Schumer/Biden lose emergency border bill

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senators-kill-emergency-border-bill-in-national-security-supplemental

The huge bill seeking to give 60 billion to Ukraine, 14 billion to Ukraine and only only 650 million to secure the border failed 49-50. So much for saying this was a bi-partisan bill, it may have been worked on by a RINO, but it needed 60 votes, it could not get 50. Democrats joined Republicans to kill the bill.

Republicans have concerns the bill will not deter/stop illegal immigrants from entering through our southern border as it called for 5000 a day to be admitted r almost 2 million a year. They have vowed to not support financial support to Ukraine until Biden uses his emergency powers to secure the border by ending catch and release.

[basballguy]

Why do they call it an immigration/border bill when like 85% of the spending goes elsewhere?

[*pally*]

We must assume that Republicans are only using the border for political purposes and have no desire to solve any of the problems. Everything in the bill was agreed to by Republican leadership before your dear leader decided he couldn’t let Joe Biden have a “win” that could help him in November.

Lindsey Graham went so far as to say it was the most conservative bill they could possibly get.

So now, what is the plan? Because even if elected, there is no way in hell Trump will successfully get a border bill through Congress.

[*pally*]

Lankford: I had a popular commentator that told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you. Because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. pic.twitter.com/axg08BeCiG

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 7, 2024

[BigPapaKain]

Republicans shot themselves in the foot getting Roe overturned. Having the border secured would lose them the last lame leg they have to stand on to get people to vote for them. Of course they sank it and of course the convinced their voting base that it's somehow the Democrat's fault.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculously transparent and sad.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-07-2024, 05:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: worked on by a RINO

Hate that term, along with DINO.

It implies that if they're not in lockstep with the party on all issues and not constantly proving themselves by refusing to make any cooperations you're "not actually one of us" you're actually "one of them". 

Just a method to try to force two groups to being even more insular and anti-cooperation or risk being kicked out of the clique.

[*pally*]

(02-07-2024, 10:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hate that term, along with DINO.

It implies that if they're not in lockstep with the party on all issues and not constantly proving themselves by refusing to make any cooperations you're "not actually one of us" you're actually "one of them". 

Just a method to try to force two groups to being even more insular and anti-cooperation or risk being kicked out of the click.

calling those not in lockstep with their dear leader names is just another aspect of a cult mentality

James Lankford, the lead Republican negotiator, is one of the most conservative people in the Senate and represents one of the most conservative states in the country.  He did exactly what his fellow Senators asked him to do and succeded in getting a bill favorable to conservatives.  But it's an election year so they didn't even pretend to backstab him...they went straight for the jugular

[GMDino]

(02-07-2024, 10:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hate that term, along with DINO.

It implies that if they're not in lockstep with the party on all issues and not constantly proving themselves by refusing to make any cooperations you're "not actually one of us" you're actually "one of them". 

Just a method to try to force two groups to being even more insular and anti-cooperation or risk being kicked out of the click.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(02-07-2024, 10:27 PM)pally Wrote: calling those not in lockstep with their dear leader names is just another aspect of a cult mentality

Agreed. 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/story/2021-12-20/dinos-joe-manchin-build-back-better
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2021/10/19/george-pyle-democrats/

...and how is Kyrsten Sinema, the woman who was a Green Party member for a decade followed by being a Democrat for almost 2 decades and won your party a seat that had been held by Republicans for 24 years? Oh right, ran her out of your party with name calling.

The fact that you saw what I wrote and only thought of Republicans and Trump is really telling.

[*pally*]

I have never agreed with the name-calling by either side. I celebrate a wide range of beliefs within a party. It makes them healthier.

The only difference I would suggest is that a RINO is someone who disagrees with Donald Trump, an individual, whereas Manchin and Sineman get called out for voting against the Democratic platform not because they failed to support a single person.

[NATI BENGALS]

Yay. Now the GOP can get back on tv and the radio and continue to sing to the world USA has open borders and gives you free stuff.

Tell me. If I went on tv and told your city the door to your house was open and you were giving out free stuff. Would people show up to your house?

