's their fault for supporting Hamas in the first place. | |
The GOP wanted those bills tied to the Boarder... so they got it. Now they've flipped their decision and voted against it. Also, that money for foreign aid (Israel and Ukraine) isn't being "given" to them as cold hard cash... it's going into American jobs making the weapons and ammo that they need to further their respective conflicts.
Palestinians have about as much choice in supporting Hamas as Germans did in WWII in supporting the Nazis. In other words: NONE. Someone else chimed in about that conflict, so I won't reiterate it.
| You don't need a bill to shut down the border and get back to enforcing existing laws. | |
Yes, you DO. The funding for it, even enforcing the existing laws, just doesn't exist in its present form. That's the point I think you are missing. Also, what we DO have already in place is being overwhelmed to the point of looking foolish. More people, more infrastructure, more construction, all of that, won't appear overnight, and certainly won't appear without funding.
| And it's not giving the Republicans what they want. Give them HR 2 (2023). Discuss your aid package that you think you need after you pass HR 2. There's probably enough votes to get your aid package if you relent on HR 2.
edit: pulled from the AP, so you're clear on that. | |
As I've said, Republicans in office demanded that the foreign aid money be attached to the border money. Then the Cheeto opened his pie hole, and suddenly, they reverse course. The man is an unelected mouthpiece that is still controlling those who were elected. How can you let that happen? That would be like Hillary calling the shots for Democrats. Sure, either of them can have their opinions and even spout them on TV, or the internet. But it's clear that the GOP is taking their cues from what Trump says, even when he contradicts himself an hour later. | |
|
| |
| | |
HR 2 isn't represented here. It's money for Ukraine, with a half baked border bill attached, knowing it wouldn't pass, so that the other party can say 'see, we're trying, but they really don't want border security".
Why not declare that a point of entry? Fuck that...there are already established points of entry, just fucking use it. Later on you talk about how much money it would take for this or that and how the bill was needed. So we need the bill to create more of what we already have in place? Established legal ports of entry already exist...use them.
What they've gone through? If it's not through an established port of entry, I'm sorry, I just don't care. Legal port of entry.
The bill would have established holding centers while they wait. They can wait outside the gate while we establish their asylum claim.
You're conflating illegal with a migrant. They're two different beings. You come here for a better life and you've come through established port of entry and are following our laws? Migrant. You come here, cross illegally and just do what the fuck ever? Illegal. No one is bitching about migrants...migrants built this country, which you're well aware. Even migrants and those who have become citizens don't like the illegals dude.
Reiterating...the GOP wants HR 2. Not this bullshit. You want money for Ukraine, agree to HR 2. Easy, right?
You're right Iggy...now that we've just opened the floodgates the last 3 years and allowed anyone in, we do need more of everything. NOW it will cost more money. Wouldn't have been as bad if, I don't know, Biden wouldn't have just used executive powers to strip what was actually working for the US for a change, instead of doing whatever we can for everyone else BUT the US.
Yes Trump opened his mouth and they reversed course. At the same time, they were about to agree to a bill that paid mouth service to what they want, rather than actually giving them what they need. The Republican party is so divided and weak, it's disgusting. The ONLY good thing I can say about Democrats, they're a unit, they stick together, and they're cohesive.
Although, I think they're starting to crumble a little now that the DOJ told a little truth. | |
|
|
EnginGhent
Super Regular
Crack-Powered Capper
| | | P: | 02/11/2024 16:29 EST | | E: | 02/12/2024 08:45 EST |
| | |
| angry_salad wrote:
Yeah, it did occur to me. Unfortunately, I know that's a symptom of your form of government - pack everything into one bill. Then, you can vilify your opponent for voting for the same bill you did, except point out the negative elements of that bill.
| |
Pretty much this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/11/republica...
Fantastic opinion piece.
| “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics,” they wrote. “It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.” | |
That’s a quote from a book written 12 years ago. And as the article suggests, that’s still true today.
Their behaviour is equivalent to “if I can’t have it exactly my way, then nobody gets anything” - not even their friends on the same side of the aisle.
| It’s one thing for a party to oppose the other party’s proposals over differences of principle. Small-d democratic politics ought to be a contest of ideas and a debate over which remedies are more likely to work.
It’s something else entirely for a party to reject its own ideas to address a crisis simply because it doesn’t want to get in the way of a campaign issue. | |
| |
|
|
R2hG4TQ2
| | P: | 02/12/2024 00:53 EST | | E: | 02/12/2024 07:36 EST |
| | |
| Ignorant_Florist wrote 'The GOP wanted those bills tied to the Boarder... so they got it. Now they've flipped their decision and voted against it. Also, that money for foreign aid (Israel and Ukraine) isn't being "given" to them as cold hard cash... it's going into American jobs making the weapons and ammo that they need to further their respective conflicts.' | |
Not from what I read.
Here is the way I read it went down -
Democrats 'We want funding for Ukraine $60BILLION'
Republicans 'What's in it for us?'
Democrats 'How about we help fund Israel's military?'
Republicans 'Not good enough. No deal.'
Democrats 'How about we throw in funding for the Border?'
Republicans 'How much funding?'
Democrats 'Around $10BILLION'
Republicans 'Not good enough. No deal.'
Democrats 'Well thats the best we are going to offer - and if you reject it - then you will look like the bad guys not us.'
(even that article from Dec 5 2023 by thehill.com that I quoted from a few posts back said 'However, it faces a rocky road to passage as Republicans press for more aggressive proposals on the border.') | |
|
| |
| | |
Also - anyone else wonder what that poll on the first post in this thread would look like if only legal citizens of the United States were allowed to participate in it?
| |
|
| | | Forums > Whiners Corner (Archives) > Under biden | |
