"What I am NOT fine with are people threatening to stay home from the polls and allow liberals to be elected because they did not get everything that they wanted."
But what about people who didn't get ANYTHING they wanted?
What about people who got the OPPOSITE of everything they wanted?
What if the Republicans installed a militantly pro-choice Supreme Court justice?
Isn't that really what just happened to the Border Conservatives?
They said: Build a wall, enforce the law on employers, no amnesty.
They got: no wall, no mention of enforcement on employers, and guest-worker-cum-amnesty.
That's like handing me Christopher Shays, a pro-abortion Republican.
What do you do, faced with that?
When you get Christopher Shays, a pro-abortion Republican, and if you are a pro-life single issue voter, the only way that you should even CONSIDER voting Democrat is if the Democratic candidate is more pro-life than Christopher Shays. If the Democrat is not more pro-life than Christopher Shays, than you should do everything you can to support a more conservative primary challenger to Shays in the GOP. It's actually pretty simple.
Do you mean to suggest that the Democrats are closer to being right on the border issue than the GOP? If it wasn't for the GOP, the earlier bill would have been passed. The GOP is the only party digging in against illegals.
The solution is to continue to elect officials who are conservative, to EXPAND our conservative presence in both houses. It is NOT to weaken the GOP by allowing liberals to take power. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.