Ukraine

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What part of

“Demilitarizing Russia for a few billion dollars while avoiding a direct confrontation is money in the bank.”

don’t you guys understand?

The bit where you do't think it's worth doing anything about until every other part of the US government is fully aligned with your political priorities.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t know why the Biden Administration refuses to secure the border in exchange for funding Ukraine.

Obviously. It's called extortion. It's called a demand for capitulation for the sole purpose of weakening the counter party. If not, then why doesn't the Republican house take the $14 Billion for border security already offered? Moreover there is simply no equivalency between supporting Ukraine to the fullest by recognizing that allowing Russia to win will harm all Americans and some amorphous wish for "Border Security" without knowing how to achieve it.  Honestly, you really do not understand it more than most because you attended a college course.

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Obviously. It's called extortion. It's called a demand for capitulation for the sole purpose of weakening the counter party. If not, then why doesn't the Republican house take the $14 Billion for border security already offered? Moreover there is simply no equivalency between supporting Ukraine to the fullest by recognizing that allowing Russia to win will harm all Americans and some amorphous wish for "Border Security" without knowing how to achieve it.  Honestly, you really do not understand it more than most because you attended a college course.

and the GOP also wants passage of its bill H.R.2

1. Claims are refused if a immigrant passes through another country where they could have made an asylum claim first. i.e. Honduras, Mexico, etc. So NO border claims would be allowed.

2. U.S. homeland security secretary could institute any measure to suspend entry to migrants to maintain "operational control" of the border.

3. It mandates at least 900 miles of NEW border wall, a signature trump policy. It would end new Biden "parole" programs that have allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter legally, including Ukrainians and Afghans. No word if Mexico is supposed to pay for the wall or all of it.

4. The mere accusation against one parent of having "illegally entered" would result in immediate deportation of the entire family.

President Biden wants $14 billion for U.S. border security. That money would pay for 1,300 additional U.S. Border Patrol agents, 1,600 new asylum officers and 375 new judge teams.

The whack job GOP calls that good faith negotiation. Then they would entertain Ukraine funding.

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

75% of Americans think the unchecked illegal immigration needs to be stopped, it would seem to be an easy lift.

Yep.  Too bad the republicans are blocking every effort to do so.  People may think about that on election day.

[ryoder 1,590]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  Too bad the republicans are blocking every effort to do so.  People may think about that on election day.

Well, hell they can't let that get through! Else all they have left to rant about is the imaginary culture war!

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

and the GOP also wants passage of its bill H.R.2

1. Claims are refused if an immigrant passes through another country where they could have made an asylum claim first. i.e. Honduras, Mexico, etc. So NO border claims would be allowed.

 

I believe that is A United Nations standard.

Do you really think the current approach is working?

[jakee 1,489]

58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I believe that is A United Nations standard.

Why do you believe that?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I believe that is A United Nations standard.

Do you really think the current approach is working?

Do you mean the current Republican approach of using human beings to score cheap political points and electoral ambitions? Nope, I do not. What are we supposed to do, machine gun them all in the river? Sanction the piss out of Mexico until they machine gun them at their southern border? Let the sanctions on Mexico and Costa Rica and El Salvador and Nicaragua and Panama shrink the US economy instead of letting in low level workers of which we are in short supply and actually grows our economy? We've listen to you complain and toss out sound bites on the topic now please give us your step by step plan on what you would do including how you would deal with the inevitable hiccups and screwups. How much time would your plan take before showing measurable gains, how much will it cost and who will happily pay for it all? You're up chica, put up or something else.

[brenthutch 444]

I say go back to the Obama approach 

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Why do you believe that?

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?docid=4bab55da2&reldoc=y
 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I say go back to the Obama approach 

Elucidate, please. Because, as you know, you'll be able to shape shift if your correspondent gives substance or definition to your posit. Be brave, spell it out for we poor ignorant fools.

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I believe that is A United Nations standard...

"The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement" is what you're thinking of.

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

...Do you really think the current approach is working?

The GOP had every opportunity to address immigration when they were in power under trump, the Bush's, etc. etc.

Good faith negotiations with the Dem's would be a start instead of linking other political objectives that have nothing to do with border security.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

51 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement" is what you're thinking of.

The GOP had every opportunity to address immigration when they were in power under trump, the Bush's, etc. etc.

Good faith negotiations with the Dem's would be a start instead of linking other political objectives that have nothing to do with border security.

