The GOP Nomination--The Donald and So Much More!

[3rdnlng]

People have truly gone off the rails. Sessions and Coulter, two of the biggest immigration hard liners have helped craft Trump with the most inane immigration proposal that you could possibly imagine. Never mind the fact that it is completely unconstitutional, it would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars, be seen throughout the entire world and even here as horribly inhumane. What makes Trumps proposal dangerous isn't that it would actually become implemented simply because he stands not a snow balls chance in hell to win the elections, but because now you have TV personalities, opinion writers that hold sway that are actually now defending his indefensible "plan". To be honest, I don't even believe that they believe it's a good plan, but they are selling a product and there are literally hundreds of thousands rabid people who want to buy into this. These morons actually believe that building a damn wall is a real economic plan. They think deporting 12 million people is not only acceptable, but something that they'd actually enjoy seeing. I see it in the comments section plastered all over the place. This sentiment runs rampant within the conservative base.

 

I've thought about the positions these people have and I've come to the conclusion I have more in common with a moderate centrist democrat than I do with these folks. Only thing is that those moderate democrats are nearly extinct, the Democratic Party is essentially a Democratic socialist party. Both parties have moved further out to the extremes.

 

Ronald Reagan would have never endorsed the idea of mass deporting millions of people. All these people who wax nostalgic of the great days of Reagan are nothing like him, and he's nothing like the base of todays Conservative party.

I view you as a reasonable guy and read and evaluate your comments. I generally agree with you. What I don't think you understand is, we conservatives are butt hurt over the last amnesty plan that promised to do something about illegal immigration but didn't even bother to try after amnesty was given. Obama didn't help matters a year or so ago with his "follow the yellow brick road" approach to all of the South American children that mysteriously landed on our doorstep. This is the deal---you guys want a humane approach to the situation? Shut off the f'n faucet and we'll be happy to treat the existing water. This is what happens when one side negotiates but does so disingenuously. The other side says "fool me once".....................................................

[Magox]

I view you as a reasonable guy and read and evaluate your comments. I generally agree with you. What I don't think you understand is, we conservatives are butt hurt over the last amnesty plan that promised to do something about illegal immigration but didn't even bother to try after amnesty was given. Obama didn't help matters a year or so ago with his "follow the yellow brick road" approach to all of the South American children that mysteriously landed on our doorstep. This is the deal---you guys want a humane approach to the situation? Shut off the f'n faucet and we'll be happy to treat the existing water. This is what happens when one side negotiates but does so disingenuously. The other side says "fool me once".....................................................

My position has shifted out of deference of all these folks.

 

1) Even though I believe building a wall isn't going to be the panacea that many believe it to be, I just want it to be taken off the table. Just Build it.

 

2) I was for a pathway to citizenship, but I've come to the conclusion that from a point of view stemming from fairness, that for all those people who aspired to come the U.S. Through the proper legal channels, which can be quite onerous that it's not fair that someone can come here illegally and then have the opportunity to become a citizen, when many others were denied entry because they played by the rules. I know of this process first hand as I have had many of my friends from South America who attempted to come and visit me who were denied. So rather than providing a direct pathway to citizenship, give them a pathway to some sort of legal status.

 

I just think it gives the wrong signal. You come here illegally, you can become a citizen. That without doubt is serving as a magnet.

 

If these people want to become citizens, then maybe there could be some sort of arrangement to where they could be reassured re entry into the country, but that they'd have to go back home first and go through the proper channels first. That's for the a pathway to citizenship, not legal status.

 

3) Get rid of all the sanctuary cities.

 

4) Large fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

 

5) Work with Mexico in limiting flow of illegal immigrants from their end. If they don't comply sufficiently, then there will consequences.

 

 

Unfortunately, The Donald's damage is already taking hold. Now you have Jindal and Walker are now for the unconstitutional ending of birth right citizenship. Jindal, you could expect that, once upon a time he use to be a thoughtful man who decried "The party of Stupid" , now he panders to those very same people. Walker, he's been going downhill from my perspective for months now. He's flip flopped on a number of issues and now with his most recent pandering shows me that he most likely won't get my vote in the primaries. He's been disappointing.

