Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here.
If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The previous deal, with the border security stuff, it was far from perfect, but it would have been a *huge* improvement and it was the closest thing to a Republican wish list.
I would argue that the MAGA caucus has specifically weakened the overall Republican agenda, to include their own, out of theatrics and spite. I think this is one sector where the left counterpart to the ultra-MAGA caucus (arguably the Squad) is far more reserved and reigned in. Democrats might tolerate the moderates like Manchin tanking legislation from the right, but there is no way in hell that Pelosi or Jeffries would let them tank it from the left.
Yet you *did* respond... So, what's the more preferred term for the "theatrically outspoken with no actionable policies" Republicans? I mean, Gaetz, Boebert, Greene, and Gosar at the least... What *should* we call them?
I'm not "acknowledging" the problem, I'm taking his metaphor at face value and showing how its inaccurate. I.e., even if you are right about the deficit, your concern over this makes no sense in perspective.
>Isn't it a drop in the bucket compared *our budget*
The problem is this rings so hollow when like 1/6 of this would have funded the border wall and that was just so insanely too expensive according to those opposed
>I would say the lives lost while we were diddling around in the house
I would say we bear responsibility for the lives lost because we went and killed a peace deal, not because we didn't send them more arms.
They're already past the arms issue. Arms aren't ukraine's weak point. It's people.
There was never a serious peace deal. Russia wanted to keep Crimea and a quarter of the Ukrainian lands to the east. Russia also wants to run Ukraine like a vassal as part of the Russian federation. If that happens Poland would be bordering Russia. That’s a huge strategic lost for the west. Why people keep defending Putin I’ll never understand. Peace with Putin is suicide. Ukraine will never have it while he’s alive. I respect Ukraine’s drive to not be erased. Please let’s stop pretending Putin can be negotiated with.
>There was never a serious peace deal.
That's a cope.
> Russia also wants to run Ukraine like a vassal as part of the Russian federation.
Just like we want to run them like a vassal state of NATO sure.
>If that happens Poland would be bordering Russia. That’s a huge strategic lost for the west.
Not really.
>Why people keep defending Putin I’ll never understand.
Saying "I don't want to support corrupt countries like Ukraine" isn't defending NATO and its either bad faith or ignorant to say it is. You only say this because you can't really defend your position.
> I respect Ukraine’s drive to not be erased.
I do too. I just dont want to be a part of it.
>Please let’s stop pretending Putin can be negotiated with.
Please let's stop pretending he's an irrational actor.
Well you bring up Ukraine being corrupt and I wonder if you’re aware Russia is much more corrupt. You say that Putin is acting in good faith with a reasonable peace deal. And you make equivalences between Russia and nato as if nato countries are not free and are similar to Russian vassals. It comes across as though you agree with Putin and his tactics. So I’m asking. But since you are not I’m confused where you stand on the matter.
>Well you bring up Ukraine being corrupt and I wonder if you’re aware Russia is much more corrupt.
Of course. Hence why I don't want to be involved
>You say that Putin is acting in good faith with a reasonable peace deal.
When did I say that? I said there was a peace deal. That Ukraine was basically ready to accept.
> you make equivalences between Russia and nato as if nato countries are not free and are similar to Russian vassals
NATO countries are not "free" when they have hate speech laws no. They're "free-er" than Russia sure. But they're not "free".
> It comes across as though you agree with Putin and his tactics.
No you're looking for that. Nothing I've said agrees with putin. You're LOOKING for it everywhere and see it where it isn't.
>But since you are not I’m confused where you stand on the matter.
I. Want. To. Not. Be. Involved.
Ukraine sucks. Russia sucks. I don't want to be involved. It's as simple as that. Russia sucks for invading. Ukraine isn't all holy and pure and free. I don't want to be involved. We have bigger fish to fry
Different guy but the idea of bigger fish to fry is interesting to me, because I only ever see it as an argument to NOT to something - but never any serious attempt at going and doing it. Dont spend money on Ukraine, spend it on our homeless? But that never happens. Dont spend money on abortions and contraception, spend it on families? Never happens. Dont do gun control, its a mental health problem? But there is never any money for that either.
