mspart Posted February 6 Posted February 6 18 hours ago, VakAttack said: Great. And a bipartisan group is ready to give it to them. If you actually cared about the border, you'd be jazzed. You don't, so you're not. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/05/congress/halfway-to-failure-00139746 Those no votes include three Democratic caucus members: Bob Menendez (N.J.); Alex Padilla (Calif.); and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who does not support unconditional aid to Israel. Plus 21 Republican nos or likely nos: Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Katie Britt (Ala.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Steve Daines (Mont.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and J.D. Vance (Ohio). Sounds like there is bipartisan support for voting no. Just as much as this bill is a bipartisan effort. Now that the language is out, there should be no one supporting the bill. Parts of it are good. Parts are bad. Amendments needs to be allowed, but Schumer and Biden aren't interested in amendments, they are not interested in fixing this mess. They are interested in trying to blame Rs for not supporting this stupid idiotic horrible bill. That's all this is. Cynical politics. If you like the bill, please state the many ways it will solve the crisis at the border. Definition of the crisis: mass quantities of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally and being allowed to stay. How does this bill solve that? mspart
VakAttack Posted February 6 Posted February 6 6 minutes ago, mspart said: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/05/congress/halfway-to-failure-00139746 Those no votes include three Democratic caucus members: Bob Menendez (N.J.); Alex Padilla (Calif.); and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who does not support unconditional aid to Israel. Plus 21 Republican nos or likely nos: Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Katie Britt (Ala.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Steve Daines (Mont.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Mike Rounds (S.D.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and J.D. Vance (Ohio). Sounds like there is bipartisan support for voting no. Just as much as this bill is a bipartisan effort. Now that the language is out, there should be no one supporting the bill. Parts of it are good. Parts are bad. Amendments needs to be allowed, but Schumer and Biden aren't interested in amendments, they are not interested in fixing this mess. They are interested in trying to blame Rs for not supporting this stupid idiotic horrible bill. That's all this is. Cynical politics. If you like the bill, please state the many ways it will solve the crisis at the border. Definition of the crisis: mass quantities of illegal aliens crossing the border illegally and being allowed to stay. How does this bill solve that? mspart There is not "just as much" bipartisan support for voting no. Using simple math, that's 24 out of 100. But I would guess, given the open public pressure not to pass it for political reasons, that number will grow on the Republican side. As to the text of the bill, which is by definition a compromise between the two parties, that means obviously there are things in there you won't like and things in there I won't like. That's what a compromise is. As to the actual parts of the bill, the people who are charged with actually doing the border enforcement say it's a good (but not perfect) thing, and THEY want it to pass. Stop trying to shift the argument. This is just another case of Republicans catching the car and not knowing what to do or liking it, just like the abortion debate. For months and as recently as December, they screamed that any additional support for Ukraine would have to be tied to border reform. They obviously thought Democrats would never go for it, and now they have, and they're just refusing to go ahead for openly political reasons. That may play well for the full on MAGA heads, but not with the normal people/independents, who WANT both parties to work together and compromise.
Lipdrag Posted February 6 Posted February 6 Compromise between two parties: Party 1 is punching Party 2 once every 2 seconds. Party 2 says stop punching me. Compromise Proposal - Party 1 offers to punch Party 2 once every 4 seconds and calls Party 2 names for not accepting the obvious beneficence and logic of the compromise. Note - both parties agreed long ago that no punching would take place.
