• Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Since they reneged on a deal two months ago to secure the border?

    Yes. Obviously.

    If two parties(Democrats and Republicans) agree to secure the border and then one party (the Republicans) reneges on the agreed proposal and runs away so that the deal falls through, it is that party’s(the Republicans) fault that the deal has fallen through.

    • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think you are referring to the bill with aid to Ukraine, Isreal and Tawaiin, corret? If so, that bill was terrible and literally did the opposite of secure the border.

      Why do they need a bill to secure the border when they already have the ability to do it?

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Passing bipartisan legislation is how things should legally and transparently be done in the US democratic system.

        A better question is; why are conservatives clutching their pearls over a non-critical issue like border security and then fleeing once someone agrees to provide funding and measures for securing the border?

        • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Outside of passing a bill with billions of military aid for proxy wars in foreign countries, it was still a shitty bill. I am fine with using the system correctly, but why not stop the bleeding first and actually prosecute the law?

          Are you aware of what it even did? It literally just codified that 5000 people per day can illegally enter the country by any means, and then after that they have to go through the port of entry, and if I am remembering correctly it doesnt even start taking place till the end of the year. And then it made it so that all the court hearings adjudicating it had to take place in DC. No person should have accepted that bill even if it didnt shove military aid to kill people around the world.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It is irrational but consistent that conservatives took getting what they wished for as a terrifying cautionary example of…getting what they wished for.

            Border security is a non-critical earmark that baby-brained conservatives whined for more action on and then cowered from once their plaintive cries were answered.

            Ukraine should get as much aid as they want. Any other conclusion is nuts. Or selfish. Or cowardly. Or short-sighted.

            • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I dont think you read my comment…

              And the Ukraine war is over, they lost, you wanting more aid is just encouraging more death of ukrainians.

                • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  413,000 Russian troops lost so far to Ukraine’s 31,000.

                  Hold up, do you actually believe this?

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    You think everyone, including Russia, is tricking you somehow? Why?