No. of Recommendations: 2
Into the dustbin, it seems....

Republicans walked away from their 2012 debacle hell-bent on fixing their problems with Hispanics. Now, they appear hell-bent on making them worse.

In private conversations, top Republicans on Capitol Hill now predict comprehensive immigration reform will die a slow, months-long death in the House. Like with background checks for gun buyers, the conventional wisdom that the party would never kill immigration reform, and risk further alienating Hispanic voters, was always wrong — and ignored the reality that most House Republicans are white conservatives representing mostly white districts.

These members, and the vast majority of their voters, couldn’t care less whether Marco Rubio, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove say this is smart politics and policy.


http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/behind-the-curtain-imm...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Reality is that the GOP isn't going to make a dent in the hispanic vote. If it passes or fails the GOP isn't gaining or losing votes.

The Senate Bill is an electoral boom for Democrats. 11 Million illegals and you don't think the bulk goes to the Democrats regardless of how the GOP votes? Heck some of those illegals are already voting Democrat.

One Naples voter admitted to NBC-2 Tampa reporter Andy Pierrotti that she was not a U.S. Citizen NOR A LEGAL IMMIGRANT – election records show she voted six times in the past eleven years!

http://www.infowars.com/mass-illegal-immigration-voter-fraud...

If the GOP wants to improve their status with the hispanic community they need to highlight their Hispanic Members and point out that there are more Hispanic Republicans in the Senate and elected Governors than there are Democrats and have those Republicans explain why they are Republicans. Starting with the simple concept of "You (or your family) came here legally, why shouldn't others."

The Senate Bill doesn't help the GOP, that's why Democrats are pushing it so hard.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's because it is neither smart politics nor policy. A simple logical test disproves the smart politics idea: would Chuck Freaking Schumer approve of any bill that helps the GOP? Hell no he wouldn't.

On policy? The American public wants the border secured, period. This bill doesn't compel Obama to do so. In fact, he has every incentive NOT to. Merely throwing money at a problem when you don't compel the Feds to do their job just bloats the deficit without solving anything.

Here's a very simple lot us test to see who really wants what, both on this board and in Congress: pass a strict border security bill FIRST. No mention of citizenship whatsoever. 700 miles of double row fencing, an expansion of e-verify, and allow cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement to catch and deport.

Let's see how many on the left line up for such a bill. I'd guess zero in the senate. Pass that first, then pass all the pathways you want - contingent of course on all the provisions of the first bill being completed BEFORE the pathways can start.

Obama won't sign such a bill. democrats all over would denounce a setup like that as racist and unfair, showing you where their minds are. (Hint: their minds are on politics, not on doing right).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's because it is neither smart politics nor policy. A simple logical test disproves the smart politics idea: would Chuck Freaking Schumer approve of any bill that helps the GOP? Hell no he wouldn't.

That is not a logical test. That is simply a fallacy dressed up in respectable clothes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's a very simple lot us test to see who really wants what, both on this board and in Congress: pass a strict border security bill FIRST. No mention of citizenship whatsoever. 700 miles of double row fencing, an expansion of e-verify, and allow cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement to catch and deport.

Let's see how many on the left line up for such a bill.


You are probably correct; not many on the left would line up for that bill.. but not for the reason you assume (more Democratic voters).

The real reasons:

1. We can't afford it.
2. We don't need to go further down the road of a militarized state.. we've already gone too far.
3. A more effective strategy would be simply to penalize those who hire illegal aliens. (Of course we all know... that isn't going to happen)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That is not a logical test. That is simply a fallacy dressed up in respectable clothes

Oh, so Chuck Schumer IS invested in a strong GOP? Riiight.

Why don't you explain that one? Or comment on the rest of it?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is not a logical test. That is simply a fallacy dressed up in respectable clothes

Oh, so Chuck Schumer IS invested in a strong GOP? Riiight.
_______________________________

They got ya Dope, between Schumer and Weiner, it does appear Dems like neither respectable nor clothes!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
1. We can't afford it.
2. We don't need to go further down the road of a militarized state.. we've already gone too far.
3. A more effective strategy would be simply to penalize those who hire illegal aliens. (Of course we all know... that isn't going to happen)

__________

1 - We can afford it. When discussing costs, people talk about the money enforcement costs, but never the money saved in not having to give illegals government programs like welfare or providing their kids with school. There's a savings that is not ever placed in the equation.

2 - Removing illegls isn't a militarized state, it's just enforcing current laws. And we know where they are.

3 - Yeah, I agree. But it would be nice to see this happen. Enforcement of the current laws on that is all that's needed. And if you're worried about the cost of #1. Increase the fine to business to increase the funding.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh, so Chuck Schumer IS invested in a strong GOP? Riiight.

Why don't you explain that one? Or comment on the rest of it?


I don't have to comment on that, because I neither said, nor intended to say that.

Here's your "logical test":

A simple logical test disproves the smart politics idea: would Chuck Freaking Schumer approve of any bill that helps the GOP? Hell no he wouldn't.