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Posted February 6 18 minutes ago, VakAttack said: There is not "just as much" bipartisan support for voting no. Using simple math, that's 24 out of 100. But I would guess, given the open public pressure not to pass it for political reasons, that number will grow on the Republican side. As to the text of the bill, which is by definition a compromise between the two parties, that means obviously there are things in there you won't like and things in there I won't like. That's what a compromise is. As to the actual parts of the bill, the people who are charged with actually doing the border enforcement say it's a good (but not perfect) thing, and THEY want it to pass. Stop trying to shift the argument. This is just another case of Republicans catching the car and not knowing what to do or liking it, just like the abortion debate. For months and as recently as December, they screamed that any additional support for Ukraine would have to be tied to border reform. They obviously thought Democrats would never go for it, and now they have, and they're just refusing to go ahead for openly political reasons. That may play well for the full on MAGA heads, but not with the normal people/independents, who WANT both parties to work together and compromise. No mention of the D's doing the same thing and playing the same game on this very issue due to TDS a few years ago?? Didn't think so... On issues like this I think it is stupid to lump other things in the bill...I understand the need to do it to have somewhat collaboration, but this just seems crazy to have funding for wars built into the bill...but that is a whole other topic. Still waiting to hear if anyone knows what happens to the 5000+ people that are allowed in...are they vetted? Just let them in? Also, what is the additional $$$ for more agents going to be used for? Patrol? Vetting the 5000+? Other? All of the above?
VakAttack Posted February 6 Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: No mention of the D's doing the same thing and playing the same game on this very issue due to TDS a few years ago?? Didn't think so... On issues like this I think it is stupid to lump other things in the bill...I understand the need to do it to have somewhat collaboration, but this just seems crazy to have funding for wars built into the bill...but that is a whole other topic. Still waiting to hear if anyone knows what happens to the 5000+ people that are allowed in...are they vetted? Just let them in? Also, what is the additional $$$ for more agents going to be used for? Patrol? Vetting the 5000+? Other? All of the above? I HAVE criticized the Democrats for how they handled abortion issue, what are you talking about? Not for "dog catching car", but for the fact they played politics on it without trying to pass any actual laws on the subject because they liked being able to use it as a political weapon.
WrestlingRasta Posted February 6 Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: Still waiting to hear if anyone knows what happens to the 5000+ people that are allowed in...are they vetted? Just let them in? Also, what is the additional $$$ for more agents going to be used for? Patrol? Vetting the 5000+? Other? All of the above? You don't have to wait for others...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: You don't have to wait for others... Valid 1
jross Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I don't understand why so many pages are necessary. 1. Deport current illegal aliens. 2. Cap how many illegals can be in the country for asylum review. 3. Fund border patrol initiatives as needed to keep illegal immigration near zero and process asylum cases promptly. 4. Update amendment 14 to eliminate confusion; no birthright citizenship to illegal alien children born on US soil. Some complexity with a pathway to citizenship and worker visas.
mspart Posted February 6 Posted February 6 2 hours ago, VakAttack said: There is not "just as much" bipartisan support for voting no. Using simple math, that's 24 out of 100. But I would guess, given the open public pressure not to pass it for political reasons, that number will grow on the Republican side. As to the text of the bill, which is by definition a compromise between the two parties, that means obviously there are things in there you won't like and things in there I won't like. That's what a compromise is. As to the actual parts of the bill, the people who are charged with actually doing the border enforcement say it's a good (but not perfect) thing, and THEY want it to pass. Stop trying to shift the argument. This is just another case of Republicans catching the car and not knowing what to do or liking it, just like the abortion debate. For months and as recently as December, they screamed that any additional support for Ukraine would have to be tied to border reform. They obviously thought Democrats would never go for it, and now they have, and they're just refusing to go ahead for openly political reasons. That may play well for the full on MAGA heads, but not with the normal people/independents, who WANT both parties to work together and compromise. Lipdrag's response is right on. What is this compromise? I have asked how this bill helps curtail illegal immigration. No response. Again, please provide the good things that are in this bill that should turn a NO vote to a YES vote. Why is this better than HR 2? mspart 1