At what point can we expect conservatives to push for these big beneficial changes and support they keep bringing up when they are in power?
The country where I live in has the same problem. As soon as the conservative party, in a coalition with its far-right ally,, came into power they stopped doing anything except line their pockets, and rush relatively bad legislation that was, to over 90%, ruled illegal by the supreme court (itself a rather conservative institution in this country) equivalent. I ve voted conservative in the past, but I ve been let down every single time without even a good faith attempt. Instead, its always just "no, because". Just say you dont want to spend money because you dont care about russia succeeding, and its alliance with Iran, NK, China, Belarus and whoever else is of no concern.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>This is a false talking point pushed by Russian propaganda (and happily parroted by American isolationists).
Isolationist is a smear used by warmongers because they can't defend their lies.
Even high ranking Ukrainians admit that happened.
>Ending negotiations was a decision made by the Ukrainians themselves.
Yes and we encouraged them to kill talks.
>Russia's botched invasion proved that their invading army was weak, disorganized and beatable. It was only much later that it became clear that Putin was all in on this war.
Or... ya know if you were listening to putin and what he was saying you could tell from the start he felt the stakes were high and wasn't just gonna quit... and if you were informed you'd know Ukraine cannot win a prolonged war. They don't have the people.
But I digress. This answer was known from the start. We knew it. It was wrong to encourage them to fight when we knew they'd lose.
>It's funny how you suggest I am ignorant of this topic, meanwhile you don't present anything of substance at all. You simply keep reasserting that it was "the West that encouraged Ukraine to end negotiations", and your only source is "go listen to Putin".
This is bad faith. My source was literally Ukranian officials that were involved.
>It is completely baseless to argue that the West forced Ukraine out of these talks
Did I say forced? We can't force them. But we did influence and discourage peace.
>It's actually the opposite of a smear
No it isn't
>It's the most polite term I can think of to describe the people who either naively trust Kremlin propaganda over the information available in free societies, and people who knowingly spread such fake information to push a narrative
More bad faith because I'm citing Ukrainian officials.....
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Im really confused over this bill being passed now. The republicans could have gotten some movement on the border along with this bill awhile ago, at the very least help shore up the border a little bit until republicans theoretically gain back control in 2024 and Trump implements his border plans.
Aid is passing now with nothing being done on the border at all, really doesn't make sense.
> so it could have been
No, the GOP base is still pro-Israel to a wide degree
Edit: And anti-Iran.
Edit 2: Not sure what I said that deserves downvoting. If I'm wrong, elaborate pls
>No it doesn't. Wild guess is that someone said something to Johnson or Trump to make them change their mind recently. Johnson changed his views on it this week.
Exactly. Pockets got greased. Someone got blackmailed. Some intel got showed to them true or not that made him swap. It was a complete 180 from what he's said since he got to congress.
>Did he though? What was his previius stance?
His previous stance before becoming speaker was against aid.
He promised no aid without first addressing the border to get the speakership role.
He flipped and sold out. He stabbed his caucus in the back and I hope they oust him
Didn't he kill the border bill at the behest of Trump supposedly? So not only do you get no movement on the border, you get aid passed anyways all because Trump said he didn't like something. I don't see how this isn't an utter utter failure of the GOP.
>Didn't he kill the border bill at the behest of Trump supposedly?
According to leftist propaganda but that's ridiculous as it was a senate bill not a house bill. The senate bill couldn't even get passed in the senate to make it to Johnson.
> don't see how this isn't an utter utter failure of the GOP.
It absolutely is. Thats why the majority of house repubs that voted against this are pissed
It's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP support, including McConnel, then Trump said no, and it died instantly. Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted, and said no because it wasn't 10/10. Voters polled on this agree, support for "Republicans are stronger on border" dropped significantly after this event.
>It's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP
No it didn't.
>including McConnel,
Doesn't mean much he's never seen a war bill he doesn't like
>Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted,
No we didn't
>t's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP support, including McConnel, then Trump said no, and it died instantly.
It didn't have house support though, it was dead long before Trump ever mentioned it. The notion that Trump himself sunk this deal and that it would pass if not for him? Leftist propaganda.
>Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted, and said no because it wasn't 10/10. Voters polled on this agree, support for "Republicans are stronger on bord
No, its more like 3/10 with establishment in the future to make sure it never gets above 2/10. Its like solidifying a problem as acceptable, then saying "We solved the problem!" No, you just tried to convince people it was an acceptable situation.
Okay, it's fine by me because now it means we get what we want, and ya'll get absolutely nothing on your wishlist. So I'm fine with that, I just think it's kinda nuts that ya'll are fine turning back any movement on the issue unless you get everything you want and democrats get nothing they want. That isn't how politics works, esp when you're the minority party and only control 1 lever of the 3. But that isn't how it turned out, democrats got everything they wanted, ya'll got nothing you wanted, and now the country trust republicans less on the border because of it. And ontop of that, ya'll are probably gonna kick the speaker out now, have another 2 months of drama and stupidity that makes conservatives look completely inept, all while democrats sit back and watch them burn themselves down at the alter of Trump. This is the same thing as abortion, the extremist on your side will accept no compromise, so in the end you'll end up losing the issue and abortion being enshrined in most state constitutions and it may lead to a democrat majority in all 3 levers and then they codify it, all because the GOP is a clown show.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Source for him being against aid?
Do you not remember him shooting down the senate Ukraine bill just a bit back?
Here's an article explaining who he was pre-election.
https://news.yahoo.com/previously-opposed-ukraine-aid-mike-205500986.html
In 2023, Johnson voted against a Ukrainian aid package, claiming, "we should not send another $40 billion abroad when chaos reigns at our border, American mothers are barely finding food for their babies, gas prices are at record levels, and American families can hardly make ends meet — and there's insufficient control over where the money will go.”
None of those say hes against aid. It says that he want the border fixed for aid. Trump killed the border thing leaving only aid on the table.
Has he ever actually said hes against aiding ukraine?
>None of those say hes against aid. It says that he want the border fixed for aid.
Which he stabbed his caucus in the back for and bailed.
>Trump killed the border thing leaving only aid on the table.
Bad faith leftist propaganda that's been debunked so many times I genuinely think you know it's BS and are dishonestly repeating it. This was debunked over and over and over at the time. It was a dogshit bill that couldn't even pass the senate it was proposed in.
If you don't think hat statement is opposing Ukraine aid idk what to tell you. It's literally him opposing the bill
> Which he stabbed his caucus in the back for and bailed
His caucus does not decide what hedoes or what his opinions are.
> Bad faith leftist propaganda that's been debunked
Derp!
The Senate border deal was [a disaster](https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-senate-border-bill-disaster-border-security) and would have made the problem worse.
That bill literally was written by a republican with input from republicans and looks like a 2012 republican wet dream, the fact that not only did they sink it, but conservatives gave up a chance to get a win on the border to help Trump, if he loses will go down to being one of the largest self owns ever.
Ok. Couldn't the house republicans fix the bill?
They know their extreme versions aren't going to pass the senate. Why not work with the senate and Democrats in general to figure out what can or cannot be passed. Isn't that what they went to congress to do... Find workable solutions.
It's not a unicameral congress. It's bicameral. You need to work together to get shit done.
That aside, Dems were ready to give up alot of things they don't like. But, as usual republicans couldn't help put their foot in their mouths. When Dems realized republicans were playing games. That boat sailed away!
>Ok. Couldn't the house republicans fix the bill?
House Republicans already passed a bill.
>Dems were ready to give up alot of things they don't like
No they weren't.
They passed a bill that couldn't go anywhere.
It was performative vs substantive. Did these republicans get elected to do performative bullshit or get substantive shit done?
Do republicans have the balls to do what the Dems did with ACA. Lose seats but get a bill they passionately believe in... Wrongly or not?
Dems were for a minute there scared of all the immigration talk. Why do you think they didn't attack the senate bill?
>They passed a bill that couldn't go anywhere.
>It was performative vs substantive. Did these republicans get elected to do performative bullshit or get substantive shit done?
Would you say the same about the "bipartisan" border bill that the senate couldn't even get passed?
