For a lawyer, you sure play fast and loose with the word "factual."

Here's a fact: Democrats agreed to fund the TSA. Republicans were amenable. Trump said no.

“It would have worked ,” Mr. Kennedy said. “We could have had T.S.A. paid by the end of the week, but the president said ‘no deal.’”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/us/politics/trump-shutdow...

There is no ambiguity here: Republicans are blocking TSA funding unless a bunch of unrelated stuff is also funded.

▲

rayiner 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Trump doesn’t get a vote in the Senate. That’s his shtick. He’ll ask for something ridiculous because he thinks it’s gives him leverage. He can ask for wherever he wants but he’s not going to veto a bill that funds both ICE and TSA.

What I’m reading is that Senate Democrats have indicated they won’t vote yes in a bill if it finds ICE. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5801109-fetterman-tsa-pa...

“Senate Democrats insisting on major reforms to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in exchange for ending the 40-day shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are worried they may be undercut by centrists looking for a way to end the stalemate.”

▲

12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

tastyface 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How does that contradict in any way what I said? Democrats have offered to fund the TSA. Republicans have refused. Ergo, Republicans are blocking TSA funding in order to get what they want. There is no ambiguity here: Republicans could get the TSA funded today, but they view their pet projects as more important than having functional airports.

Why are you on this site if you're never willing to ever say "oh OK my bad"? I don't know what you posted about in the past to get to 125k points, but these days you mostly seem to use the site as a pseudo-intellectual soapbox for conservative politics and anti-immigration sentiment. Is this really healthy? You're accomplishing nothing except getting mass flagged and raising everyone's blood pressure (including, presumably, your own).

▲

Larrikin 12 hours ago | parent [-]

It's ok for him to argue for extremely racist and xenophobic policies because of where he graduated, his country of origin, and skin color. He's fine burning karma for it

	▲	rayiner 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’m struggling to understand your thought process. Do you think that: 1) Mass immigration of say Bangladeshis won’t substantively change the communities where they move. Or is it: 2) You agree that this change will happen, but you think we are morally obligated to accept those changes. The “racism and xenophobia” angle is nonsensical. I’m a Bangladshi in good standing. I make my Anglo wife deal with all our burdensome social rules and norms. But that doesn’t mean I want more of America to reflect my culture! We sacrificed a lot to get away from a country that was governed by our culture. How can I possibly have a moral obligation to accept parts of America becoming culturally like the place we wanted to escape from?
	▲	11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]