I would like to see us continue to support Ukraine, but not at any price.

Why? They've been given enough.

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll not be voting for Brisket Boy again.

Need another Cruz in office!

The only reason the left supports this is because they hate Trump. They believe Trump is BFFs with Putin. They are willing spend us into bankruptcy.

---

geoag58 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I'll not be voting for Brisket Boy again.

Need another Cruz in office!

The only reason the left supports this is because they hate Trump. They believe Trump is BFFs with Putin. They are willing spend us into bankruptcy.

---

They like money in their pocket more than they hate Trump. They hate Trump because it looked like he was about to take the lid off the Ukraine scam, which would cost them money. If Trump was for continuing the payola gravy train both sides would love Trump.

---

Remember when Trump was president and they were freaking out because of him dealing with Zelenskyy? All of a sudden he went from being pure evil to the good guy. You can look it up. There are many articles written back then by the leftist MSM about how evil Ukraine was.

I also remember when they hated Bush 2, John McCain, etc. But once they hated Trump all of a sudden they loved them. I mean look at what they've done with Liz Cheney. They all went from Hitler to wonderful people.

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Good cornyn

---

Warmongers gonna warmonger

---

Dead Russians

---

You know evil terrorists are pouring into our country with the thought of killing Americans; and millions of our enemies chant death to America.

---

We can address both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

---

This bill does not address both. This bill is mutually exclusive.

Bad Cornyn and the rest of the big gov enthusiasts...cough...cough.

---

So, if you can't have both at once, you should get neither?

---

Illogical strawman much....

---

Well, your statement was a strawman too.

We can address both.

So what if this bill doesn't. It's actually possible to have ANOTHER bill...

---

If you think funding other countries is higher on the pecking order than protecting our own border, then sure you have a point, though not a very conservative point in my opinion. You don't give your opponent their wishes and get a peanut in return with the hopes that they give you your wishes later. That is idiotic, yet people praise Cornyn for this.

This whole tangent started because of the resident big gov enthusiast praising Cornyn for giving even more money away to a known corrupt countries border all while we received ZERO for protecting our own border.

America first. The rest second.

---

Well, I don't, so your premise is flawed.

I think we need both. I think border security is more important.

HOWEVER...get what you can when you can get it and continue working on the other. It's not a difficult concept.

Or, you can wait until you get the one you want the most first and if it never happens, you get NOTHING. Brilliant plan.

---

If you are negotiating with someone that wants similar but not exact results as what you want, then you can play give an take easier like you think we can do. That is not our reality when negotiating with D's, and sometimes RINO's.

But in reality, we have a conservative populace negotiating with an anti-American populace, and the "conservative" leaders nearly always do the giving first and hope there is some taking later.

That doesn't mean funding Ukraine is anti-American, it just means that it's foolish to praise the "conservative" leaders for getting us a peanut and not asking for the big prize that we know our anti-American counterparts do not want to give up. A wasted effort at best or a corrupt effort at worst. Like you facetiously said, brilliant plan....

---

I want them to get that too.

Should we wait until that happens before doing everything else I want? Or take your wins when you get them and then start working on the next thing.

Yes...the Dems suck. But, they also hold the Senate so they've got more power. So, getting the border stuff will be a lot of work - maybe more busses to Chuckie Schumers house would help (I'm serious),

---

Interesting question.

Consider the state of the U.S. right now with an open border, inflation, debt, incompatible political ideologies, and government bloat.
Would you consider funding Ukraine a win in regards to Cornyn's vote and this bill IF we do not get illegal alien enforcement? View the Ukraine bill as stand alone, because that is exactly what it is now and any leverage is gone now.

If so, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I view Ukraine funding as a strong poker chip that big gov and leftists want but conservatives should care little for when considering the state of the U.S. now. Without that poker chip, the odds of getting illegal alien enforcement drops considerably which is a far greater loss than any gain from Ukraine funding.