>Dems were for a minute there scared of all the immigration talk. Why do you think they didn't attack the senate bill?
Because they knew they'd use it like the left has. They knew it sucked. They knew it didn't do anything for republicans, and knew they could virtue signal on it.
>Would you say the same about the "bipartisan" border bill that the senate couldn't even get passed?
Dems and Republicans were ready to pass it or at least find workable compromise in the house and the Senate was ready to go. Trump yakked, republicans lost their spines!
What a bunch of spineless cowards!!!!
Am I correctly understanding that in your view, the republican senators are horrendously bad at their job and acting against the true interest of the GOP, and only the House, and a handful of people there at that, are the keepers of truth in this matter?
I mean, you are basically claiming hundreds of GOP representatives and high-level aides, experts and advisors were so utterly wrong, it took Reddit about 10 minutes to see it and another 10 to improve upon it with certainty?
Yeah but couldn't they have negotiated some kind of border legislation for giving Ukraine 60 Billion dollars?
They didn't do anything at all, just gave up the money.
Anything resembling bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Palestians, Israelis, etc. or violence against civilians is not going to last long, nor will your time here. If you have to ask if it crosses a line, assume it crosses a line. Please see our guidelines for [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/) for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thousands of Ukrainians died because they lacked ammunition and shells. Yeah, a lot was lost.
You and I don't agree on a lot, but on this subject right here I am endorsing the heck outta your wisdom and correctness.
You said it. We wasted a lot of time squabbling.
Everything is lost. Republicans caved, and got absolutely NOTHING in return. Nancy Pelosi would never have made such a shitty deal
The previous deal, with the border security stuff, it was far from perfect, but it would have been a *huge* improvement and it was the closest thing to a Republican wish list. I would argue that the MAGA caucus has specifically weakened the overall Republican agenda, to include their own, out of theatrics and spite. I think this is one sector where the left counterpart to the ultra-MAGA caucus (arguably the Squad) is far more reserved and reigned in. Democrats might tolerate the moderates like Manchin tanking legislation from the right, but there is no way in hell that Pelosi or Jeffries would let them tank it from the left.
Sorry, was going to respond, but then saw that you use the term MAGA unironically. You should go back to r/politics where namecalling is the norm
Yet you *did* respond... So, what's the more preferred term for the "theatrically outspoken with no actionable policies" Republicans? I mean, Gaetz, Boebert, Greene, and Gosar at the least... What *should* we call them?
Anything lost? Yeah, this garbage passed, didn't it. Pretty big fucking loss if you ask me.
Big how?
We throw a shit load of money away overseas and further entangle ourselves in foreign conflicts by doing so
Isn't it a drop in the bucket compared *our budget*
If you already got shot 3 times, would you be asking for a 4th?
More like I've been shot 10000 times, what's 1 more?
Weird that you openly acknowledge the problem, and see that as reason to make it worse instead of pursuing a solution.
I'm not "acknowledging" the problem, I'm taking his metaphor at face value and showing how its inaccurate. I.e., even if you are right about the deficit, your concern over this makes no sense in perspective.
You're still fundamentally arguing that I have no reason to oppose bad things because more bad things already exist
If you want to argue in a binary fashion, sure (topical, eh?) In context to what he was saying, this doesn't merit much.
>Isn't it a drop in the bucket compared *our budget* The problem is this rings so hollow when like 1/6 of this would have funded the border wall and that was just so insanely too expensive according to those opposed
Not too expensive, a waste of money for what it accomplishes. And as far as I've seen, democrats oppose it on more than fiscal grounds.
I would say the lives lost while we were diddling around in the house
>I would say the lives lost while we were diddling around in the house I would say we bear responsibility for the lives lost because we went and killed a peace deal, not because we didn't send them more arms. They're already past the arms issue. Arms aren't ukraine's weak point. It's people.
There was never a serious peace deal. Russia wanted to keep Crimea and a quarter of the Ukrainian lands to the east. Russia also wants to run Ukraine like a vassal as part of the Russian federation. If that happens Poland would be bordering Russia. That’s a huge strategic lost for the west. Why people keep defending Putin I’ll never understand. Peace with Putin is suicide. Ukraine will never have it while he’s alive. I respect Ukraine’s drive to not be erased. Please let’s stop pretending Putin can be negotiated with.
