Where does the GOP go from here?

johno · Post by **johno** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:01 pm

In this election, who stood for MORE FREE SHIT? (Neither Bush nor Gore were running.)
IIRC, it was Obama. Obamacare, contraceptives, student loans, Dream Act citizenship, and, most importantly, the 1% will pay for ALL the FREE SHIT.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:08 pm

johno wrote:IIRC

You do not.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:20 am

Fat Cat wrote:
johno wrote:IIRC
You do not.

Question: for almost 10 years I have read what you are against. How about sharing what you are for?

Not trying to start anything, just something I have always wanted to ask. Since we are on the topic and shit.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:15 am

Pistols. GJJ. End.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:01 am

johno can't resist slipping in a little of the rhetoric that's going to doom the GOP unless they learn to include the mud peoples in their coalition. The DREAM Act, the horror!

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:02 pm

johno wrote:In this election, who stood for MORE FREE SHIT? (Neither Bush nor Gore were running.)
IIRC, it was Obama. Obamacare, contraceptives, student loans, Dream Act citizenship, and, most importantly, the 1% will pay for ALL the FREE SHIT.

Free shit is really fun. I even get a free Obama phone with 120 minutes per month!

cleaner464 · Post by **cleaner464** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:19 pm

The Air Force isn't Constitutionally provided for, yet I see no "true" Republicans calling for it to be disbanded.

A strict interpretation would have to call into question the Constitutionality of the Marines and the Coast guard as well.

Please continue to pine away for slavery and white privilege. BB, you aren't even white, so just stop.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:40 pm

cleaner464 wrote:The Air Force isn't Constitutionally provided for, yet I see no "true" Republicans calling for it to be disbanded.

A strict interpretation would have to call into question the Constitutionality of the Marines and the Coast guard as well.

Please continue to pine away for slavery and white privilege. BB, you aren't even white, so just stop.

Ah yes, the resident fascist has arrived. You still sitting in gas lines and blubbering away about how much you gave to Katrina relief?

Put down the steno and wipe them tears from your eyes. The USMC is part of the Naval Department. The Coast guard is on loan to the DHS by the Navy. And Yes, the Airforce should be folded into the Army.

All fixed. You can now continue standing in gas lines while he NY City rips you off blind.

While you were sitting in line.

johno · Post by **johno** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:37 pm

milosz wrote:johno can't resist slipping in a little of the rhetoric that's going to doom the GOP unless they learn to include the mud peoples in their coalition. The DREAM Act, the horror!

Chris Matthews, is that you? Weak sauce, equating opposition to giveaways with racism.
Two years of gov't subsidized Junior College should not "earn" citizenship. Honorable military service, Yes.
Also, there are problems of Obama implementing the Act by executive fiat.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:15 pm

johno wrote:
milosz wrote:JOHNO CAN'T RESIST SLIPPING IN A LITTLE OF THE RHETORIC THAT'S GOING TO DOOM THE GOP UNLESS THEY LEARN TO INCLUDE THE MUD PEOPLES IN THEIR COALITION. THE DREAM ACT, THE HORROR!
Chris Matthews, is that you?

Now it is.

milosz · Post by **milosz** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:32 am

johno wrote:Two years of gov't subsidized Junior College should not "earn" citizenship. Honorable military service, Yes.

Thing is, the DREAM Act doesn't do that.

Giveaways? People with college degrees pay more taxes than people without; people with above-the-table jobs pay payroll taxes, people without do not. Immigration reform that gives working illegals (particularly the young, accultured illegals that current reform attempts wants to deal with) a chance to legitimize is good policy.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:25 am

milosz wrote:

I'd Hit It · Post by **I'd Hit It** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 3:03 am

Government subsidized? Have you actually read any overviews of the bill? Illegal immigrants are currently ineligible for in-state tuition in many states and all federal aid. If you're an illegal who wants to take college you have to pay full price unless you can find private scholarships that will fund illegals (good luck with that). People should not be getting their panties in a bunch until they know what they're talking about.

Here's the most recent overview of the bill (from Wikipedia). The process of becoming legal under the DREAM Act is hardly throwing the doors open, given all the steps needed to take and scarce legal protections from deportation for people who are going through the process:

The 111th Congress continued to consider the DREAM Act bill throughout 2010. S.3992, a new version of the DREAM Act, includes numerous changes to address concerns raised about the bill.
It does not repeal the ban on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not force states to charge in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. The DREAM Act does not allow illegal immigrants to gain access to Federal Pell Grants and other financial aid.

It lowers the age cap for eligibility for the DREAM Act to 29 on the date of enactment. Additionally, to be eligible, individuals still must have come to the US as children (15 or under), graduated from a U.S. High School (or received a GED from a US institution), and be long-term residents (at least five years). . . . .

It does not grant resident status to anyone for at least two years. Previous versions of the DREAM Act would have immediately granted resident status to individuals who met the bill's requirements. Under S. 3992, an individual could obtain “conditional nonimmigrant” status if they prove that they meet the age (currently 29 or under and arrived in the U.S. at 15 or under) and residency requirements (five years or more) and have done the following:
Graduated from an American high school or obtained a GED;

Been a person of “good moral character”, as determined by the Department of Homeland Security, from the date the individual initially entered the U.S. (previous versions of the DREAM Act only required an individual to be a person of good moral character from the date of the bill's enactment);

Submitted biometric information;

Underwent security and law-enforcement background checks;

Underwent a medical examination; and

Registers for the Selective Service.

