Americans favor immigration executive action, 67-28
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:37:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Americans favor immigration executive action, 67-28
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Americans favor immigration executive action, 67-28  (Read 5445 times)
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2014, 05:37:18 AM »
« edited: November 26, 2014, 05:39:37 AM by Lowly Griff »

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

Only if Republicans succeed at making the entire nation's economic situation mirror that of the caste-based South - and even then, you'd need a generation or two for the bitter class and racial resentments to fully propagate - would that ever even be possible. I hate to break things down into racial, cultural and stereotypical divisions, but whites as a bloc have less in common with one another than any other racial voting bloc in the country, so achieving a unified message based solely on race (which is what it'd have to be) would never be that effective. Most whites who are voting Democratic at this point are probably doing it impulsively against the very strategy and tactics you think would pull them on in.

Only in four states - LA, MS, AL & GA - was white support for Democrats at or below 20% in 2012. Hell, in most contests for Senate and Governor in these same states in 2014, white support actually rebounded from that (since there were no blacks running for Senate/Governor in these races) and were on par or above 2010 levels.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2014, 11:18:08 AM »

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

I'm not really bothered by that because outside of your fantasies, minorities will continue to exist.

If you're asking me if I am personally troubled as to how whites are now voting, yes, but probably for different reasons than you.

I mean, it's been said that midterm elections keep swaying towards the Republicans more and more because they're an older, whiter electorate. But older and whiter didn't used to mean more Republican.

What did the Democratic Party do so bad to piss off the largest demographic in the entire country?

It's not what the Democrats did to peeve white people. It's how the Republicans played gullible, superstitious, bigoted white people who can only be hurt by profits-first, profits-only economics.

The GOP would bring back segregated lunch counters if such would pleas such people.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2014, 12:17:19 PM »

A lot (if not all) of the remainder of the white population (that 39% that voted for Obama) is closed off to the GOP for one reason or another.

About 15% of Americans are 'neither religious nor spiritual'. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf
About 2% of Americans are Jews (about 6% are of a religion other than Christianity, but those are probably mostly minorities anyway).
About 4% are LGBT.

So that's about 20% right there that the GOP has completely alienated right out of the gate.  I don't see any way the GOP will get an appreciable percentage of the non-christian or LGBT vote in the near future, and I sincerely doubt that they'd even try at risk of angering the social conservatives.

That's their maximum if the Republicans can somehow convince union member housholds (18%), people with graduate degrees (12%), millenials (19%), women, New England Whites, and a slew of other groups that the GOP has alienated for one reason or another.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2014, 12:45:12 PM »

There's a floor with white voters, Naso. Democrats would have to try to win less than 35%. There are such things as liberal whites.
Logged
porky88
Rookie
**
Posts: 78
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2014, 05:32:00 PM »

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states. If only whites voted, no more Mark Warner. We'd have Senator Scott Brown. You realize that all of the eggs are in one basket.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

According to CNN Exit Polls, Democrats got 38 percent of the white vote in 2014. I believe they received 44 percent in ‘96, 41 percent in ‘00, 40 percent in ‘04, 43 percent in ‘08, and 39 percent in ‘12.

I don’t know the other midterm numbers off the top of my head. Regardless, the white vote has been pretty stable for democrats in presidential years since the turn of the century. Unless there’s another recession, it’s reasonable to suspect that they’ll maintain 38 percent of it in 2016, especially with Hillary Clinton. If they’re able to drive up support among minorities ala 2012, they will win the presidency again.

In other words, democrats aren’t worried about the white vote. They think they’ve reached their floor.

They’re worried about moderate Hispanics jumping to the republicans in 2016. For that to happen, republicans need to move on from immigrate reform (accept defeat) and talk about the size of government, high taxes, and national security. Republicans can win by using these issues to drive a wedge between democrats and some Hispanic voters.

Obama is hoping this order prevents that from happening. He knows Hispanics are passionate about immigration. This is something that will resonate with them, and stick with them. He’s relying on republicans alienating them by kissing up to their base, and coming out as anti-immigrant. It’s a long con. Immigration reform is a losing argument for republicans in 2016. Look at Chris Christie. He isn’t touching this issue right now. He knows he can’t win. He says he’s for immigration reform, and he loses in Iowa in the primaries. He says he opposes immigration reform, and he loses Nevada and Colorado in the general. Every minute Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker fumble over immigration is a minute less they spend talking on the issues that helps them.

