One simply does not follow the other.
Posted on 03/16/2022 6:48:33 PM PDT by RandFan
Tucker was insisting that she should want to send the any to the southern border if she wants to help Ukraine.
She doesn’t want to send troops to Ukraine.
Nobody is a bigger border hawk than me, but Trump secured the border just fine without using the army.
You’re not going to get border security with Biden.
And not much national security, either.
The American people owe Ukraine nothing.
One simply does not follow the other.
May your city be the first hit with nuclear bomb
So we don’t have to listen to you apologize for being so wrong.
I agree with all you just posted. I do not mean to imply that a blaming of NATO absolves the US of responsibility. Perhaps I do not see it correctly, but I view the US as the major director and certainly the deep pockets of NATO.
I have not been able to make sense of how NATO activity and control in the US is folded into the DOD or State Department, but I’ve seen that the expansion of NATO is controlled by the State Department. It seems to me that our Federal Swamp and the NATO Swamp may be one and the same. The US involvement in setting up this mess seems unavoidable.
I would love to be able to tell who we are morally obligated to.
Amen.
And regarding border security, any time someone pushes “surveillance technology” as the answer to securing the border, that’s a dead giveaway that they’re a member of the cheap labor/illegal voter caucus. They always push “technology” as the answer, because technology can be ignored or turned off when you want to allow more illegals into the country. A wall can’t be ignored or turned off at the whim of a corrupt politician, which is exactly why they’re always so opposed to it. They’re only willing to install “border security” measures that they can crow about for political advantage, but quickly and easily negate when they want the illegals to flow into the country again.
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.
Tucker is the only one I watch. He’s has guts.
Here comes Victoria Nuland’s *itch again.
She’s everything that is wrong with the Republican party.
Yep. She’s about like Mitt in the senate.
I feel the same way. Everytime I find myself watching I remember what they did and turn it off, except Tucker.
I suspect the problem for those who oppose aiding Ukraine is not that we failed to defend our own border, as inexcusable as that is but that we are defending Ukraine's border at all, even to a limited degree.
RINOs have always been very careful to hide who they really are. Trump outed them.
Let's hope that the primaries this year will usher in the Great RINO purge, especially in the state legislatures.
“She also referred to us putting “bodies” into Ukraine, which no one is suggesting.
33 posted on 3/16/2022, 7:56:14 PM by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)”
“She doesn’t want to send troops to Ukraine.”
Which is it?
Or maybe had Putin seen a president serious about national sovereignty by continuing Tump's border policy, we might be in this mess at all.
" I suspect the problem for those who oppose aiding Ukraine is not that we failed to defend our own border, as inexcusable as that is but that we are defending Ukraine's border at all, even to a limited degree."
Since both borders have been rendered nonexistent, which one would we benefit most by repairing and enforcing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.