The clear assumption behind your statement is that Charles Schumer would not approve of any bill that helped the GOP, and that anyone who disagreed with that statement has failed your "logical test".

But the logical test itself is illogical, because it has not been demonstrated that Charles Schumer would vote against any bill simply on the basis that it would help Republicans.

And that's what I said when I wrote:

That is not a logical test. That is simply a fallacy dressed up in respectable clothes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2 - Removing illegls isn't a militarized state, it's just enforcing current laws. And we know where they are.

I said it would lead us further down the road toward a militarized state, and I will maintain that a 700 mile, double fenced border, with beefed up border patrol "checking papers"... leads us precisely in that direction.

By the way.... the border with Mexico is 1954 miles long. The proposed fence only stretches a little over 1/3 of that distance.

I'd check out the fence manufacturers' contributions to political campaigns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd check out the fence manufacturers' contributions to political campaigns.

_________

George Bluth?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The clear assumption behind your statement is that Charles Schumer would not approve of any bill that helped the GOP, and that anyone who disagreed with that statement has failed your "logical test".

I think you have a tenuous grasp of the concepts of logic and fallacies. I neither said nor implied anything about anyone else other than Chuck Schumer in that snippet. I merely asked a question.

But the logical test itself is illogical, because it has not been demonstrated that Charles Schumer would vote against any bill simply on the basis that it would help Republicans.


Okay. Let's rephrase, counselor.

What incentive does Chuck Schumer have to vote on a bill that supposedly helps Republicans politically?

That is not a logical test. That is simply a fallacy dressed up in respectable clothes.

Whatever you say. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument or a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. You've demonstrated neither in your posts and your argument goes away entirely in light of my question above.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who is George Bluth?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I will maintain that a 700 mile, double fenced border, with beefed up border patrol "checking papers"... leads us precisely in that direction.

_______

I disagree with that. Asking for papers when you cross the border is fine. We have that all check points already. Try entering through any airport, seaport or via any road.

Asking for papers once inside the Country is a different story. Or asking for papers to drive from State to State as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think you have a tenuous grasp of the concepts of logic and fallacies. I neither said nor implied anything about anyone else other than Chuck Schumer in that snippet. I merely asked a question.

You posed a "logical test".

And I didn't say anything, nor imply anything about anyone other that Shumer either.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I disagree with that. Asking for papers when you cross the border is fine. We have that all check points already. Try entering through any airport, seaport or via any road.

Asking for papers once inside the Country is a different story.


I have news.

That "different story" is already playing out in many of the border states. Expect it to get worse if we beef up border security.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who is George Bluth?

__________

A Developer who bought land along the Mexico/US border then donated money to some Congressmen in an attempt to get the fence built along his property and have the government a) buy the land from him and b) use his construction company to build the fence after they bought the land.

Genius plan...and it would have worked to if not for the fact that it happened on Arrested Development Season 4. One of the greatest TV shows ever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That "different story" is already playing out in many of the border states. Expect it to get worse if we beef up border security.

________

And before you know it the NSA will have records of all our phone calls, emails, texts and internet posting. Oh wait...too late.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I said it would lead us further down the road toward a militarized state, and I will maintain that a 700 mile, double fenced border, with beefed up border patrol "checking papers"... leads us precisely in that direction.

Speaking of arguments. I hate to break this to you, but every country on the planet requires that papers be checked when you cross into. And kindly don't counterargue with the eu because you DO need your papers checked when you enter the eurozone.

By the way.... the border with Mexico is 1954 miles long. The proposed fence only stretches a little over 1/3 of that distance.

I'd check out the fence manufacturers' contributions to political campaigns.


And so what if they do contribute? Talk about fallacious. You're trying to Poison the Well here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You posed a "logical test".

Sure. The test is, Is it logical for Chuck Schumer to help Republicans? On its face the answer is no unless, logically, he has an incentive to. So I asked you a simple followup:

What incentive does Chuck Schumer have to help the GOP?

And I didn't say anything, nor imply anything about anyone other that Shumer either.

You said that I did.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure. The test is, Is it logical for Chuck Schumer to help Republicans? On its face the answer is no unless, logically, he has an incentive to. So I asked you a simple followup:

What incentive does Chuck Schumer have to help the GOP?


There are several incentives for Chuck Schumer to help the GOP...


1. If the bill, as Schumer perceives it, helps the country.
2. If the bill helps Democrats
3. If the bill, by its passage, helps both parties.

Switch the above three reasons around to read "Republicans", and you have the very same incentives for any Republican politician to "help Democrats".

Oh, but Democrats are "worser"! Please.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What incentive does Chuck Schumer have to vote on a bill that supposedly helps Republicans politically?

For the umpteenth time Dope demonstrates an inability to conceive of putting US interests ahead of partisanship. The Party of Sociopathy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Put the mirror down.
Print the post Back To Top