That's why democrats aren't worried.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2014, 07:37:19 PM »

It's a very Democratic pollster FYI

The survey was conducted for Americans United for Change, a pro-Democratic group.

Correct.

Quinnipiac just came out with a new poll yesterday and they show a 45-48 split.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2115

These numbers actually look much like those of 2006 and 2007.

I think it was accurate what was said before, the wording is the biggest determinant how the issue polls and that means the messaging is a large factor in terms of how voters will react as well.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2014, 08:00:25 PM »

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states. If only whites voted, no more Mark Warner. We'd have Senator Scott Brown. You realize that all of the eggs are in one basket.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

According to CNN Exit Polls, Democrats got 38 percent of the white vote in 2014. I believe they received 44 percent in ‘96, 41 percent in ‘00, 40 percent in ‘04, 43 percent in ‘08, and 39 percent in ‘12.

I don’t know the other midterm numbers off the top of my head. Regardless, the white vote has been pretty stable for democrats in presidential years since the turn of the century. Unless there’s another recession, it’s reasonable to suspect that they’ll maintain 38 percent of it in 2016, especially with Hillary Clinton. If they’re able to drive up support among minorities ala 2012, they will win the presidency again.

In other words, democrats aren’t worried about the white vote. They think they’ve reached their floor.

They’re worried about moderate Hispanics jumping to the republicans in 2016. For that to happen, republicans need to move on from immigrate reform (accept defeat) and talk about the size of government, high taxes, and national security. Republicans can win by using these issues to drive a wedge between democrats and some Hispanic voters.

Obama is hoping this order prevents that from happening. He knows Hispanics are passionate about immigration. This is something that will resonate with them, and stick with them. He’s relying on republicans alienating them by kissing up to their base, and coming out as anti-immigrant. It’s a long con. Immigration reform is a losing argument for republicans in 2016. Look at Chris Christie. He isn’t touching this issue right now. He knows he can’t win. He says he’s for immigration reform, and he loses in Iowa in the primaries. He says he opposes immigration reform, and he loses Nevada and Colorado in the general. Every minute Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker fumble over immigration is a minute less they spend talking on the issues that helps them.

That's why democrats aren't worried.

White and non-white votes are individually equal in importance.

In recent years, the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight part of the middle class vote has gone heavily Democratic. Even if the Republicans used to expect gains among all groups of voters as they left poverty due to concern about taxes, the Republicans have lost trust among such voters.

Someone middle class and  non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, or non-straight has good cause to distrust the Republican Party. One may attribute one's success and the potential for the success of one's children to formal education, and Republicans offend such an attribution with pervasive anti-intellectualism. Republicans used to treat education as a good proxy for Republican voting as educated people were less likely to fall for demagogues within the Democratic Party. Education was then, as now, a good proxy for income  In the 1950s, educated people voted heavily Republican. In 2008 and 2012,  the higher one's formal education the more likely one was to vote for the Democratic nominee for President. Income mattered as little as ever, with a slight edge in favor of Obama with higher income. (Ethnicity and living in a densely-populated environment mattered more).   

The Republicans have been relying heavily upon blatant rejections of objective science to appeal to white ignoramuses. They have been pushing young-earth creationism and denial of global warming. Although it is not science they have been accusing the President of being things that he isn't (like un-American and Muslim) contrary to fact; they keep playing up the death of an American diplomat in Benghazi as evidence of the incompetence of the President when in fact the President could not act fast enough in a fast-moving situation.

When intellectual integrity matters again, the GOP is in deep trouble. 
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2014, 08:44:44 PM »

Here is how Quinnipiac asked the question, first they set it up with this question:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They then followed up with this:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So again they didn't actually describe Obama's executive order and the previous question may actually lead many to think Obama's order was to let every illegal immigrant stay and become a citizen. Again this is why the Hart poll (which described how the order was limited) comes up with a different result.


In a way this is not unlike Obamacare. Polling shows that when asked about it in general, a plurality are opposed to it, but when you ask about the details, majorities like the features of health care reform. And most don't want to see it fully repealed, which is the parallel here. How many Americans want the government to spend the resorces required to deport 11M undocmented, including the 5m who parents of US citizens and have been here 5 years (aka the ones in Obama's order)?

