It's very telling that most of the articles you post are from notthebee.com.
Try living in the real world some time.
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
-41 points (11.3% liked)
Conservative
479 readers
143 users here now
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.
founded 1 year ago
Someone very wise recently told me:
Just crying and throwing a fit because people disagree with you doesn't make it a bad bill
But a bill that effectively opens borders while keeping any sort of welfare is a bad bill.
Except it doesn't effectively open the border, where you getting that from? Democrats really want that aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, so were willing to compromise. That's how this works. If the border is a really pressing and important issue, then I think there would be some motivation to make a deal quickly, even if republicans can't get everything they want. Otherwise it seems like the urgency is entirely manufactured for dramatic effect. I'm not saying anything new: an ex-president doesn't want the "border crisis" solved. Are republican voters going to catch on to such blatent duplicity?