[*Nately120*]

(02-07-2024, 10:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hate that term, along with DINO.

It implies that if they're not in lockstep with the party on all issues and not constantly proving themselves by refusing to make any cooperations you're "not actually one of us" you're actually "one of them". 

Just a method to try to force two groups to being even more insular and anti-cooperation or risk being kicked out of the click.

Agreed, also it is clique but I only know that because of professional wrasslin' so don't consider that correction any sort of flex.

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2024, 10:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hate that term, along with DINO.

It implies that if they're not in lockstep with the party on all issues and not constantly proving themselves by refusing to make any cooperations you're "not actually one of us" you're actually "one of them". 

Just a method to try to force two groups to being even more insular and anti-cooperation or risk being kicked out of the clique.

What is just amazing to me is how much that term gets thrown around by the MAGA crowd when their positions are in so much misalignment with the GOP positions pre-Trump that them saying it has no meaning. In reality, the MAGA movement has usurped the Republican party and forced out the traditional Republican values, calling those that still hold to them RINOs.

Political scientists have so many papers on this and they will be coming for decades. It's the new "Sothern Strategy" and much like it is shifting the GOP further to the right and the national Overton Window with it.

[XenoMorph]

(02-07-2024, 09:16 PM)pally Wrote: We must assume that Republicans are only using the border for political purposes and have no desire to solve any of the problems.  Everything in the bill was agreed to by Republican leadership before your dear leader decided he couldn’t let Joe Biden have a “win” that could help him in November.

Lindsey Graham went so far as to say it was the most conservative bill they could possibly get.

So now, what is the plan?  Because even if elected, there is no way in hell Trump will successfully get a border bill through Congress.

president doesnt need this bill to close the boarder this bill would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2024, 09:18 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: president doesnt need this bill to close the boarder this bill would cause more problems than it would solve.

What power does the POTUS have to close the border? Why had the GOP been pushing for an immigration bill for almost two years to give POTUS additional authority to close the border if the position held it all along?

[Goalpost]

(02-07-2024, 09:01 PM)basballguy Wrote: Why do they call it an immigration/border bill when like 85% of the spending goes elsewhere?

I'm in the same camp.  Putting 3 items into one bill is sloppy.  Why not argue the merits for each individually...

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2024, 09:39 AM)Goalpost Wrote: I'm in the same camp.  Putting 3 items into one bill is sloppy.  Why not argue the merits for each individually...

Because this is what the GOP asked for...

[SunsetBengal]

If you want to pass a bill to secure the border, make it specifically funding the border issues only. Attempting to slide 5.67X as much funding to "other things" is not honest politics. If you want to vote on sending our money to Ukraine, write a bill specifically on that. Seems rather simple to me.

[*pally*]

(02-08-2024, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What power does the POTUS have to close the border? Why had the GOP been pushing for an immigration bill for almost two years to give POTUS additional authority to close the border if the position held it all along?

Congressman Roy pointed out, in a speech on the House floor, that if in fact the President had that power, why didn’t Trump do that during his administration. It didn’t happen because the President cannot close the border.

There are federal laws that dictate the terms of asylum. Laws that cannot be changed via executive order. Trump’s “stay in Mexico” policy was being challenged in court. And was under appeal because it had already been found unconstitutional.

This bill changed the asylum laws. It would have stopped the vast majority of asylum seekers at their initial interview, something that doesn’t happen now because of the laxity and vagueness of current law. It would have given the power, under specific conditions, to close the border to the President. It would have automatic processes in place to stop border processing if volume reached certain limits. These were things that didn’t require money.

And this bill was bundled, like most Congressional bills, in order to incentivize Congressmen to vote for the bill. They put popular legislation together hoping to get vote# from people who otherwise might have said no.

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2024, 09:52 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If you want to pass a bill to secure the border, make it specifically funding the border issues only. Attempting to slide 5.67X as much funding to "other things" is not honest politics. If you want to vote on sending our money to Ukraine, write a bill specifically on that. Seems rather simple to me.

So what you're saying is that when the GOP said that they wouldn't vote on the aid to Ukraine unless it was included in a bill with border funding, we should have just ignored them.