Unacceptable…orrraaannngggee man bad. To hell with the country.
2 Likes
they didn’t agree with it. They were sent to negotiate it for the party.
The parties need to come together to produce a bill.
they did.
Biden supported it even though it had things he and his party disagreed with.
The GOP, though the reps they put forward to negoatiate on their behalf thought is was a good bill, scuttled it because trump wanted an issue to run on.
Wake me up when the GOP gives the executive power to deal with fentanyl and all the spending that will come with that declaration.
The GOP doesn’t care about fentanyl beyond its usefulness as a campaign issue.
Obviously, they negotiated nothing because, when the terms became known, the Republicans in the senate rejected it. Even if the other Senators liked it (they didn’t) the base (people such as myself) would and did let them know it was not acceptable. Trump was just,one who rejected this stinker.
2 Likes
The GOP supported it until trump told them not to.
Three members of the GOP supported it. Not the same as the GOP.
1 Like
The Senate bill is a permanent open borders bill which is what the dem party wants.
The EO is the same thing. A nothing burger ensuring open borders.
A temporary EO at that. 
p.s. He heard Brandon blame Trump for rejecting the stinker bill yesterday so hereeeeee he is obediantly parroting Brandon.
1 Like
I know! Math is hard!
Y’all strive to prove that all the time around here, but it’s really not. 
I’ll repeat:
2 Likes
Who is counting the ones wading across the Rio Grande where there is no wall and no port of entry?
2 Likes
I think what we are talking about is folks seeking asylum across the entire Mexican border. Which would include asylum seekers across the Rio Grande as well.
The people being told to let them go. lol
2 Likes
And who is counting those?
Just saying “math is hard” in response to that concern is rather disingenuous.
2 Likes
We could count them in multiple locations and use something like a phone to communicate with all the other sites and once the number hits 2500, call it a day. Phones can be very complicated devices but with proper training I think we can come to some level of competence. On the plus side, since no single site has to count all the way to 2500, it would require much less math. That is, except for the poor guy that has to add all the numbers together. 2500 is a huge number to add, we might need to get some Dude from MIT to help out.
1 Like
Clearly if the limit can be 4000 a day, it can also be one a day.
Considering it is now being revealed that as many are having their classes closed and they are free to go without a rulin as are being granted asylum, then the correct answer is none a day.
2 Likes
I think the limit is 2500. And we do need some level of immigration, we have a lot of jobs to offer hard working people! It just has to be legal. Those strawberries aren’t gonna pick themselves!
Very good question. You would think that there should be broad agreement as this issue is literally challenging the sovereignty and well being of our nation. The reality is that the Democrat Party believes the rights of the phony asylum seekers is more important than the sovereignty and well being of our nation:
There’s nothing in any Democrat position (including the worthless border bill negotiated by Lankford - the sole Republican) that in any way discourages country shopping by (largely) phony asylum seekers.
2 Likes
Asylum and Immigration are supposed to be two very separate things.