---

I'll consider it how it is. A win and a loss. I want both. But 1-1 is better than 0-2.

And I agree it's a strong poker chip. But...remember, the the HOUSE hasn't played their hand yet. Which hopefully will make the negotiation go the way I hope it goes.

---

It's not 1-1. Not even close when comparing the conservative difference in magnitude between funding a foreign country vs protecting our own border. It would take an amount of foreign aid to create world peace to overcome the negative impacts of an open border, which is illogical.

And the House has played its hand. H2 is in the Senate now and they can easily make the Ds sweat it if they want Ukraine funding. You think the Senate ever passes H2 now if the Ukraine funding already passes the House? Not a chance and you know it.

Funding Ukraine in a vacuum, exactly like this bill did, is a net negative on the U.S. with all of the issues we have going on as I mentioned above. It's only a positive if the issues at home are taken care of, which are significantly harder to accomplish now that we've given up bargaining power to the Ds.

Cornyn is an idiot and screwed conservatives.

---

How did this fund Ukraine? Vacuum or not?

The House hasn't approved it.

Ukraine funding is exactly where the border security bill is....in limbo.

---

I don't have time to debate semantics. Re read it and think about it because the bread crumb trail is very visible.

Have a good night.

F Cornyn for voting for this and giving up conservative leverage.

---

What semantics?

Exactly ZERO dollars have be authorized to fund Ukraine.

---

Ok you got me suckered back in for one last attempt to put a spotlight on the bread crumbs for you.....

Who is the person in the title of this thread? Cornyn
What did that person vote for? Ukraine Funding
Is the U.S. economy and our laundry list of domestic issues in a good enough position to make this vote a priority? Yes
Is Ukraine corrupt? Yes
Is Russia really that big of a threat? Yes
Should Europe and neighboring countries provide support to Ukraine (instead of majority U.S.)? Yes, and they are.
Why did this person vote for this before negotiating for what conservatives really want, a secure border? Because the Democrats control the Senate and determine what bills are brought up for a vote.
Does this passing the Senate (with filibuster proof votes) make it harder for conservatives to negotiate for a secure border? I don't believe so since the House still holds the trump card on that spending.

It's clear as day as to why conservatives are not happy with Cornyn's vote, unless the goal is enabling big gov or prioritizing foreign aid over a secure border.

---

---

You're so close, led right up to the water for the drink but not quite taking it.

This whole conversation is about Cornyn's vote.
We obviously disagree on the U.S. economy and our domestic issues, but not surprising.

You also completely missed the point of him voting yes to the Ukraine funding. He could have voted no and said he will change it to a yes IF a illegal alien enforcement was attached. I hate tying items together, but why vote yes for a penny when you can turn that penny into a dollar. That's common sense negotiating. If you don't get the penny now is it really that big of a deal? Unless, like I said before, you view Ukraine funding as a large win comparable to a secure U.S. border which in my opinion is just proof of being an enabler of big gov and corruption.

And we also disagree on the leverage lost by Cornyn halping the D's get a filibuster proof vote in the Senate. Imagine all GOP were as squishy as Cornyn and negotiated this poorly. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine because that is exactly how the GOP fails to negotiate the past several decades.

Can you see beyond step 1 now of why conservatives are upset with Cornyn for this vote?

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Good cornyn

---

Warmongers gonna warmonger

---

Dead Russians

---

You know evil terrorists are pouring into our country with the thought of killing Americans; and millions of our enemies chant death to America.

---

We can address both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

---

This bill does not address both. This bill is mutually exclusive.

Bad Cornyn and the rest of the big gov enthusiasts...cough...cough.

---

So, if you can't have both at once, you should get neither?

---

Illogical strawman much....

---

Well, your statement was a strawman too.

We can address both.

So what if this bill doesn't. It's actually possible to have ANOTHER bill...

---

If you think funding other countries is higher on the pecking order than protecting our own border, then sure you have a point, though not a very conservative point in my opinion. You don't give your opponent their wishes and get a peanut in return with the hopes that they give you your wishes later. That is idiotic, yet people praise Cornyn for this.