Clearly they did not teach the concept of governance in undergrad at Liberty U.

[Phil1111 1,149]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Clearly they did not teach the concept of governance in undergrad at Liberty U.

No their syllabus lists misogyny up to 404, advanced racism to 300, advanced right to life legislation to 413. Together with many courses on "Bible Quotes and lies for the right wing tribes".

[jakee 1,489]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?docid=4bab55da2&reldoc=y
 

Right, so what Phil highlighted the GOP wanting - NO border claims for people who've travelled through another country - is not a UN standard.

[brenthutch 444]

9 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

"The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement" is what you're thinking of.

The GOP had every opportunity to address immigration when they were in power under trump, the Bush's, etc. etc.

Good faith negotiations with the Dem's would be a start instead of linking other political objectives that have nothing to do with border security.

We did not have a illegal immigration crisis when the GOP was in power.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We did not have a illegal immigration crisis when the GOP was in power.

Is that it? Is that your comprehensive plan, put the GOP in power?

[brenthutch 444]

56 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Is that it? Is that your comprehensive plan, put the GOP in power?

Reinstate the remain in Mexico policy. What is your solution?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Reinstate the remain in Mexico policy. What is your solution?

Bullshit answer. You barked, not me. Flesh it out if you can. Think through the problem of just enforcing it, for one tiny issue. I do not think it is right for trains of people to freely transit through several countries to our border. No one I know disagrees, the problem is enforcement. Please tell us how you would do it or agree you don't know what you are saying when you cry about the border.

[brenthutch 444]

42 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Bullshit answer. You barked, not me. Flesh it out if you can. Think through the problem of just enforcing it, for one tiny issue. I do not think it is right for trains of people to freely transit through several countries to our border. No one I know disagrees, the problem is enforcement. Please tell us how you would do it or agree you don't know what you are saying when you cry about the border.

As long as illegals are released into the country instead of being deported the pull factor will be irresistible.  Biden opened up the border in a knee jerk reaction to do the opposite of Trump and we are now seeing the consequences. This administration lacks the backbone to address the problem, so I guess we will just have to continue to bus these folks to sanctuary cities.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

As long as illegals are released into the country instead of being deported the pull factor will be irresistible.  Biden opened up the border in a knee jerk reaction to do the opposite of Trump and we are now seeing the consequences. This administration lacks the backbone to address the problem, so I guess we will just have to continue to bus these folks to sanctuary cities.

Deport them to where? Where do we house them while waiting for the next flight, bus or boat? Or do we simply drive them back across the Texas border singing Roll 'em, Roll 'em, Roll 'em?

Maybe we can get Mr. Peabody and his Wayback Machine to transport them back to the better days of gentle Republicans and real easy solutions.

Two answers you've given, both empty of solutions or even a dribble of insight. It must be taken as an admission that you are without ideas or understanding. Thanks for playing.

 

[kallend 2,027]

Unfortunately the GOP discovered that lying to pander to the prejudices of the least educated segment of the voters is a winning electoral strategy.

[ryoder 1,590]

OK, I will temporarily suspend my policy of not responding to trolls, to address the "Biden opened up the border" bullshit.

Cato Institute: Data Show Trump Would’ve Released as Many Border Crossers as Biden

But that comes from those bleeding-heart liberals at Cato...oh wait...it's a Libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch and others. Never mind.

[brenthutch 444]

46 minutes ago, ryoder said:

OK, I will temporarily suspend my policy of not responding to trolls, to address the "Biden opened up the border" bullshit.

Cato Institute: Data Show Trump Would’ve Released as Many Border Crossers as Biden

But that comes from those bleeding-heart liberals at Cato...oh wait...it's a Libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch and others. Never mind.

Biden’s stated position is “don’t come, but if you do we will let you in”.  The massive surge did not happen during the Trump administration, it happened under Biden.

[Phil1111 1,149]

59 minutes ago, kallend said:

Unfortunately the GOP discovered that lying to pander to the prejudices of the least educated segment of the voters is a winning electoral strategy.

The GOP and FOX control the messaging to its base just like North Korea's Kim. The GOP base is loyal to trump because they know nothing else. That a world exists outside the conservative agenda is labeled heresy.

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

...As long as illegals are released into the country instead of being deported ...

So the constitution what you swore allegiance to as a military member means nothing? All immigrants are allowed "due process" i.e. an immigration hearing. The hiring of more judges and supporting personnel is exactly what Biden has put on the table.