this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
710 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2611 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So, you're saying that Trump and Republicans haven't been demanding money for the border for months, and that when the Democrats finally agreed to the funding, the Republicans didn't suddenly vote against it?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No, I'm not saying that. Feel free to read my clarification again.

(Edit) Sorry thought this was in the same chain. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying he wants the border open because he thinks it helps him win. he isn't vocally against border security now, he'll continue to hammer away at it because its red meat for his base. He's against it getting closed because then he can't hammer away at it.

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't saying he was against border security either though. I'm saying he was suddenly against funding anything to do with it the moment the Dems were acceptable to funding it (doesn't matter the reason for it).

He could have crowed on that the security happened because of Reps and his lobbying, but instead went against funding it the moment Dems said yes to it.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Except he's going to continue to harp on border security. He isn't taking the position because he just does the opposite of the Dems, he blocked it because it takes away a talking point. Now he can and will continue to talk about it. He didn't even change his position.