VakAttack Posted February 6 Posted February 6 6 minutes ago, mspart said: Lipdrag's response is right on. What is this compromise? I have asked how this bill helps curtail illegal immigration. No response. Again, please provide the good things that are in this bill that should turn a NO vote to a YES vote. Why is this better than HR 2? mspart The amount that you and others demand things explained to you that you could read for yourselves is staggering. The bill reshapes the asylum policy, including a mandatory border closure policy over the 5,000 person threshold. It increases the standards that people have to meet to be granted asylum while also streamlining the process of asylum claims being adjudicated. Exhibit A on the compromise (people on the left have been pushing for streamlining the process for years, as these claims right now take years to adjudicate) while people on the right have been pushing for higher standards to meet criteria for asylum. There's an increase in funding for increased detention, up to 50,000 people, which is a conservative wishlist item for years. The bill also forces the Biden administration to continue to erect border barriers beyond what they're currently required to do by previous appropriations, obviously a known Trump dream and something Biden has spoken out against. Compromise. 1
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Posted February 6 2 hours ago, VakAttack said: There is not "just as much" bipartisan support for voting no. Using simple math, that's 24 out of 100. But I would guess, given the open public pressure not to pass it for political reasons, that number will grow on the Republican side. As to the text of the bill, which is by definition a compromise between the two parties, that means obviously there are things in there you won't like and things in there I won't like. That's what a compromise is. As to the actual parts of the bill, the people who are charged with actually doing the border enforcement say it's a good (but not perfect) thing, and THEY want it to pass. Stop trying to shift the argument. This is just another case of Republicans catching the car and not knowing what to do or liking it, just like the abortion debate. For months and as recently as December, they screamed that any additional support for Ukraine would have to be tied to border reform. They obviously thought Democrats would never go for it, and now they have, and they're just refusing to go ahead for openly political reasons. That may play well for the full on MAGA heads, but not with the normal people/independents, who WANT both parties to work together and compromise. Openly political reasons like Biden. Biden waiting until now do do ANYTHING regarding the border isnt playing well with liberal center voters. The smart voters know that none of this was necessary because Biden could have done this and MORE when dems had total control. They also know that MORE is needed NOW. Biden waited over three years. GOP can wait for one more unless they get what they want.
VakAttack Posted February 6 Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Openly political reasons like Biden. Biden waiting until now do do ANYTHING regarding the border isnt playing well with liberal center voters. The smart voters know that none of this was necessary because Biden could have done this and MORE when dems had total control. They also know that MORE is needed NOW. Biden waited over three years. GOP can wait for one more unless they get what they want. You insisting that Biden could have done this before is a broken record, it's all true, as could Trump. But they didn't, and now, it's being offered. The definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face...if you actually care about the issue. 1
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Posted February 6 30 minutes ago, VakAttack said: You insisting that Biden could have done this before is a broken record, it's all true, as could Trump. But they didn't, and now, it's being offered. The definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face...if you actually care about the issue. Doesn’t change the fact that Biden did nothing until it became an election problem. You didn’t give two shits about the border until now so save your high and mighty bull shit for your sheeples. This is nothing but political band aid and you know it. GOP needs to get more 1
jross Posted February 6 Posted February 6 Biden ordered a halt to border wall construction shortly after he took office and officially ended the “national emergency” that President Donald Trump declared to take money from the Pentagon to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump took roughly $6 billion from military funds under the national emergency he declared after Congress refused his demands for wall funding, leading to the longest government shutdown in history. The Supreme Court upheld a legal challenge to Trump’s action in a 5-4 vote in July 2019. By the end of Trump's administration, the U.S. had completed more than 450 miles (720 kilometers) of new wall construction along the 2,000-mile (3,145 kilometer) border. https://web.archive.org/web/20210212013736/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-decree-ends-emergency-that-trump-used-to-build-wall/2021/02/11/7b3180ce-6ca5-11eb-a66e-e27046e9e898_story.html 1