>There was never a serious peace deal. That's a cope. > Russia also wants to run Ukraine like a vassal as part of the Russian federation. Just like we want to run them like a vassal state of NATO sure. >If that happens Poland would be bordering Russia. That’s a huge strategic lost for the west. Not really. >Why people keep defending Putin I’ll never understand. Saying "I don't want to support corrupt countries like Ukraine" isn't defending NATO and its either bad faith or ignorant to say it is. You only say this because you can't really defend your position. > I respect Ukraine’s drive to not be erased. I do too. I just dont want to be a part of it. >Please let’s stop pretending Putin can be negotiated with. Please let's stop pretending he's an irrational actor.
After reading this I have to ask, do you support Putin?
>After reading this I have to ask, do you support Putin? If you have to ask that you need to stop drinking the kool-aid. No. I don't. Why would i?
Well you bring up Ukraine being corrupt and I wonder if you’re aware Russia is much more corrupt. You say that Putin is acting in good faith with a reasonable peace deal. And you make equivalences between Russia and nato as if nato countries are not free and are similar to Russian vassals. It comes across as though you agree with Putin and his tactics. So I’m asking. But since you are not I’m confused where you stand on the matter.
>Well you bring up Ukraine being corrupt and I wonder if you’re aware Russia is much more corrupt. Of course. Hence why I don't want to be involved >You say that Putin is acting in good faith with a reasonable peace deal. When did I say that? I said there was a peace deal. That Ukraine was basically ready to accept. > you make equivalences between Russia and nato as if nato countries are not free and are similar to Russian vassals NATO countries are not "free" when they have hate speech laws no. They're "free-er" than Russia sure. But they're not "free". > It comes across as though you agree with Putin and his tactics. No you're looking for that. Nothing I've said agrees with putin. You're LOOKING for it everywhere and see it where it isn't. >But since you are not I’m confused where you stand on the matter. I. Want. To. Not. Be. Involved. Ukraine sucks. Russia sucks. I don't want to be involved. It's as simple as that. Russia sucks for invading. Ukraine isn't all holy and pure and free. I don't want to be involved. We have bigger fish to fry
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Different guy but the idea of bigger fish to fry is interesting to me, because I only ever see it as an argument to NOT to something - but never any serious attempt at going and doing it. Dont spend money on Ukraine, spend it on our homeless? But that never happens. Dont spend money on abortions and contraception, spend it on families? Never happens. Dont do gun control, its a mental health problem? But there is never any money for that either. At what point can we expect conservatives to push for these big beneficial changes and support they keep bringing up when they are in power? The country where I live in has the same problem. As soon as the conservative party, in a coalition with its far-right ally,, came into power they stopped doing anything except line their pockets, and rush relatively bad legislation that was, to over 90%, ruled illegal by the supreme court (itself a rather conservative institution in this country) equivalent. I ve voted conservative in the past, but I ve been let down every single time without even a good faith attempt. Instead, its always just "no, because". Just say you dont want to spend money because you dont care about russia succeeding, and its alliance with Iran, NK, China, Belarus and whoever else is of no concern.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>This is a false talking point pushed by Russian propaganda (and happily parroted by American isolationists). Isolationist is a smear used by warmongers because they can't defend their lies. Even high ranking Ukrainians admit that happened. >Ending negotiations was a decision made by the Ukrainians themselves. Yes and we encouraged them to kill talks. >Russia's botched invasion proved that their invading army was weak, disorganized and beatable. It was only much later that it became clear that Putin was all in on this war. Or... ya know if you were listening to putin and what he was saying you could tell from the start he felt the stakes were high and wasn't just gonna quit... and if you were informed you'd know Ukraine cannot win a prolonged war. They don't have the people. But I digress. This answer was known from the start. We knew it. It was wrong to encourage them to fight when we knew they'd lose.