This whole tangent started because of the resident big gov enthusiast praising Cornyn for giving even more money away to a known corrupt countries border all while we received ZERO for protecting our own border.

America first. The rest second.

---

Well, I don't, so your premise is flawed.

I think we need both. I think border security is more important.

HOWEVER...get what you can when you can get it and continue working on the other. It's not a difficult concept.

Or, you can wait until you get the one you want the most first and if it never happens, you get NOTHING. Brilliant plan.

---

If you are negotiating with someone that wants similar but not exact results as what you want, then you can play give an take easier like you think we can do. That is not our reality when negotiating with D's, and sometimes RINO's.

But in reality, we have a conservative populace negotiating with an anti-American populace, and the "conservative" leaders nearly always do the giving first and hope there is some taking later.

That doesn't mean funding Ukraine is anti-American, it just means that it's foolish to praise the "conservative" leaders for getting us a peanut and not asking for the big prize that we know our anti-American counterparts do not want to give up. A wasted effort at best or a corrupt effort at worst. Like you facetiously said, brilliant plan....

---

I want them to get that too.

Should we wait until that happens before doing everything else I want? Or take your wins when you get them and then start working on the next thing.

Yes...the Dems suck. But, they also hold the Senate so they've got more power. So, getting the border stuff will be a lot of work - maybe more busses to Chuckie Schumers house would help (I'm serious),

---

Interesting question.

Consider the state of the U.S. right now with an open border, inflation, debt, incompatible political ideologies, and government bloat.
Would you consider funding Ukraine a win in regards to Cornyn's vote and this bill IF we do not get illegal alien enforcement? View the Ukraine bill as stand alone, because that is exactly what it is now and any leverage is gone now.

If so, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I view Ukraine funding as a strong poker chip that big gov and leftists want but conservatives should care little for when considering the state of the U.S. now. Without that poker chip, the odds of getting illegal alien enforcement drops considerably which is a far greater loss than any gain from Ukraine funding.

---

I'll consider it how it is. A win and a loss. I want both. But 1-1 is better than 0-2.

And I agree it's a strong poker chip. But...remember, the the HOUSE hasn't played their hand yet. Which hopefully will make the negotiation go the way I hope it goes.

---

It's not 1-1. Not even close when comparing the conservative difference in magnitude between funding a foreign country vs protecting our own border. It would take an amount of foreign aid to create world peace to overcome the negative impacts of an open border, which is illogical.

And the House has played its hand. H2 is in the Senate now and they can easily make the Ds sweat it if they want Ukraine funding. You think the Senate ever passes H2 now if the Ukraine funding already passes the House? Not a chance and you know it.

Funding Ukraine in a vacuum, exactly like this bill did, is a net negative on the U.S. with all of the issues we have going on as I mentioned above. It's only a positive if the issues at home are taken care of, which are significantly harder to accomplish now that we've given up bargaining power to the Ds.

Cornyn is an idiot and screwed conservatives.

---

How did this fund Ukraine? Vacuum or not?

The House hasn't approved it.

Ukraine funding is exactly where the border security bill is....in limbo.

---

I don't have time to debate semantics. Re read it and think about it because the bread crumb trail is very visible.

Have a good night.

F Cornyn for voting for this and giving up conservative leverage.

---

What semantics?

Exactly ZERO dollars have be authorized to fund Ukraine.

---

Ok you got me suckered back in for one last attempt to put a spotlight on the bread crumbs for you.....

Who is the person in the title of this thread?
What did that person vote for?
Is the U.S. economy and our laundry list of domestic issues in a good enough position to make this vote a priority?
Is Ukraine corrupt?
Is Russia really that big of a threat?
Should Europe and neighboring countries provide support to Ukraine (instead of majority U.S.)?
Why did this person vote for this before negotiating for what conservatives really want, a secure border?
Does this passing the Senate (with filibuster proof votes) make it harder for conservatives to negotiate for a secure border?