Further limits eligibility for conditional non-immigrant status by specifically excluding anyone who has done the following:
Has committed one felony or three misdemeanors;

Is likely to become a public charge;

Has engaged in voter fraud or unlawful voting;

Has committed marriage fraud;

Has abused a student visa;

Has engaged in persecution; or

Poses a public health risk.

Gave a conditional non-immigrant the chance to earn resident status only after two years and only if he meets the DREAM Act's college or military service requirements, and other requirements: pays back taxes and demonstrates the ability to read, write, and speak English and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, principles, and form of government of the United States.

Further limited "chain migration". DREAM Act individuals would have very limited ability to sponsor family members for U.S. citizenship. They could never sponsor extended family members and could not begin sponsoring parents or siblings for at least 12 years. Parents and siblings who entered the U.S. illegally would have to leave the country for ten years before they could gain resident status and the visa backlog for siblings is decades long.

Specifically excluded non-immigrants from the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Conditional non-immigrants also would be ineligible for Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlement programs.

Established a one-year application deadline. An individual would be required to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status within one year of obtaining a high school degree or GED, being admitted to college, or the bill's date of enactment.

Required people applying for the DREAM Act to show that they are likely to qualify in order to receive a stay of deportation while his application is pending. The DREAM Act is not a safe harbor from deportation.

Required the Department of Homeland Security to provide information from an individual's DREAM Act application to any federal, state, tribal, or local law enforcement agency, or intelligence or national security agency in any criminal investigation or prosecution or for homeland security or national security purposes.

Placed the burden of proof on a DREAM Act applicant. An individual would be required to demonstrate eligibility for the DREAM Act by a preponderance of the evidence.
Additionally, individuals would continue to be excluded if they have received a final order of deportation, have engaged in criminal activity (as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act), or present a national security or terrorist threat.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:34 pm

Batboy2/75 wrote:
Fat Cat wrote:
johno wrote:IIRC
You do not.

Question: for almost 10 years I have read what you are against. How about sharing what you are for?

Not trying to start anything, just something I have always wanted to ask. Since we are on the topic and shit.

Socially and fiscally I am probably best understood as a sort of paleo-conservative. I doubt you would find much to argue with me about. But if you are curious about my stance on a specific issue, just ask and I will answer. I don't want to write pages of nonsense about every issue though .

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:42 pm

*ahem*

Did you want to discuss or no?

johno · Post by **johno** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:01 pm

I'd Hit It wrote:Government subsidized? Have you actually read any overviews of the bill? Illegal immigrants are currently ineligible for in-state tuition in many states and all federal aid.
...

Paying non-resident tuition does not mean your tuition pays the cost of your education. You are subsidized to a lesser extent than a state resident.

I'd Hit It wrote:The process of becoming legal under the DREAM Act is hardly throwing the doors open, given all the steps needed to take and scarce legal protections from deportation for people who are going through the process.

Straw Man argument. That the DREAM Act doesn't answer every prayer of every illegal, doesn't prove that it isn't a substantial improvement for many of them. A benefit. Given by Obama. By executive fiat.
And it's a benefit that makes us look less resolute re: illegal immigration and (likely) attracts more illegal immigration.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:12 pm

Fat Cat wrote:*ahem*

Did you want to discuss or no?

Busy at work. I'll pick up the topic tonight

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:15 am

Map 1: 1850
Before 1870, only white men could vote. Here's how the election would have looked before the 15th Amendment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitic ... -like-with

I'd Hit It · Post by **I'd Hit It** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:48 pm

johno wrote:Straw Man argument. That the DREAM Act doesn't answer every prayer of every illegal, doesn't prove that it isn't a substantial improvement for many of them. A benefit. Given by Obama. By executive fiat.
And it's a benefit that makes us look less resolute re: illegal immigration and (likely) attracts more illegal immigration.

I looked at the summary and the steps necessary to gain citizenship via the DREAM act appear to be so onerous there doesn't appear to be a point. The vast majority of illegal immigrants come into the United States poor as dirt. The only motivation the DREAM Act would provide for potential illegals is if they come into the country with the funds to at least $20,000-$30,000/year necessary to send their kids to college so their kids can become legal a decade down the line. It's not like they can apply for student loans. It's ridiculous to argue that could be a motivator above all others. The people who come into this country illegally are going to do it whether or not the DREAM Act is in place because they need money. People who can afford $20,000/year educations for their kids out of pocket could easily migrate legally into the country if that's what they wish, since that kind of income and earning power means they either have serious job skills or likely have connections that could find them legal positions and visas. The DREAM Act just makes provisions for the kids of illegals to stay, kids who have been in the US their whole lives and don't know anything else.

What do you mean "executive fiat"? It's a law, not an executive order, and it hasn't been passed.

Your warnings of doom and gloom about this sound borderline hysterical in light of what the Act does and who it actually helps (apparently in its current incarnation it could help maybe 10,000 illegals--so not many).

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:13 am

Terry B. wrote:Map 1: 1850
Before 1870, only white men could vote. Here's how the election would have looked before the 15th Amendment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitic ... -like-with

Hawaii would've voted before even being a State?

Something is fishy here.

Freki · Post by **Freki** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:32 am

protobuilder wrote:
Terry B. wrote:Map 1: 1850
Before 1870, only white men could vote. Here's how the election would have looked before the 15th Amendment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitic ... -like-with
Hawaii would've voted before even being a State?

Something is fishy here.

Um, I think it's how the white dudes voted and how the electoral college would have looked as a result.

If you had clicked the link, you'd know that....

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:08 pm

Actually, circa 1870 Hawaiians would have been voting...for their king or queen, who were elected officials by that time.

IGX

Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?

Re: Where does the GOP go from here?