That is the trick for the GOP in 2016. How can they find a way to be against this order and against immigration reform but not be painted as being for massive deportation.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2014, 02:48:35 AM »

OK, fine. But what about CNN's poll ? Their question wording is correct and they show even worse numbers for Obama than Quinnipiac ...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/11/26/cnnorc-immigration-poll112614.pdf
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2014, 02:59:57 AM »

OK, fine. But what about CNN's poll ? Their question wording is correct and they show even worse numbers for Obama than Quinnipiac ...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/11/26/cnnorc-immigration-poll112614.pdf

That's still a loaded question to a degree. For one, it uses buzz-words like "executive orders" and "without any action by Congress", which implies that he is somehow breaking the law or engaging in shady behavior. Secondly, it doesn't actually detail what he is doing; when people are told what the plan entails, they tend to favor it. While there was a vague question (below) that was asked right before this one, it didn't do the policy justice. Plus, I have little faith in most who are surveyed to give consistent answers. Their own poll shows this right above/below that question:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A statistical tie with no majority when given a vague description of what is actually being done.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

72% of the country approves of what he is doing, with a chunk of them wishing he'd do even more. The American public likes what is being done, but not how it is being done. This isn't anything new. At the end of the day, the policy will be what matters in terms of persuasion and sentiment - not the process. 
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2014, 03:56:06 PM »

I support the executive order for kids(the DOCA) but not the most recent executive order.

Then why deport their parents?
I didn't say deport them but to give their parents temp amnesty and compete for jobs against people who were born here or even immigrated here the right way that's unfair. Its not like their parents were gonna get deported anyway. Their parents have probably have been for years anyway. Can't their parents just get papers to be be in the country legally anyway without the executive order?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2014, 04:06:41 PM »

Naso's hoping for something like this, with the names inverted:

Well, we all know that, especially before and after his posts on Ferguson, but I just took amusement with the way he is choosing his words.  I mean, I'm worried that plenty of whites are racist.  I'm not worried about racists voting for Republicans.

Anyway Reaganfan, I'll have to admit that I don't really care what the Democrats did to alienate 60% of white voters because I'm in the other 40%, and the idea that you or any other person of a similar political disposition could worry on my behalf that I am losing representation is ridiculous at best.  You see, I'm not convinced that whites are somehow getting a bad deal.  So if you're going to stand around and worry about whites (potentially) losing their virtual stranglehold on America's political institutions and their influence on society generally, my only question is, why?
Aren't political institutions already liberal anyway such as colleges?

Influence on Society? Can you go further into detail about that?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2014, 04:16:39 PM »

Obama already only won 39% of white people. If Democrats keep this up, they will become known solely as the party of minorities. Doesn't that worry you even a bit?

That sounds better than getting 8% of blacks, but either way, I don't think Democrats are worried about a perceived connection to minorities.  LMAO.

I didn't say that. You are missing my point.

IF you take away all minority voters, you realize that the Democrats who are damn near out of business in many parts of the country would be even WORSE off than they are today. If only whites voted, Mitt Romney would have won 46 states. If only whites voted, no more Mark Warner. We'd have Senator Scott Brown. You realize that all of the eggs are in one basket.

Doesn't that bug you at all, that there is a chance of a massive white backlash beyond 1994, 2010 and 2014? What if the Democratic nominee ended up with only 20% of the white vote in 2016? That was my question, you aren't bothered by that?

According to CNN Exit Polls, Democrats got 38 percent of the white vote in 2014. I believe they received 44 percent in ‘96, 41 percent in ‘00, 40 percent in ‘04, 43 percent in ‘08, and 39 percent in ‘12.

I don’t know the other midterm numbers off the top of my head. Regardless, the white vote has been pretty stable for democrats in presidential years since the turn of the century. Unless there’s another recession, it’s reasonable to suspect that they’ll maintain 38 percent of it in 2016, especially with Hillary Clinton. If they’re able to drive up support among minorities ala 2012, they will win the presidency again.

In other words, democrats aren’t worried about the white vote. They think they’ve reached their floor.

They’re worried about moderate Hispanics jumping to the republicans in 2016. For that to happen, republicans need to move on from immigrate reform (accept defeat) and talk about the size of government, high taxes, and national security. Republicans can win by using these issues to drive a wedge between democrats and some Hispanic voters.

Obama is hoping this order prevents that from happening. He knows Hispanics are passionate about immigration. This is something that will resonate with them, and stick with them. He’s relying on republicans alienating them by kissing up to their base, and coming out as anti-immigrant. It’s a long con. Immigration reform is a losing argument for republicans in 2016. Look at Chris Christie. He isn’t touching this issue right now. He knows he can’t win. He says he’s for immigration reform, and he loses in Iowa in the primaries. He says he opposes immigration reform, and he loses Nevada and Colorado in the general. Every minute Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker fumble over immigration is a minute less they spend talking on the issues that helps them.