 

Bush won somewhere in the low to mid 40's% of the Latino vote, McCain in the low 30's, Romney in the high 20's, and if the GOP nominates one of these candidates that endorse a hardline stance, they will win somewhere in the low 20's. Which would take Nevada and Colorado off the table and seriously jeopardize Virginia and Florida, which for all intents and purposes means that Hillary becomes the next president.

[GG]

I view you as a reasonable guy and read and evaluate your comments. I generally agree with you. What I don't think you understand is, we conservatives are butt hurt over the last amnesty plan that promised to do something about illegal immigration but didn't even bother to try after amnesty was given. Obama didn't help matters a year or so ago with his "follow the yellow brick road" approach to all of the South American children that mysteriously landed on our doorstep. This is the deal---you guys want a humane approach to the situation? Shut off the f'n faucet and we'll be happy to treat the existing water. This is what happens when one side negotiates but does so disingenuously. The other side says "fool me once".....................................................

 

Careful throwing out the term "conservative" out there. Xenophobic nativist is the term you're looking for. There are plenty of conservatives who recognize how labor markets work and understand that the solution to the immigration problem is to reform it, not to threaten throw everybody back.

 

And if you're going to bring up the last amnesty plan, at least you should be intellectually honest and remind everyone that it was the plan sponsored by Reagan. You should also remind everyone how a reasonable proposal by Bush was stonewalled by the nativists because it had naturalization provisions that were called amnesty, which they weren't.

 

And this is precisely how GOP gets its butt handed to it again. Please tell me how it's going to shed its image of the party of NO, when it's great at trumpeting out demagogues, but can't put together coherent solutions. Why do you think ACA got rammed down everyone's throats? Why do you think Obama signed his executive order on illegal immigrants?

 

Keep talking tough on empty rhetoric and continue to alienate 15% of the demographic, and witness Dems take every national election in your lifetime.

[3rdnlng]

 

Careful throwing out the term "conservative" out there. Xenophobic nativist is the term you're looking for. There are plenty of conservatives who recognize how labor markets work and understand that the solution to the immigration problem is to reform it, not to threaten throw everybody back.

 

And if you're going to bring up the last amnesty plan, at least you should be intellectually honest and remind everyone that it was the plan sponsored by Reagan. You should also remind everyone how a reasonable proposal by Bush was stonewalled by the nativists because it had naturalization provisions that were called amnesty, which they weren't.

 

And this is precisely how GOP gets its butt handed to it again. Please tell me how it's going to shed its image of the party of NO, when it's great at trumpeting out demagogues, but can't put together coherent solutions. Why do you think ACA got rammed down everyone's throats? Why do you think Obama signed his executive order on illegal immigrants?

 

Keep talking tough on empty rhetoric and continue to alienate 15% of the demographic, and witness Dems take every national election in your lifetime.

Don't put words in my mouth and try to use my post as a reason for your rant. I simply said that I am not for giving you what you want for a vague promise that you will give me what I want later, maybe. As far as me being "intellectually dishonest" for not pointing out that the last amnesty plan was sponsored by Reagan is a bunch of horeshit. I was under no obligation to add any unnecessary points to my statement, but if you want to know the truth, Reagan wasn't too happy with the way that all played out.

 

Obama gets away with his unconstitutional Executive Orders because the media is complicit and no one has the balls to really stand up to him. As far as what it will take to win the presidency, the ability to equivocate is not the answer. A strong conservative message presented in a frank, friendly and humorous way is all that is needed. My message to the elusive 15% is that we are a nation of laws, that is part of what makes us great, and whether you realize it or not, a large reason for people to want to come here. We are not going to become a lawless nation so that we can accommodate you that have broken our laws.

 

These are some of the basics:

 

1. No citizenship granted to anyone here illegally (with the exception of meeting certain requirements such as military service).

