aggiehawg said:

---

WHOA!

Sen Ted Cruz lays blame for “disastrous” border bill at the feet of Senate Republican leadership

Q: Is it time for Leader McConnell to go?
CRUZ: “I think it is.”

— Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) February 6, 2024

First McCarthy and now maybe McConnell?

---

I will believe it when I see it. Mitch McConnell IS the swamp.

akm91 said:

---

No new bill is needed to secure the border. All we need is for the administration to reverse the 64 executive actions they've taken since 2021 to unsecure the border.

---

fify

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

WHOA!

Sen Ted Cruz lays blame for “disastrous” border bill at the feet of Senate Republican leadership

Q: Is it time for Leader McConnell to go?
CRUZ: “I think it is.”

— Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) February 6, 2024

First McCarthy and now maybe McConnell?

---

I will believe it when I see it. Mitch McConnell IS the swamp.

---

Good for Cruz. One of the few that has the balls to go after the big rinos.

Old Army Metal said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

This is a joke...right? I mean conservative Americans want the illegal immigration to stop. 100% stop. This bill didn't do that.

---

What Conservative politicians want, though, is to look like they want the illegal immigration to stop.

They don't actually want it to, though, because it's a cash cow they can milk every four years in the run-up to a presidential election.

It's uncanny how primary season starts and the GOP starts screaming about the border. You can set your watch by it.

---

The border crisis belongs to the leftists you support. To see who really doesn't want illegal immigration to stop, look here:

Still waiting....

aggiehawg said:

---

WHOA!

Sen Ted Cruz lays blame for “disastrous” border bill at the feet of Senate Republican leadership

Q: Is it time for Leader McConnell to go?
CRUZ: “I think it is.”

— Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) February 6, 2024

First McCarthy and now maybe McConnell?

---

Which Republicans were on this "bipartisan" committee that came up with this garbage?

Old Army Metal said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

This is a joke...right? I mean conservative Americans want the illegal immigration to stop. 100% stop. This bill didn't do that.

---

What Conservative politicians want, though, is to look like they want the illegal immigration to stop.

They don't actually want it to, though, because it's a cash cow they can milk every four years in the run-up to a presidential election.

It's uncanny how primary season starts and the GOP starts screaming about the border. You can set your watch by it.

---

Bull crap. As usual you miss again. It was Texas, specifically Abbott calling out the Biden Admin's mismanagement and negligence of its constitutional obligations that put this issue on the front burner.

You being wrong is something you set your watch by.

Slicer97 said:

---

Still waiting....

---

For ****ing what? A dissertation?

I give this forum as much time and as much of my opinion as I think it deserves.

I asked a question.

How are the Democrats a better option than Republicans concerning border policy (or anything else, for that matter)?

Should be pretty quick and simple to answer.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Still waiting....

---

For ****ing what? A dissertation?

I give this forum as much time and as much of my opinion as I think it deserves.

---

Look at this tough guy.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Still waiting....

---

For ****ing what? A dissertation?

I give this forum as much time and as much of my opinion as I think it deserves.

---

We don't deserve any of your time.

That's ok. I wouldn't have been able to answer that question either.

Slicer97 said:

---

I asked a question.

How are the Democrats a better option than Republicans concerning border policy (or anything else, for that matter)?

Should be pretty quick and simple to answer.

---

Better on border protection? Maybe, probably not. Less nakedly bloodthirsty? For sure.

B-1 83 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

It's not perfect but it's a good start and to say it's undeserving of a debate is just ridiculous

---

Go on. You are so close. What particular aspects are a good start? Let's discuss those.

---

funding for hiring 1500 new BP officers, creation of new immigration courts and funding for judges and court staff, expedite asylum screenings, expand detention center capacity and build new ones.

the immigration crisis won't be solved by shutting down the border completely.

---

You do realize that from application, interview, background check, and "boot camp"/training that about 2 years before they hit the field, don't you? Of course you don't……you've shown such total detachment from reality in this discussion, there is no way you can comprehend that.

---

That's only 3.6 million more illegals in the country. May need some more judges then, though.

Ag with kids said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

It's not perfect but it's a good start and to say it's undeserving of a debate is just ridiculous

---

Go on. You are so close. What particular aspects are a good start? Let's discuss those.

---

funding for hiring 1500 new BP officers, creation of new immigration courts and funding for judges and court staff, expedite asylum screenings, expand detention center capacity and build new ones.

the immigration crisis won't be solved by shutting down the border completely.

---

You do realize that from application, interview, background check, and "boot camp"/training that about 2 years before they hit the field, don't you? Of course you don't……you've shown such total detachment from reality in this discussion, there is no way you can comprehend that.

---

That's only 3.6 million more illegals in the country. May need some more judges then, though.

---

And they'd better work at one "applicant" every 5 minutes, 24/7 365 to even attempt to clear the backload. In the meantime, the migrants are screwing like bunnies to squeeze out the anchor puppies.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

---

The 'Come and Take It' does the job. Why make Texas some wrinkly old testicles?

---

It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who haven't experienced their effects.