That's why democrats aren't worried.

White and non-white votes are individually equal in importance.

In recent years, the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight part of the middle class vote has gone heavily Democratic. Even if the Republicans used to expect gains among all groups of voters as they left poverty due to concern about taxes, the Republicans have lost trust among such voters.

Someone middle class and  non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, or non-straight has good cause to distrust the Republican Party. One may attribute one's success and the potential for the success of one's children to formal education, and Republicans offend such an attribution with pervasive anti-intellectualism. Republicans used to treat education as a good proxy for Republican voting as educated people were less likely to fall for demagogues within the Democratic Party. Education was then, as now, a good proxy for income  In the 1950s, educated people voted heavily Republican. In 2008 and 2012,  the higher one's formal education the more likely one was to vote for the Democratic nominee for President. Income mattered as little as ever, with a slight edge in favor of Obama with higher income. (Ethnicity and living in a densely-populated environment mattered more).   

The Republicans have been relying heavily upon blatant rejections of objective science to appeal to white ignoramuses. They have been pushing young-earth creationism and denial of global warming. Although it is not science they have been accusing the President of being things that he isn't (like un-American and Muslim) contrary to fact; they keep playing up the death of an American diplomat in Benghazi as evidence of the incompetence of the President when in fact the President could not act fast enough in a fast-moving situation.

When intellectual integrity matters again, the GOP is in deep trouble. 
The Left doesn't even use the "Global Warming" talking point anymore they use the "climate change" talking point currently.

I haven't heard the "Muslim" talking point in a couple years.

As for Benghazi the GOP will look into it one more time so your half or mostly right about that. I don't know if the GOP as a whole thinks Obama is incompetent by his actions on Benghazi.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2014, 04:40:10 PM »

I support the executive order for kids(the DOCA) but not the most recent executive order.

Then why deport their parents?
Can't their parents just get papers to be be in the country legally anyway without the executive order?

No, which is why we need immigration reform.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2014, 08:44:14 PM »

Here is how Quinnipiac asked the question, first they set it up with this question:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They then followed up with this:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So again they didn't actually describe Obama's executive order and the previous question may actually lead many to think Obama's order was to let every illegal immigrant stay and become a citizen. Again this is why the Hart poll (which described how the order was limited) comes up with a different result.


In a way this is not unlike Obamacare. Polling shows that when asked about it in general, a plurality are opposed to it, but when you ask about the details, majorities like the features of health care reform. And most don't want to see it fully repealed, which is the parallel here. How many Americans want the government to spend the resorces required to deport 11M undocmented, including the 5m who parents of US citizens and have been here 5 years (aka the ones in Obama's order)?

That is the trick for the GOP in 2016. How can they find a way to be against this order and against immigration reform but not be painted as being for massive deportation.


That or being against the order whilst supporting legislative action.

This is the biggest thing people need to understand about the messaging impact. In 2006 and 2007 majorities and pluralties of about 10% to 15% supported a path to citizenship, but the bill to actually do so in 2007 was deeply unpopular. The biggest difference was in 2006 and 2007 there was a focused and energized effort, not unlike what happeend with Obamacare, to label and define it as Amnesty, on Fox, talk radio and even some of the hosts on CNN at the time like Dobbs. They also highlighted the increases in legal immigration and polling shows economically motivated opposition to that as well.

In 2013 you had Rubio running ads on talk radio describing the increased enforcement and downplaying the path, and also describing the path in the most innoucous terms possible. That is why the polling looked so rosy, largely because the messaging was so lopsided and the opposition was marginalized more effectively in 2013 then 2007 (As I said after 2012 the long knives were out and the COC was/is convinced that it is there path to a four year majority of pro-biz shill domination as well as the continued benefit of cheap labor).
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 27, 2014, 08:55:41 PM »

Here is how Quinnipiac asked the question, first they set it up with this question:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
They then followed up with this:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So again they didn't actually describe Obama's executive order and the previous question may actually lead many to think Obama's order was to let every illegal immigrant stay and become a citizen. Again this is why the Hart poll (which described how the order was limited) comes up with a different result.


In a way this is not unlike Obamacare. Polling shows that when asked about it in general, a plurality are opposed to it, but when you ask about the details, majorities like the features of health care reform. And most don't want to see it fully repealed, which is the parallel here. How many Americans want the government to spend the resorces required to deport 11M undocmented, including the 5m who parents of US citizens and have been here 5 years (aka the ones in Obama's order)?