mspart Posted February 6 Posted February 6 6 minutes ago, VakAttack said: You insisting that Biden could have done this before is a broken record, it's all true, as could Trump. But they didn't, and now, it's being offered. The definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face...if you actually care about the issue. No, you have that wrong. Biden could have not had this situation if he had left the Trump policies in place. It was not too difficult or complicated to leave those in place. It is not too difficult or complicate to put them back in place. He made the conscious decision to remove those policies and we now have the result of his dereliction of duty. And now he wants the Rs to help him fix it? Yeah right. That is cynical politics at the highest level. He does not want it fixed. He wants to put the Rs face in it. Pure and simple. He doesn't care about the border or too many people coming. He only cares that it now is affecting blue states and they are complaining and sounding like Rs. mspart 2
Paul158 Posted February 6 Posted February 6 24 minutes ago, mspart said: No, you have that wrong. Biden could have not had this situation if he had left the Trump policies in place. It was not too difficult or complicated to leave those in place. It is not too difficult or complicate to put them back in place. He made the conscious decision to remove those policies and we now have the result of his dereliction of duty. And now he wants the Rs to help him fix it? Yeah right. That is cynical politics at the highest level. He does not want it fixed. He wants to put the Rs face in it. Pure and simple. He doesn't care about the border or too many people coming. He only cares that it now is affecting blue states and they are complaining and sounding like Rs. mspart That pretty much raps it up. Without the election coming up we wouldn't even be having a conversation. 1
JimmyBT Posted February 7 Posted February 7 Biden F’d around and played games for over three years. Republicans need to get everything they want regarding the border or we can wait it out and see how it impacts the election.
mspart Posted February 7 Posted February 7 HR 2. This passed the House. Let it pass the Senate. Why is that such a bad thing? We can play that game too. Hey Ds, if you are serious you'll vote for HR2. Come on and show us how serious you are about this issue. Senate Ds say no. We want to have our own bill. Well, the Rs should be making this point very loudly. Put it in the Ds faces. Rs have already taken action. Now it is for the Ds to take action. mspart 1
VakAttack Posted February 7 Posted February 7 1 hour ago, mspart said: HR 2. This passed the House. Let it pass the Senate. Why is that such a bad thing? We can play that game too. Hey Ds, if you are serious you'll vote for HR2. Come on and show us how serious you are about this issue. Senate Ds say no. We want to have our own bill. Well, the Rs should be making this point very loudly. Put it in the Ds faces. Rs have already taken action. Now it is for the Ds to take action. mspart You're just being purposely obtuse. HR2 wasn't a bipartisan piece of legislation, and couldn't even get the support of the entire R caucus. It was purposely designed not to be passed, including language to try to kill support for aukraine, a Democratic priority So "we" are not playing that game too. It's fine that you guys don't actually care about the border, I'm just glad you're fondant admitting it. 1
WrestlingRasta Posted February 7 Posted February 7 4 hours ago, VakAttack said: The amount that (some people on here) demand things explained to you that you could read for yourselves is staggering. Quoted for emphasis
JimmyBT Posted February 7 Posted February 7 40 minutes ago, VakAttack said: You're just being purposely obtuse. HR2 wasn't a bipartisan piece of legislation, and couldn't even get the support of the entire R caucus. It was purposely designed not to be passed, including language to try to kill support for aukraine, a Democratic priority So "we" are not playing that game too. It's fine that you guys don't actually care about the border, I'm just glad you're fondant admitting it. We just cared all along. Not just recently started caring like you and uncle Joe did because there’s an election coming up. Screw the band aid that Biden is now ok with. 1
Offthemat Posted February 7 Posted February 7 5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Quoted for emphasis Pot/kettle 2
WrestlingRasta Posted February 7 Posted February 7 1 minute ago, Offthemat said: Pot/kettle Is it more of a burning sensation under your skin…or itching?
JimmyBT Posted February 7 Posted February 7 7 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Is it more of a burning sensation under your skin…or itching? Sounds like you’ve experienced both
Dylan Greenstein Northfield Mt. Herman, Massachusetts Class of 2025 Committed to Harvard Projected Weight: 285
Isabella Marie Gonzales Clovis East, California Class of 2025 Committed to Iowa (Women) Projected Weight: 117, 124
Maeve Witte Freehold Township, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven (Women) Projected Weight: 117
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now