 

2. Illegals may apply for legal status and such status (like guest worker) will be granted on a case-by-case basis.

 

3. No birthright citizenship will be granted to any offspring of anyone not having legal status.

 

4. Any illegals discovered here that have not applied for legal status will be summarily deported.

 

Hell, I could sell those tenets above at a La Raza meeting. Can you imagine what a true conservative dressed up like Fred Thompson could do?

[Ozymandius]

My position has shifted out of deference of all these folks.

 

1) Even though I believe building a wall isn't going to be the panacea that many believe it to be, I just want it to be taken off the table. Just Build it.

 

2) I was for a pathway to citizenship, but I've come to the conclusion that from a point of view stemming from fairness, that for all those people who aspired to come the U.S. Through the proper legal channels, which can be quite onerous that it's not fair that someone can come here illegally and then have the opportunity to become a citizen, when many others were denied entry because they played by the rules. I know of this process first hand as I have had many of my friends from South America who attempted to come and visit me who were denied. So rather than providing a direct pathway to citizenship, give them a pathway to some sort of legal status.

 

I just think it gives the wrong signal. You come here illegally, you can become a citizen. That without doubt is serving as a magnet.

 

If these people want to become citizens, then maybe there could be some sort of arrangement to where they could be reassured re entry into the country, but that they'd have to go back home first and go through the proper channels first. That's for the a pathway to citizenship, not legal status.

 

3) Get rid of all the sanctuary cities.

 

4) Large fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

 

5) Work with Mexico in limiting flow of illegal immigrants from their end. If they don't comply sufficiently, then there will consequences.

 

 

Your 1 through 5 is reasonable and not much different from how Donald wants to implement.

 

 

Bush won somewhere in the low to mid 40's% of the Latino vote, McCain in the low 30's, Romney in the high 20's, and if the GOP nominates one of these candidates that endorse a hardline stance, they will win somewhere in the low 20's. Which would take Nevada and Colorado off the table and seriously jeopardize Virginia and Florida, which for all intents and purposes means that Hillary becomes the next president.

 

Notice how the decline in those numbers happened anyway despite nominating mushy moderates. Like I said elsewhere, the GOP will not win a battle of identity politics with the liberals. The GOP can't win over Hispanics.

 

Incidentally, even if Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would've lost.

 

What the GOP needs to do is appeal more to whites. Trump's policies accomplish that, I believe.

[Magox]

As far as me being "intellectually dishonest" for not pointing out that the last amnesty plan was sponsored by Reagan is a bunch of horeshit. I was under no obligation to add any unnecessary points to my statement, but if you want to know the truth, Reagan wasn't too happy with the way that all played out.

 

 

 

Fact is, Reagan did it, and he would never adopt or endorse a plan that is currently being discussed by Trump and his followers.

 

In regards to your proposals, most of them are from my perspective are at least open for debate even though I'm not in full agreement with a couple of them, minus the birth right one. It's just not gonna happen. You aren't going to get 2/3 of the Senate, house, the presidency and 75% of all the states to ratify it. The country isn't a clone of Alabama. It's diverse, there are more democrats than republicans, hell I'd venture to guess that not even 50% of republicans would agree to such a measure. You sure as hell wouldn't get even 20% of Democrats to agree with that and you'd get even less independents than Repubs to go along with it.

[GG]

Don't put words in my mouth and try to use my post as a reason for your rant. I simply said that I am not for giving you what you want for a vague promise that you will give me what I want later, maybe. As far as me being "intellectually dishonest" for not pointing out that the last amnesty plan was sponsored by Reagan is a bunch of horeshit. I was under no obligation to add any unnecessary points to my statement, but if you want to know the truth, Reagan wasn't too happy with the way that all played out.

 

Obama gets away with his unconstitutional Executive Orders because the media is complicit and no one has the balls to really stand up to him. As far as what it will take to win the presidency, the ability to equivocate is not the answer. A strong conservative message presented in a frank, friendly and humorous way is all that is needed. My message to the elusive 15% is that we are a nation of laws, that is part of what makes us great, and whether you realize it or not, a large reason for people to want to come here. We are not going to become a lawless nation so that we can accommodate you that have broken our laws.