It's clear as day as to why conservatives are not happy with Cornyn's vote, unless the goal is enabling big gov or prioritizing foreign aid over a secure border.

---

Well, Russia has always been a threat. There have just been degrees....And now they want to put a nuke in space.....sooooo. But the important thing is that we get political leverage domestically while the rest of the world sees how distracted we are by fighting for 'leverage'.

Teslag said:

---

Good cornyn

---

Why is he stealing money from my children to send it across the globe? Is that good? I'm no economist, but printing money without any underlying asset doesn't seem sustainable and when one generation takes money by force from another generation and gives to another country, that seems ... not good. But hey, he and you get to virtue signal now, while you are here. You are such a good person. Thank you.

NicosMachine said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Good cornyn

---

Why is he stealing money from my children to send it across the globe? Is that good? I'm no economist, but printing money without any underlying asset doesn't seem sustainable and when one generation takes money by force from another generation and gives to another country, that seems ... not good. But hey, he and you get to virtue signal now, while you are here. You are such a good person. Thank you.

---

You realize its not remotely as simple as that. Not saying we don't spend money on foreign aid (no underlying assets) haphazardly. But the only reason the U.S. spends on foreign aid is to serve our own self interests. Even under Trump they spent $47 billion in foreign aid to other countries. Part of that is because they eventually do have a return on the money (could be via energy, defense, etc). But we also do it because countries like China and Russia spend a great deal more and we don't want countries, say, in Central or south america to become so beholden to those countries that it threatens the U.S.

I realize your snark is a type of signal that you're right and they're wrong, but its not that simple. We obviously don't give money to countries if we don't believe it benefits us. You should really consider which things you are really educated about before you make them out to be black and white instead of nuanced., I am willing to admit I'm not economist...but I'm also not an expert on global strategy for security, energy, etc initiatives.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Well, they did try to include help for the border, so all those *****ing the aid Bill didn't include that are blowing smoke up their own ass. Not enough aid and not strict enough? Legit argument, but this is still a democratic republic, meaning legislation is a balancing act when different viewpoints exist in an attempt to make it the best deal possible that honors the views/needs of everyone. The alternative is an autocracy. NOT what the Founders envisioned and if you want a more autocratic government then you're an AINO. American In Name Only.

---

The "border bill" was a poison pill riddled load of crap. Of course your "moderate" ass thought it was good. I hope your neighborhood, or wherever you live, gets "culturally enriched" by these illegals.

---

Who said it was good? I'm saying it was better than nothing. It's fine to ***** about the border, but stupid to turn down a Bill that provides at least some help. Actually, it wasn't entirely stupidity. It was mostly political. Correction… maintaining the current border crisis for the sake of political optics when some improvement is available, even if not enough, IS stupid.

---

The bill was a steaming pile of dog **** that didn't fix anything at the border. The truth was that it was an Ukraine funding bill with poison pills for the border. You are blind.

---

Of course it was an Ukraine funding Bill with a bit of border help added to make it more attractive to everyone complaining about the border. You're blind if you think it was the other way around. Falling short of your idea of being a perfect border Bill doesn't make it a pile of dog sh*t, that is simply how politics is to supposed to work. You're pretty ignorant or simply have a block of wood for a head if you don't know that. You only get everything you want when everyone sees things the same way. Otherwise it's give and take so everyone gets something.

If you truly think there was nothing in the Bill to cut numbers of migrants you might want to start school over again, beginning with second grade. Learn to read. Listening to partisan propaganda for your information instead of checking out the Bill itself is simply stupid. The number of TexAgs posters who claimed the 2022 Bill providing money and personnel to the IRS gave them $90 billion in one year and 87000 new gun toting agents to squeeze more out of people is proof of that. Totally wrong, but they believed it. Stupid because it was and still is so easy to check the Bill itself to see what it really did.

