Do you hate both sides on most issues?

[IceSpear]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.

As a liberal, I actually do support increased border security and enforcement of laws along with giving a path to citizenship to those who are already here (and the DREAM Act). I highly doubt most Democrats secretly support "open borders".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.

As a liberal, I actually do support increased border security and enforcement of laws along with giving a path to citizenship to those who are already here (and the DREAM Act). I highly doubt most Democrats secretly support "open borders".

The effect of always taking that approach is precisely such though in effect. Increasing border security from where it is now would be of minimal effect. It could help in some areas but overall, it has little return to be offered from doing such. It is certainly not a magically bullet that absolves the consequences for continually giving amnesty.

[Goldwater]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

Where does it say that the side has to be mainstream?

[IceSpear]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.

As a liberal, I actually do support increased border security and enforcement of laws along with giving a path to citizenship to those who are already here (and the DREAM Act). I highly doubt most Democrats secretly support "open borders".

The effect of always taking that approach is precisely such though in effect. Increasing border security from where it is now would be of minimal effect. It could help in some areas but overall, it has little return to be offered from doing such. It is certainly not a magically bullet that absolves the consequences for continually giving amnesty.

Who ever said anything about "continually" granting amnesty? If border security, e-verify, strategic fencing, etc. is passed along with a path to citizenship, illegal immigrats would be greatly diminished. It's certainly more practical than the current policy of de facto amnesty or the Tancredo fantasy of trying to deport every single illegal immigrant.

[Goldwater]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

Where does it say that the side has to be mainstream?

I assumed the "both sides" referred to the Republican and Democratic positions. I suppose that was a pretty big assumption, but if "both sides" referrers to the furthest right and furthest left position on each issue, then I think just about everybody would hate "both sides" on quite a few issues.

[TJ in Oregon]

I tend to on economic issues certainly. On social issues it's a bit harder given the black-and-white nature of them, but the right can be infuriating in a number of ways when we muddle things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

Where does it say that the side has to be mainstream?

I assumed the "both sides" referred to the Republican and Democratic positions. I suppose that was a pretty big assumption, but if "both sides" referrers to the furthest right and furthest left position on each issue, then I think just about everybody would hate "both sides" on quite a few issues.

I didn't start the thread, so I don't there. But there was quite a lot of emphasize on the fact that there were numerous and far more then two positions on an issue. As for this one, I was probably thinking of the divided within the GOP, but that is really just an extension of the divides in society at large though on the issue.

[hopper]

I don't like either on side on HealthCare. I mean this is gonna piss off conservatives but you have to have an individual mandate because eventually everybody uses the doctor or an emergency room. The business mandate that's where ObamaCare jump the shark and also ObamaCare gives you stuff on a healthcare policy you don't need and the law requires you to buy it.

Abortion-The GOP is too wrapped up on the issue and the Democrats want on abortion on demand it seems.

Immigration-The Dems want open borders because that means more votes for them. The GOP supports a pathway to legalization. That's all great but what about the kids that grew up here you can't just give them "legalization" at least give them some kind of waiting period to become citizens and let them pay a fine and pay back taxes.

Energy-The GOP supports no regulation on fuel economy standards but the Dems went all the way to 54mpg by 2025 I think it is. Should have been 40-(45 mpg at most.)


Gerrymandering-Let citizens like in CA or retired judges do the maps(lines) every 10 years. Districts aren't supposed to snake all around the place.  If you have a Republican Governor and a Republican Legislature you get a Republican Leaning Map or a bad gerrymander(Pennsylvania) or in the Dems case Maryland would be the example.

Spending-The Dems want to all this money on green energy and stimulus while the Republicans want tax cuts(again that's great) but where is this money coming from to fund the tax cuts?