 

These are some of the basics:

 

1. No citizenship granted to anyone here illegally (with the exception of meeting certain requirements such as military service).

 

2. Illegals may apply for legal status and such status (like guest worker) will be granted on a case-by-case basis.

 

3. No birthright citizenship will be granted to any offspring of anyone not having legal status.

 

4. Any illegals discovered here that have not applied for legal status will be summarily deported.

 

Hell, I could sell those tenets above at a La Raza meeting. Can you imagine what a true conservative dressed up like Fred Thompson could do?

 

You're the one posting under the conservative tent, when it's not. Use the right terms. There are many conservatives who don't fall for xenophobic nativism, because they learned and remember history.

[Magox]

 

Your 1 through 5 is reasonable and not much different from how Donald wants to implement.

 

 

 

Notice how the decline in those numbers happened anyway despite nominating mushy moderates. Like I said elsewhere, the GOP will not win a battle of identity politics with the liberals. The GOP can't win over Hispanics.

 

Incidentally, even if Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would've lost.

 

What the GOP needs to do is appeal more to whites. Trump's policies accomplish that, I believe.

 

That's quite a rewrite of what happened. The main reason why McCain lost the latino vote the way he did was for two reasons, the push for a comprehensive immigration under Bush exposed the hatred for this idea from the right and believe me when I tell you, Latino's noticed the tone in rhetoric. And two, Obama was seen as "transformational", they ate his **** up and went for him.

 

And Romney's stance on immigration wasn't seen as "mushy", it was seen as noninclusive, when his famous policy proposal on the matter was for them to "self-deport".

 

And it's not solely about identity politics, it's about what we can do to fix the system of immigration. It's broken, too many illegal immigrants are indiscriminately coming here because there is a willful neglect from politicians to allow this to happen. Trump's solutions are a non starter for the country, sure maybe in rightwingville this will be cheered but not throughout the nation. Therefore it is not a serious proposal.

 

So the solutions are to remain with the status quo or look to fix the immigration system.

 

And your idea to appeal more to white's is beyond short-sighted. I'll leave that at that.

[GG]

 

 

And your idea to appeal more to white's is beyond short-sighted. I'll leave that at that.

 

I'm guessing it's a softening of the genocide of Latinos message

[Tiberius]

Luntz is being exposed as a fraud by The Donald. Surprise, surprise. Anyone with half a brain who has watched his fake focus group crap would see how staged they are

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/fox-luntz-blasted-trump-donald-koch-seminar-121466.html?hp=t1_r

 

But sources told POLITICO that, in the days before the Aug. 6 Fox News presidential debate where a Luntz-run focus group panned Trump’s performance, the pollster told a closed-door gathering of major conservative donors in Southern California that Trump was dangerous to Republicans and was “turning what we believe into a joke.”

 

People present at the gathering, which was organized by the political network helmed by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said Luntz argued that Trump is not a true conservative, but is “addicted” to the limelight and is likely to become increasingly enticed by the prospect of launching a third party presidential bid the longer he stays in the race.

 

Asked Monday about his private comments in Southern California, Luntz declined to directly address what he said at the donor confab, though he did not back away from the substance of his critique.

 

 

[Magox]

Luntz is being exposed as a fraud by The Donald. Surprise, surprise. Anyone with half a brain who has watched his fake focus group crap would see how staged they are

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/fox-luntz-blasted-trump-donald-koch-seminar-121466.html?hp=t1_r

 

 

 

Yeah, those focus groups can be bunk. All it takes is for someone like a Luntz who most likely had an agenda to guide these people in a direction via his questions to have them all conform to the same idea with leading questions.

[IDBillzFan]

Luntz is being exposed as a fraud by The Donald. Surprise, surprise. Anyone with half a brain who has watched his fake focus group crap would see how staged they are

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/fox-luntz-blasted-trump-donald-koch-seminar-121466.html?hp=t1_r

 

Y'know, for a guy who's party leader is in one of the most embarrassing political free falls since Gary Hart graced the cover of The Enquirer, you'd think you'd have more important things to discuss.