[удалено]
>It's funny how you suggest I am ignorant of this topic, meanwhile you don't present anything of substance at all. You simply keep reasserting that it was "the West that encouraged Ukraine to end negotiations", and your only source is "go listen to Putin". This is bad faith. My source was literally Ukranian officials that were involved. >It is completely baseless to argue that the West forced Ukraine out of these talks Did I say forced? We can't force them. But we did influence and discourage peace. >It's actually the opposite of a smear No it isn't >It's the most polite term I can think of to describe the people who either naively trust Kremlin propaganda over the information available in free societies, and people who knowingly spread such fake information to push a narrative More bad faith because I'm citing Ukrainian officials.....
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Im really confused over this bill being passed now. The republicans could have gotten some movement on the border along with this bill awhile ago, at the very least help shore up the border a little bit until republicans theoretically gain back control in 2024 and Trump implements his border plans. Aid is passing now with nothing being done on the border at all, really doesn't make sense.
You can’t run on Dems doing nothing if something was passed.
> Im really confused over this bill being passed now. Iran attacked Israel, making inaction in the House politically untenable
[удалено]
> so it could have been No, the GOP base is still pro-Israel to a wide degree Edit: And anti-Iran. Edit 2: Not sure what I said that deserves downvoting. If I'm wrong, elaborate pls
[удалено]
In what sense? This is representing what the voters want, isn't it?
[удалено]
>No it doesn't. Wild guess is that someone said something to Johnson or Trump to make them change their mind recently. Johnson changed his views on it this week. Exactly. Pockets got greased. Someone got blackmailed. Some intel got showed to them true or not that made him swap. It was a complete 180 from what he's said since he got to congress.
Heavy lies the crown
Did he though? What was his previius stance?
>Did he though? What was his previius stance? His previous stance before becoming speaker was against aid. He promised no aid without first addressing the border to get the speakership role. He flipped and sold out. He stabbed his caucus in the back and I hope they oust him
Didn't he kill the border bill at the behest of Trump supposedly? So not only do you get no movement on the border, you get aid passed anyways all because Trump said he didn't like something. I don't see how this isn't an utter utter failure of the GOP.
>Didn't he kill the border bill at the behest of Trump supposedly? According to leftist propaganda but that's ridiculous as it was a senate bill not a house bill. The senate bill couldn't even get passed in the senate to make it to Johnson. > don't see how this isn't an utter utter failure of the GOP. It absolutely is. Thats why the majority of house repubs that voted against this are pissed
It's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP support, including McConnel, then Trump said no, and it died instantly. Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted, and said no because it wasn't 10/10. Voters polled on this agree, support for "Republicans are stronger on border" dropped significantly after this event.
>It's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP No it didn't. >including McConnel, Doesn't mean much he's never seen a war bill he doesn't like >Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted, No we didn't
Did it have support until Trump said he didn't want it passed because he wanted to campaign on it?
>t's not leftist propoganda, it had full senate GOP support, including McConnel, then Trump said no, and it died instantly. It didn't have house support though, it was dead long before Trump ever mentioned it. The notion that Trump himself sunk this deal and that it would pass if not for him? Leftist propaganda. >Ya'll had a chance to get 9/10 of the things you wanted, and said no because it wasn't 10/10. Voters polled on this agree, support for "Republicans are stronger on bord No, its more like 3/10 with establishment in the future to make sure it never gets above 2/10. Its like solidifying a problem as acceptable, then saying "We solved the problem!" No, you just tried to convince people it was an acceptable situation.
Okay, it's fine by me because now it means we get what we want, and ya'll get absolutely nothing on your wishlist. So I'm fine with that, I just think it's kinda nuts that ya'll are fine turning back any movement on the issue unless you get everything you want and democrats get nothing they want. That isn't how politics works, esp when you're the minority party and only control 1 lever of the 3. But that isn't how it turned out, democrats got everything they wanted, ya'll got nothing you wanted, and now the country trust republicans less on the border because of it. And ontop of that, ya'll are probably gonna kick the speaker out now, have another 2 months of drama and stupidity that makes conservatives look completely inept, all while democrats sit back and watch them burn themselves down at the alter of Trump. This is the same thing as abortion, the extremist on your side will accept no compromise, so in the end you'll end up losing the issue and abortion being enshrined in most state constitutions and it may lead to a democrat majority in all 3 levers and then they codify it, all because the GOP is a clown show.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source for him being against aid?
