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
Up until a week ago nobody knew what was in it, dems were only releasing bullet points. Once people read it they opposed it.
You can read it for yourself and make your own decisions rather than relying on people who hate America to interpret it for you.
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.
So, just to be clear, the border should be closed even to people with who valid visas or are otherwise lawfully permitted to enter into the U.S. when the border emergency authority is activated?
Like, if an Israeli citizen shows up and wants to get through...they should be rejected if the border emergency authority is activated?
Nice try at a straw man, I'm surprised you didn't go the unaccomponied minor route.
You can just say no and amend what you mean.
How come none of you know how to argue? Pointing out a strawman just means I've misrepresented your position.
Also, the unaccompanied minor is in the bill. You posted it.
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.
Yeah, okay, I owe you a genuine apology. You actually read it and found bits that you disagreed with and even quoted them. And, in response, I fucked by basically asserting that you believe things you don't.
I apologize for that.
I do want a real discussion. But, let's try again some other time.
But let me guess. You're just going to cry anyway when people read it and decide that it fucking sucks?
You never know until you try
Matter of fact, I'll do some reading for you. You tell me if these things are bad.
All of those sections can be found in the link of my other comment. So, this isn't even interpretation, just what is exactly in the bill.
What is here that's worth opposing exactly?
Thats not nearly all of it, thats a tiny snippet.
Yeah, which means there's more stuff that you'd probably find appealing in it!
Because if you read Republican criticisms of the bill, there's no policy discussion. It's not bad because tens of millions isn't enough, or because ICE wasn't given enough power to deport immigrants in the country with authorization, or anything else. It's just bad, just dead on arrival, just a crap sandwich. No reasoning given for why, just that it is.
They're abusing your trust in them to lie to you. The bill has what you want in it. It has what they want in it. So why isn't it being passed?
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?
No. I hate the bill. But it also wasn't targeted at my political demographic.
For a group of folks that justify war and suffering of others for personal and national security, you must like it more than I do. It's just a matter of whether you actually like it or just think it's okay. From what I can tell, you should actually really like it.
But here's the thing: I didn't arrive at hating the bill because I heard from AOC that it's a bad bill. Most of you heard from freakin' Fox News and Co. that it was bad bill and believe it.
Republican politicians are lying to you. The bill is a relatively good one from your perspective. But, for whatever reason, you can't pull from the wool from over your eyes to see it for yourself.
It just sounds like you have a very poor idea of what I want, in that case.
Fair enough. You seem to want what you're told to want, or to not want I suppose.
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"