[Ozymandius]

 

So the solutions are to remain with the status quo or look to fix the immigration system.

 

And your idea to appeal more to white's is beyond short-sighted. I'll leave that at that.

 

Oh yes, we all agree the immigration system needs to be fixed. We just differ on the fix.

 

Trump's idea of hitting the pause button on immigration - legal and illegal - is my cup of tea. This would be similar to the restricted immigration from the country employed from 1925 to 1965.

 

Right now we need to get the citizens already here back to work. Boost that labor participation rate. And while we do that, all the libertarians here can try to win over the Hispanic vote with your appeal to lowering the capital gains tax and some vague notion of less government. We'll see how successful you are versus the progressive messaging.

 

But just in case you can't win them over, hitting the pause button will at least delay this country's collapse for a few more decades.

[Tiberius]

 

Y'know, for a guy who's party leader is in one of the most embarrassing political free falls since Gary Hart graced the cover of The Enquirer, you'd think you'd have more important things to discuss.

There is already a thread about the Dems. Keep that over there

[Joe Miner]

 

Oh yes, we all agree the immigration system needs to be fixed. We just differ on the fix.

 

Trump's idea of hitting the pause button on immigration - legal and illegal - is my cup of tea. This would be similar to the restricted immigration from the country employed from 1925 to 1965.

 

Right now we need to get the citizens already here back to work. Boost that labor participation rate. And while we do that, all the libertarians here can try to win over the Hispanic vote with your appeal to lowering the capital gains tax and some vague notion of less government. We'll see how successful you are versus the progressive messaging.

 

But just in case you can't win them over, hitting the pause button will at least delay this country's collapse for a few more decades.

Why a pause button? If we're getting buttons, get a reset button. Those work really well.

 

Pause button on immigration... That's the policy you're supporting?

[Azalin]

You guys really ought to stop calling it 'immigration' - it's not. Immigrants are the ones who apply for visas or go through the process of becoming citizens. That's not what the people in question are doing. The distinction is important.

[DC Tom]

You guys really ought to stop calling it 'immigration' - it's not. Immigrants are the ones who apply for visas or go through the process of becoming citizens. That's not what the people in question are doing. The distinction is important.

 

I'm okay with calling it "immigration," as long as it's prefaced by "illegal" as it should be.

[IDBillzFan]

You guys really ought to stop calling it 'immigration' - it's not. Immigrants are the ones who apply for visas or go through the process of becoming citizens. That's not what the people in question are doing. The distinction is important.

 

Well, California just passed a labor law making it illegal to refer to them as 'aliens,' so I'm running out of options.

 

I think maybe I'll called them Alfs. Or Morks. They were beloved aliens. Surely no one will object.

[3rdnlng]

 

You're the one posting under the conservative tent, when it's not. Use the right terms. There are many conservatives who don't fall for xenophobic nativism, because they learned and remember history.

Ah, "xenophobic nativism", eh? Why don't you just call me a racist? Why are you so against the government making every effort to enforce the law? The illegal aliens in the U.S. have broken the law and if you reward that with amnesty then you are encouraging more of it. Let the illegals that haven't broken the law further or have a criminal past in their country of origin have a path to legal status---not citizenship. The immigrants who come here legally can of course attain citizenship. As far as border security goes---the border needs to be secured so that we not only are keeping illegal aliens out, but terrorists too. This is critical so that we don't have to deal with this very same issue 20 years from now. We also need to punish heavily those employers who knowingly or carelessly hire illegals. All of this falls nicely in with my description of a conservative. What's your position other than to bemoan the "fact" that the GOP will never win another race if they don't somehow become more liberal on immigration than the dems?

Edited August 18, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I'm guessing it's a softening of the genocide of Latinos message

A real shame, that. I'm sure he thought he had a real policy winner there.