@PuzZuLz saidYeah, because the boomer generation cares so much about the environment.
@Great-King-Rat
Sure buddy 🙄
In the 1970's y'all said an ice age was coming.
Y'all keep saying it's the end of the world if we don't change or conveniently pay money somehow.
Now y'all spreading fear about the big bad white man cause y'all are so terrified to call a spade a spade.
I reckon you're a boomer right?
Fool.
9 edits
@Sleepyguy saidThis is proof Republicans don't have an original thought. Mott used this same exact point a few weeks ago, using almost the exact same words as you. This shows you all get your instructions on how to defend Trump from the same sources.
OK so now that I'm back at a keyboard, here are a number of ways the Biden border bill sucked.
1) As noted, no bill was needed because the border could be secured with existing law, as Trump likes to say, "All you needed was a new President."
2) It continued to fund the NGO's that had created an immigrant pipeline into the US, and it continued sending money to "sanctu ...[text shortened]... "detention" to "non-custodial detention", meaning simply release into the US.
It was complete BS.
The response I gave to Mott when he used your claim about "no bill being needed"—why then did Trump sign a bill only 2 months earlier (in June) if none was needed? Mott of course had no answer because this is just a worthless right-wing talking point.
The rest of your post:
The bill was bi-partisan. It wasn't a "Biden bill". Republicans rejected a *bi-partisan* bill. If the terms "sucked", then why did Republicans initially agree to it? Remember: the bill passed the Republican-controlled House of Reps.
Furthermore, Schumer asked Republicans to open up negotiations to amend the bill, and they rejected it:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-border-security-bill-senate-vote-republicans/
Senate Republicans blocked a motion to even debate changes.
The border was never a real issue; it was just a political tool they needed to run a campaign on. They just didn't want Biden credited for negotiating a bill.
1 edit
@PuzZuLz saidWho are "they"? Can you be more specific? Who specifically admitted to lying?
Funny how those so called "fact checking" people back then ended up admitting they lied about some things and admitting that they were biased about other things and they aren't around anymore.
Nowadays when fact checking is done it shows the truth and 90 percent of it favors conservative viewpoints about how things are.
That's when people stopped running to the old fact ...[text shortened]... uth.
That's when people stopped demanding the footage so much.
It always proved the stereotype 😄
Why do you insist on being so vague?
1 edit
@vivify saidWait, what bill are you saying was signed two months earlier? Are you talking about HR 2, that passed the house but never went anywhere and led to the bipartisan sh-t sandwich in the Senate?
This is proof Republicans don't have an original thought. Mott used this same exact point a few weeks ago, using almost the exact same words as you. This shows you all get your instructions on how to defend Trump from the same sources.
The response I gave to Mott when he used your claim about "no bill being needed"—why then did Trump sign a bill only 2 months earlier (i ...[text shortened]... tool they needed to run a campaign on. They just didn't want Biden credited for negotiating a bill.
And yes you're right to point out the sandwich was bipartisan. The Senate GOP have long been squishes on illegal immigration. I remember burning up the phone lines when Bush was pushing amnesty.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidSG: 1) As noted, no bill was needed because the border could be secured with existing law, as Trump likes to say, "All you needed was a new President."
OK so now that I'm back at a keyboard, here are a number of ways the Biden border bill sucked.
1) As noted, no bill was needed because the border could be secured with existing law, as Trump likes to say, "All you needed was a new President."
2) It continued to fund the NGO's that had created an immigrant pipeline into the US, and it continued sending money to "sanctu ...[text shortened]... "detention" to "non-custodial detention", meaning simply release into the US.
It was complete BS.
No, it couldn't in the way Trump did by declaring a bogus "national emergency" and stopping immigrants from applying for asylum - which is required by present law:
§1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim
" On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued a proclamation purporting to prohibit most people crossing the southern border from applying for any forms of protection, even withholding of removal."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/asylum-united-states/
@Sleepyguy saidHow can you trust Bessent when he consistently characterizes the Biden economy as terrible, pointing to the inflation spike that only America (apparently) endured due to Covid and the restarting of the Global economy, but always forgets to mention that when Biden handed over the keys, his administration had brought inflation down to under 3%.
It was a bad bill, and clearly unneeded.
As for the economic plan, just watch Bessent from today.
[youtube]lvcTvrlCrY8[/youtube]
2 edits
@kmax87 saidI didn't say I trusted him. I asked what the Democrats had on offer for economic policy. My question was not answered, but was instead deflected to ask what the GOP's economic plan is. I responded with a link of Bessent talking about economic policy. Then I was told I was being lame for only using the word "bad" to describe the crap border bill that didn't pass, so I spoke to that. I don't think anyone answered my question but maybe I missed it.
How can you trust Bessent when he consistently characterizes the Biden economy as terrible, pointing to the inflation spike that only America (apparently) endured due to Covid and the restarting of the Global economy, but always forgets to mention that when Biden handed over the keys, his administration had brought inflation down to under 3%.
@no1marauder saidIt was an emergency and he was right to do so.
SG: 1) As noted, no bill was needed because the border could be secured with existing law, as Trump likes to say, "All you needed was a new President."
No, it couldn't in the way Trump did by declaring a bogus "national emergency" and stopping immigrants from applying for asylum - which is required by present law:
§1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
...[text shortened]... hholding of removal."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/asylum-united-states/
@Sleepyguy saidThe "Secure America Act"
Wait, what bill are you saying was signed two months earlier?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/06/s-2-signed-into-law/
- Joined
- 18 Aug 26
- Moves
- 288
1 edit
@vivify
Even if the Dems and Republicans were arguing about a border bill, the president, Biden, still could have instructed the actual border people to lock it down because of the rampant crossings.
Y'all failed in that regard and people haven't forgotten about that.
People also think y'all are going to do that again if y'all win the White House in 2028
@vivify saidOh got it. When you said two months "earlier" I time traveled. But the Secure America Act was just a funding bill. No changes to immigration law, right? It seems that kinda makes my point.
The "Secure America Act"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/06/s-2-signed-into-law/
@Sleepyguy saidNot according to the English language:
It was an emergency and he was right to do so.
Emergency
1
: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergency
High levels of border crossings have existed for decades; there was nothing "unforeseen" about them by January 2025 nor was "immediate action" by the Executive required when the power to regulate immigration is clearly given to Congress (which has exhaustedly done so) by the Constitution.
This was one of many power grabs by Trump in violation of long standing principles of US law.
@no1marauder saidIt was an emergency for years that someone FINALLY did something about.
Not according to the English language:
Emergency
1
: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emergency
High levels of border crossings have existed for decades; there was nothing "unforeseen" about them by January 2025 nor was "immediate action" by the Executiv ...[text shortened]... on.
This was one of many power grabs by Trump in violation of long standing principles of US law.