B-1 83 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

It's not perfect but it's a good start and to say it's undeserving of a debate is just ridiculous

---

Go on. You are so close. What particular aspects are a good start? Let's discuss those.

---

funding for hiring 1500 new BP officers, creation of new immigration courts and funding for judges and court staff, expedite asylum screenings, expand detention center capacity and build new ones.

the immigration crisis won't be solved by shutting down the border completely.

---

You do realize that from application, interview, background check, and "boot camp"/training that about 2 years before they hit the field, don't you? Of course you don't……you've shown such total detachment from reality in this discussion, there is no way you can comprehend that.

---

That's only 3.6 million more illegals in the country. May need some more judges then, though.

---

And they'd better work at one "applicant" every 5 minutes, 24/7 365 to even attempt to clear the backload. In the meantime, the migrants are screwing like bunnies to squeeze out the anchor puppies.

---

THIS is the key reason the Dems want this. The GOP can fight to stop "amnesty" for the illegals that came in. But their KIDS are auto-citizens...and most will end up voting Dem.

Although, I will say...I know someone very well whose mother was an illegal from Central America but he was born here. He's an Aggie engineer and pretty conservative. Even grew up in the Valley. So, maybe there's some hope that all of the anchor kids won't weigh us down...

I know at least three ****ers in the House GOP that will vote for the anti-border bill.

Do not need the bill to enforce the law.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Do not need the bill to enforce the law.

---

No, they need it to fund Ukraine.

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

I asked a question.

How are the Democrats a better option than Republicans concerning border policy (or anything else, for that matter)?

Should be pretty quick and simple to answer.

---

Better on border protection? Maybe, probably not. Less nakedly bloodthirsty? For sure.

---

What in the literal **** does this mean?

agwrestler said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

I asked a question.

How are the Democrats a better option than Republicans concerning border policy (or anything else, for that matter)?

Should be pretty quick and simple to answer.

---

Better on border protection? Maybe, probably not. Less nakedly bloodthirsty? For sure.

---

What in the literal **** does this mean?

---

It means he can't come up with a good reason to support the Democrats (I mean, who can?) and is just throwing some crap at the wall.

Now slimeball Schumer will submit Plan B to the Senate for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan funding etc. without Border Security. and without answering the 12 questions about Ukraine House Republicans previously demanded. Mike Johnson had better trash it like the stupid Border Bill ! ( Sending money and equipment to Ukraine without auditing with Strategic Planning and doing nothing for our Border ) Most of the elected leaders in Washington are lazy stiffs and would be fired if they had a responsible job in private industry. Its easy to just throw money out the window

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

citation needed

Because letting 5,000+ contacts go, every day, by law, with work permits, before making border patrol redirect people to an actual border crossing does not come close to reducing asylum seekers.

Don't fall for the lies. This thing is toxic.

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

It was a bad bill. They didn't get what they asked for or they would have voted for it. But go ahead and scream BIPARTISAN because 2 republicans wanted it. Such a dishonest take.

STAFF would ban me for the required response to that nonsense.

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

Bipartisan between democrats and democrats in republican clothing. It is obvious that there was zero conservative input. The bill was a steaming pile of poison pill riddled dog crap. Of course you think it was "BIPARTISAN".

Opalka said:

---

It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

Because it shouldn't be supported. It's a trash bill that sends a bunch of money to Ukraine and still allows illegal aliens to come over in droves. Further evidence that Democrats do not operate in good faith.

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation. It's the ONLY thing they have to run on this election. If not for that, they have nothing. So even though republicans got what they asked for, they can't vote for it. There were a lot of good things in that bill, to reduce asylum seekers and add more border patrol agents. It was a BIPARTISAN bill, and republicans still can't support it. Shame, but it's clear they can't govern because they're more concerned about winning the election.

---

Lies and misinformation. Bipartisan does not mean good, see Patriot Act

Opalka said:

---

republicans can't pass any border legislation.

---

This bill was not border legislation. It just further enabled Biden to do nothing but sent billions to his cronies everywhere.

No need to lie about this.

5 years ago Pelosi called any budget consideration for a wall and added border security a "non-starter" because, despite the fact that the country desperatly needed it, the Donkeys couldn't even consider letting Trump have any kind of win.

And the plan was mostly straight forward. Better barrier, more personell.

Now, these same Donkeys want you to believe that a 3 times more expensive solution with more loopholes then a 17th century battle cruiser can only be opposed for political reasons because "Daddy Trump" said so.

It's really quite baffling when you say it outloud.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

5 years ago Pelosi called any budget consideration for a wall and added border security a "non-starter" because, despite the fact that the country desperatly needed it, the Donkeys couldn't even consider letting Trump have any kind of win.

And the plan was mostly straight forward. Better barrier, more personell.

Now, these same Donkeys want you to believe that a 3 times more expensive solution with more loopholes then a 17th century battle cruiser can only be opposed for political reasons because "Daddy Trump" said so.

It's really quite baffling when you say it outloud.

---

And they take it hook line and sinker every single time or have the shortest memories on the planet.