One simply does not follow the other.
I disagree.
I see Tucker arguing the southern border SHOULD be secure and since there’s an obvious lack of interest in doing so it’s the height of hypocrisy to advance billions to a foreign border incursion. He has made the point many times regarding other borders that this administration advances funds to secure. The Ukraine is just the most recent border.
Yes, he also questions the worth of getting drug into another war. A completely valid but separate issue.
Of course they do...would you defend your neighbors home before your own?
Let’s examine what does follow then. A country that does not enforce its own borders and allows mass illegal immigration then becomes the world wide enforcer of other countries borders. Such enforcement in this case could potentially lead to war with a massive nuclear power. I suppose one could argue a military invasion is different from a human one but in the end isn’t the result the same?
Seems odd and while I’m not really an expert on Nathan B Forrest I don’t think he would be on your side on this one.
Forrest for whatever his other faults was a brilliant military leader and was willing to sacrifice hs life to protect the south’s borders….his people.
Still I don’t think we disagree on everything.