That is the trick for the GOP in 2016. How can they find a way to be against this order and against immigration reform but not be painted as being for massive deportation.


That or being against the order whilst supporting legislative action.

That is the best path for the GOP.  However, in order for that to work, they'd actually need to pursue legislative action in the next two years.  No one will believe that they're actually in favor of legislative action if they don't make a serious effort to pass immigration reform when they have control of both Houses of congress.

Boehner and McConnell said before Obama issued the executive order that doing so would 'poison the well', making any immigration deal impossible.  Will they stick to this pledge?  If they go back on this pledge and try to get a deal through, can they get enough conservative Republicans (who are furious at Obama for this executive order and unlikely to feel the spirit of compromise) on board to get past the 'majority of the majority' rule?  Would a deal that can get the majority of the House Republican caucus be able to make it to 60 votes in the Senate?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 27, 2014, 09:01:56 PM »
« Edited: November 27, 2014, 09:06:47 PM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

They don't have to make a deal. They just have to pursue the piecemeal strategy (remember McConnell opposed the Senate bill) and get them linked together in tandem somehow so that the McCain/Graham types vote for it. I am sure that Donnelly, Tester, Heitkamp, Manchin, McCaskil and maybe even Bennet (up in 2016) would vote for that and even if they fall short, that evens out the accusation of obstruction.

The strategy also requires that nothing happens so that you can run on effectuating legislative action obviously as opposed to the Democrats unconstitutional executive orders (Pursuing something that would pass would give the Democrats a victory lap/remove the promise of such being pursued once insert Rep is elected obviously and a locked in 70% amongst Hispanics as a reward for Obama's signature). If there is a pile of immigration bills (more then just a border bill) sitting with Obama vetoes or the nay votes of "decided to be dead men walking" Dems, then they can accuse the Democrats of putting politics first.


Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2014, 01:58:38 AM »

Naso's hoping for something like this, with the names inverted:

Well, we all know that, especially before and after his posts on Ferguson, but I just took amusement with the way he is choosing his words.  I mean, I'm worried that plenty of whites are racist.  I'm not worried about racists voting for Republicans.

Anyway Reaganfan, I'll have to admit that I don't really care what the Democrats did to alienate 60% of white voters because I'm in the other 40%, and the idea that you or any other person of a similar political disposition could worry on my behalf that I am losing representation is ridiculous at best.  You see, I'm not convinced that whites are somehow getting a bad deal.  So if you're going to stand around and worry about whites (potentially) losing their virtual stranglehold on America's political institutions and their influence on society generally, my only question is, why?
Aren't political institutions already liberal anyway such as colleges?

Influence on Society? Can you go further into detail about that?

I'm not talking about the political leanings of colleges or any other institutions, rather the White-centric framework from which most of these things operate.  In some ways, it's subtle.  In other ways, especially how people are treated by the police, it's painfully obvious as the moral blight that it is - but notice that people like Reaganfan will still defend the deaths of children because police have been 'trained' to kill civilians, interspersed with derogatory depictions of 'the black community'.

You will find this in the universities too, though, simply by virtue of the fact that the public education system produces better atmospheres and outcomes for white students over black students.  'Separate but equal' has never been true, but remains de facto practice in many areas even if no longer officially proclaimed.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2014, 08:23:11 AM »

The way the questions are phrased, sort of predetermines the result.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2014, 10:34:26 AM »
« Edited: November 28, 2014, 06:21:17 PM by Badger »


Illegal alien and mother of seven, Florida resident Marita Nelson, receives $240 in food stamps, monthly medications, $700 in Social Security and a housing allowance. And she has been receiving government assistance for over 20 YEARS – ever since she illegally entered the U.S. by swimming the Rio Grande — which up to 290,000 illegals have done since January.

And even though she initially had a job, Nelson hasn’t worked a day in 17 years – but still collects her checks.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 28, 2014, 05:16:28 PM »
« Edited: November 29, 2014, 12:25:58 PM by True Federalist »

Illegal alien and mother of seven, Florida resident Marita Nelson, receives $240 in food stamps, monthly medications, $700 in Social Security and a housing allowance. And she has been receiving government assistance for over 20 YEARS – ever since she illegally entered the U.S. by swimming the Rio Grande — which up to 290,000 illegals have done since January.

And even though she initially had a job, Nelson hasn’t worked a day in 17 years – but still collects her checks.

So you're saying that you would be able to raise seven children on that budget?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 13 queries.