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Well, they did try to include help for the border, so all those *****ing the aid Bill didn't include that are blowing smoke up their own ass. Not enough aid and not strict enough? Legit argument, but this is still a democratic republic, meaning legislation is a balancing act when different viewpoints exist in an attempt to make it the best deal possible that honors the views/needs of everyone. The alternative is an autocracy. NOT what the Founders envisioned and if you want a more autocratic government then you're an AINO. American In Name Only.

---

The "border bill" was a poison pill riddled load of crap. Of course your "moderate" ass thought it was good. I hope your neighborhood, or wherever you live, gets "culturally enriched" by these illegals.

---

Who said it was good? I'm saying it was better than nothing. It's fine to ***** about the border, but stupid to turn down a Bill that provides at least some help. Actually, it wasn't entirely stupidity. It was mostly political. Correction… maintaining the current border crisis for the sake of political optics when some improvement is available, even if not enough, IS stupid.

---

It would not have fixed anything, and we know this because its been read. Got anything else?

---

Apparently not by you. Do you know how to read? Try it.

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Allowing 1.8 million illegals each year to come here and claim asylum is not help.

Elderly Man can shut down the border at anytime but he wants to replace the population. Stop with the gaslighting.

Hopefully you get to experience the full negative impact from the invasion since you support it.

---

The Bill would have at least cut down on the number of people allowed to enter legally and given far more support to the BP to cut down on and deport illegals. We don't want a total shutdown, or at least real American don't. Control, yes. Having an uncontrolled surge where you lose track of legal migrants does need to be stopped, but this has always been a country of immigrants, including your own. Any step that improves control at all and reduces illegals entering is a positive. I'm sorry your lack of education didn't give you the tools to understand that.

---

They don't enforce the laws now, so what makes you think they will enforce new laws?

---

Of the money earmarked to the Bill was $6 billion to the Border Patrol to increase personnel and equipment to help them catch and turn back a lot of the migrants they currently miss. How does that not help? The rest of the money was to help them follow the current laws better by beefing up asylum resources to cut down on the 'temporary' release of legal migrants that the current system doesn't have the resources to keep up with. How does that not help? The new 'laws' aren't actually laws but much tighter restrictions for approval of legal asylum. Meaning more migrants seeking legal entry will be turned away. How does that not help.

Years ago when his mom and I told our then teenaged son something he didn't want to hear he closed his eyes, covered his ears with his hands, and chanted "I can't hear you… I can't hear you… " Happily it didn't take long for him to outgrow that bit of childish behavior. How long is it going to take similar TexAgs posters?

AggiePops said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Allowing 1.8 million illegals each year to come here and claim asylum is not help.

Elderly Man can shut down the border at anytime but he wants to replace the population. Stop with the gaslighting.

Hopefully you get to experience the full negative impact from the invasion since you support it.

---

The Bill would have at least cut down on the number of people allowed to enter legally and given far more support to the BP to cut down on and deport illegals. We don't want a total shutdown, or at least real American don't. Control, yes. Having an uncontrolled surge where you lose track of legal migrants does need to be stopped, but this has always been a country of immigrants, including your own. Any step that improves control at all and reduces illegals entering is a positive. I'm sorry your lack of education didn't give you the tools to understand that.

---

They don't enforce the laws now, so what makes you think they will enforce new laws?

---

Of the money earmarked to the Bill was $6 billion to the Border Patrol to increase personnel and equipment to help them catch and turn back a lot of the migrants they currently miss. How does that not help? The rest of the money was to help them follow the current laws better by beefing up asylum resources to cut down on the 'temporary' release of legal migrants that the current system doesn't have the resources to keep up with. How does that not help? The new 'laws' aren't actually laws but much tighter restrictions for approval of legal asylum. Meaning more migrants seeking legal entry will be turned away. How does that not help.

Years ago when his mom and I told our then teenaged son something he didn't want to hear he closed his eyes, covered his ears with his hands, and chanted "I can't hear you… I can't hear you… " Happily it didn't take long for him to outgrow that bit of childish behavior. How long is it going to take similar TexAgs posters?

