Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Right. Republicans were demanding it go through until the moment Trump said it was bad. But it was actually the result of it not accomplishing enough. /s
Quit fooling yourself.
Up until a week ago nobody knew what was in it, dems were only releasing bullet points. Once people read it they opposed it.
Don't worry I won't rely on you to interpret it for me.
The 4,000 number that triggers a border close doesn't close it, it only gives the option to close it.
Then there's the 5000 trigger but naturally there are exceptions.
Even those loopholes were not enough so they made sure they could ignore the mandatory closing.
Nice try at a straw man, I'm surprised you didn't go the unaccomponied minor route.
Could you point to where I said I disagree with all the exceptions, I simply listed them? If you had a desire to have a real discussion you could ask which ones I disagree with.
You might need to read up on what a straw man is, it's not just misrepresenting a position.
You seem to have missed my point about your attempted straw man. I was saying I'm surprised you didn't us the what about the kids as your straw man.
But let me guess. You're just going to cry anyway when people read it and decide that it fucking sucks?
Thats not nearly all of it, thats a tiny snippet.
Why do you automatically assume that people are supposed to agree with it by default? It's seriously that unfathomable in your mind that someone could read it and decide it isn't a good bill?
It just sounds like you have a very poor idea of what I want, in that case.
It's wild how you think constantly pretending like everyone who disagrees is too stupid to think for themselves is remotely good faith
I'm genuinely curious how you look at threads like this where he does nothing except be a total fucking condescending jackass and think "yeah, it's reasonable to have this guy deciding who's in good faith"