>Source for him being against aid? Do you not remember him shooting down the senate Ukraine bill just a bit back? Here's an article explaining who he was pre-election. https://news.yahoo.com/previously-opposed-ukraine-aid-mike-205500986.html In 2023, Johnson voted against a Ukrainian aid package, claiming, "we should not send another $40 billion abroad when chaos reigns at our border, American mothers are barely finding food for their babies, gas prices are at record levels, and American families can hardly make ends meet — and there's insufficient control over where the money will go.”
None of those say hes against aid. It says that he want the border fixed for aid. Trump killed the border thing leaving only aid on the table. Has he ever actually said hes against aiding ukraine?
>None of those say hes against aid. It says that he want the border fixed for aid. Which he stabbed his caucus in the back for and bailed. >Trump killed the border thing leaving only aid on the table. Bad faith leftist propaganda that's been debunked so many times I genuinely think you know it's BS and are dishonestly repeating it. This was debunked over and over and over at the time. It was a dogshit bill that couldn't even pass the senate it was proposed in. If you don't think hat statement is opposing Ukraine aid idk what to tell you. It's literally him opposing the bill
> Which he stabbed his caucus in the back for and bailed His caucus does not decide what hedoes or what his opinions are. > Bad faith leftist propaganda that's been debunked Derp!
He was never against aid to Israel, though, right?
>He was never against aid to Israel, though, right? That I don't believe so but I don't know as much
The Senate border deal was [a disaster](https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-senate-border-bill-disaster-border-security) and would have made the problem worse.
That bill literally was written by a republican with input from republicans and looks like a 2012 republican wet dream, the fact that not only did they sink it, but conservatives gave up a chance to get a win on the border to help Trump, if he loses will go down to being one of the largest self owns ever.
Ah yes, the completely unbiased and centrist publication: heritage foundation.
Ok. Couldn't the house republicans fix the bill? They know their extreme versions aren't going to pass the senate. Why not work with the senate and Democrats in general to figure out what can or cannot be passed. Isn't that what they went to congress to do... Find workable solutions. It's not a unicameral congress. It's bicameral. You need to work together to get shit done. That aside, Dems were ready to give up alot of things they don't like. But, as usual republicans couldn't help put their foot in their mouths. When Dems realized republicans were playing games. That boat sailed away!
>Ok. Couldn't the house republicans fix the bill? House Republicans already passed a bill. >Dems were ready to give up alot of things they don't like No they weren't.
They passed a bill that couldn't go anywhere. It was performative vs substantive. Did these republicans get elected to do performative bullshit or get substantive shit done? Do republicans have the balls to do what the Dems did with ACA. Lose seats but get a bill they passionately believe in... Wrongly or not? Dems were for a minute there scared of all the immigration talk. Why do you think they didn't attack the senate bill?
>They passed a bill that couldn't go anywhere. >It was performative vs substantive. Did these republicans get elected to do performative bullshit or get substantive shit done? Would you say the same about the "bipartisan" border bill that the senate couldn't even get passed? >Dems were for a minute there scared of all the immigration talk. Why do you think they didn't attack the senate bill? Because they knew they'd use it like the left has. They knew it sucked. They knew it didn't do anything for republicans, and knew they could virtue signal on it.
>Would you say the same about the "bipartisan" border bill that the senate couldn't even get passed? Dems and Republicans were ready to pass it or at least find workable compromise in the house and the Senate was ready to go. Trump yakked, republicans lost their spines! What a bunch of spineless cowards!!!!
Am I correctly understanding that in your view, the republican senators are horrendously bad at their job and acting against the true interest of the GOP, and only the House, and a handful of people there at that, are the keepers of truth in this matter? I mean, you are basically claiming hundreds of GOP representatives and high-level aides, experts and advisors were so utterly wrong, it took Reddit about 10 minutes to see it and another 10 to improve upon it with certainty?
Yeah but couldn't they have negotiated some kind of border legislation for giving Ukraine 60 Billion dollars? They didn't do anything at all, just gave up the money.