---

The problem is that it was ALSO packaged with a lot of bad stuff.

If I served you a wagyu filet mignon covered in a sauce made from dog diarrhea, would you happily gobble up the steak? Remember...it's wagyu!!!

He desperately needs to be primaried. The dems will cross over and vote for him in the primary because he's basically dem lite.

Ag with kids said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Allowing 1.8 million illegals each year to come here and claim asylum is not help.

Elderly Man can shut down the border at anytime but he wants to replace the population. Stop with the gaslighting.

Hopefully you get to experience the full negative impact from the invasion since you support it.

---

The Bill would have at least cut down on the number of people allowed to enter legally and given far more support to the BP to cut down on and deport illegals. We don't want a total shutdown, or at least real American don't. Control, yes. Having an uncontrolled surge where you lose track of legal migrants does need to be stopped, but this has always been a country of immigrants, including your own. Any step that improves control at all and reduces illegals entering is a positive. I'm sorry your lack of education didn't give you the tools to understand that.

---

They don't enforce the laws now, so what makes you think they will enforce new laws?

---

Of the money earmarked to the Bill was $6 billion to the Border Patrol to increase personnel and equipment to help them catch and turn back a lot of the migrants they currently miss. How does that not help? The rest of the money was to help them follow the current laws better by beefing up asylum resources to cut down on the 'temporary' release of legal migrants that the current system doesn't have the resources to keep up with. How does that not help? The new 'laws' aren't actually laws but much tighter restrictions for approval of legal asylum. Meaning more migrants seeking legal entry will be turned away. How does that not help.

Years ago when his mom and I told our then teenaged son something he didn't want to hear he closed his eyes, covered his ears with his hands, and chanted "I can't hear you… I can't hear you… " Happily it didn't take long for him to outgrow that bit of childish behavior. How long is it going to take similar TexAgs posters?

---

The problem is that it was ALSO packaged with a lot of bad stuff.

If I served you a wagyu filet mignon covered in a sauce made from dog diarrhea, would you happily gobble up the steak? Remember...it's wagyu!!!

---

Pretty much every legislative Bill since forever has had stuff packaged in it that someone would consider bad. Obviously someone thought your bad stuff was the filet mignon, or at least a ribeye, while they or others think some of the stuff you like in the Bill is the dog diarrhea. It's called differing opinions, differing methods, and negotiating to get a deal with, hopefully, something for everyone.

AggiePops said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Allowing 1.8 million illegals each year to come here and claim asylum is not help.

Elderly Man can shut down the border at anytime but he wants to replace the population. Stop with the gaslighting.

Hopefully you get to experience the full negative impact from the invasion since you support it.

---

The Bill would have at least cut down on the number of people allowed to enter legally and given far more support to the BP to cut down on and deport illegals. We don't want a total shutdown, or at least real American don't. Control, yes. Having an uncontrolled surge where you lose track of legal migrants does need to be stopped, but this has always been a country of immigrants, including your own. Any step that improves control at all and reduces illegals entering is a positive. I'm sorry your lack of education didn't give you the tools to understand that.

---

They don't enforce the laws now, so what makes you think they will enforce new laws?

---

Of the money earmarked to the Bill was $6 billion to the Border Patrol to increase personnel and equipment to help them catch and turn back a lot of the migrants they currently miss. How does that not help? The rest of the money was to help them follow the current laws better by beefing up asylum resources to cut down on the 'temporary' release of legal migrants that the current system doesn't have the resources to keep up with. How does that not help? The new 'laws' aren't actually laws but much tighter restrictions for approval of legal asylum. Meaning more migrants seeking legal entry will be turned away. How does that not help.

Years ago when his mom and I told our then teenaged son something he didn't want to hear he closed his eyes, covered his ears with his hands, and chanted "I can't hear you… I can't hear you… " Happily it didn't take long for him to outgrow that bit of childish behavior. How long is it going to take similar TexAgs posters?

---

The problem is that it was ALSO packaged with a lot of bad stuff.

If I served you a wagyu filet mignon covered in a sauce made from dog diarrhea, would you happily gobble up the steak? Remember...it's wagyu!!!

---

Pretty much every legislative Bill since forever has had stuff packaged in it that someone would consider bad. Obviously someone thought your bad stuff was the filet mignon, or at least a ribeye, while they or others think some of the stuff you like in the Bill is the dog diarrhea. It's called differing opinions, differing methods, and negotiating to get a deal with, hopefully, something for everyone.

---

A secure border is not something that should ever be up for negotiation. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are all about bipartisan stuff. This situation is different though. The conservatives are 100% right about the border and should not compromise at all with the liberals who have allowed illegals to flood into our country at unprecedented levels since Biden took over. Liberal policies have flat out encouraged it.

AggiePops said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Allowing 1.8 million illegals each year to come here and claim asylum is not help.

Elderly Man can shut down the border at anytime but he wants to replace the population. Stop with the gaslighting.

Hopefully you get to experience the full negative impact from the invasion since you support it.

---

The Bill would have at least cut down on the number of people allowed to enter legally and given far more support to the BP to cut down on and deport illegals. We don't want a total shutdown, or at least real American don't. Control, yes. Having an uncontrolled surge where you lose track of legal migrants does need to be stopped, but this has always been a country of immigrants, including your own. Any step that improves control at all and reduces illegals entering is a positive. I'm sorry your lack of education didn't give you the tools to understand that.

---

They don't enforce the laws now, so what makes you think they will enforce new laws?

---

Of the money earmarked to the Bill was $6 billion to the Border Patrol to increase personnel and equipment to help them catch and turn back a lot of the migrants they currently miss. How does that not help? The rest of the money was to help them follow the current laws better by beefing up asylum resources to cut down on the 'temporary' release of legal migrants that the current system doesn't have the resources to keep up with. How does that not help? The new 'laws' aren't actually laws but much tighter restrictions for approval of legal asylum. Meaning more migrants seeking legal entry will be turned away. How does that not help.

Years ago when his mom and I told our then teenaged son something he didn't want to hear he closed his eyes, covered his ears with his hands, and chanted "I can't hear you… I can't hear you… " Happily it didn't take long for him to outgrow that bit of childish behavior. How long is it going to take similar TexAgs posters?

---

The problem is that it was ALSO packaged with a lot of bad stuff.

If I served you a wagyu filet mignon covered in a sauce made from dog diarrhea, would you happily gobble up the steak? Remember...it's wagyu!!!

---

Pretty much every legislative Bill since forever has had stuff packaged in it that someone would consider bad. Obviously someone thought your bad stuff was the filet mignon, or at least a ribeye, while they or others think some of the stuff you like in the Bill is the dog diarrhea. It's called differing opinions, differing methods, and negotiating to get a deal with, hopefully, something for everyone.

---

The whole point is that it had TOO MUCH bad stuff. Stuff that was unacceptable.

For the Republicans, the good did not outweigh the bad.

Imagine if there was a federal ban on abortion in the bill. Would you say the Democrats should just accept it because, well...there's some good stuff they like in it, too? It's just a differing opinion, since the Republicans support it...

There was nothing at all in the bill to fix the immigration system. It was a farce pushed by corrupt *******s.

Is this an April fools joke, or did he really do this again?

Let the brisket wars begin - again pic.twitter.com/rZgIA6X2EB

— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) March 31, 2024

Honestly, even if it's a joke, it's so bad he should be defeated in the primary next time and never, ever allowed to be majority leader.

That "brisket" is an actual insurrection. Moreso than the LARPer convention on 1/6/21!!!

Teslag said:

---

Good cornyn

---

How could this be good?

Cut all foreign aid. Period. America First!

Border is our number 1 issue.