Posted on 11/22/2011 7:54:13 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Edited on 11/22/2011 8:03:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
La Opinión, the largest Spanish-language newspaper in the United States and second-most read newspaper in Los Angeles, editoralized AGAINST Prop 8 in California and wrote a spanish language editorial in FAVOR of gay marriage. A recent exit poll in New York found that 54% of latino voters SUPPORTED the effort to legalize gay marriage.
But thankfully the pandering GOP establishment is there to inform us that Spanish-speaking immigrants are “natural social conservatives” with “strong traditional family values”, of course.
“He could have called a special session and didn’t. He did show that he doesn’t believe in Sanctuary Cities, but maybe won’t spend the money for a special.”
While there is some cost, the money is trivial for a state with a budget the size of Texas when people are SCREAMING for it (and cops in Houston and Dallas have been killed for lack of it). The legislators are paid next to nothing while in session...which is what makes these special sessions so effective (i.e., the legislators will buckle).
I hope Romney, Paul and Huntsman are on that list too.
If so, then my question to you is this: What if, when your state has its primary, only Newt and Romney have enough delegates to have a chance at the nomination? Do you just stay home or cast a meaningless vote for a candidate who won't be the nominee?
I have no problem with people changing their rankings of candidates but I have a BIG problem with conservatives ruling out multiple people. I will NOT vote for Ron Paul in a primary. He's at the very bottom of my list. I would vote for Huntsman, ONLY IF when my state votes he and Paul were the two leading candidates, and that's extremely unlikely to happen.
It seems to me that if you stay home or vote for any candidate other than one who still has a chance to win the nomination you are shirking an important responsibility to have a say in who our nominee is. For example, to illustrate, let's say when my state votes, only Romney and Cain are still in contention for the nomination. I prefer Cain by miles over Romney. But I wouldn't be mad at any Republican who voted for Romney... they're entitled to prefer him. I WOULD be mad at someone who voted for Gingrich in that situation. They're entitled to prefer him, but I don't believe they have a right to put their own selfish preference over the responsibility to help the party pick the best nominee. In that situation, vote Cain or Romney. If you flip Cain and Gingrich in that situation, then I'd be mad at anyone who voted for Cain.
Let me clarify that I have no problem at all with anyone supporting a candidate who is currently low in the polls. But when it is your state's turn to choose delegates THEN it is time to pick between the leading candidates who could actually win. Last time around, McCain beat out Romney and Huckabee, both who would have been MUCH stronger candidates, because the people who couldn't stand McCain split their votes. Let's not see a repeat of that.
Currently my preferences in order are: Gingrich, way ahead of Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain, all so close together that I could change my preferences based on future debates, way ahead of Romney and Perry, don't like either very much, currently would go for Romney, (but if Perry improves he could pass Romney but never catch the first four) both of whom are way better than Huntsman, Paul, and oh yeah I forgot Gary Johnson, pretty much as bad as Paul.
“You are wrong about bashing Rick Perry on border security. Everyone on here needs to view the following link. You will understand he is not lying in these debates. He’s got the experience, the vision, the ideas, to secure the border. “
Get back with me when Perry even PROPOSES Arizona/Alabama type laws...much less gets them passed.
Until then we’ll know exactly where his ‘heart’ lies.
Bachmann... You’re out!
Perry... You’re out!
Cain... You’re out!
Gingrich... You’re out!
Who besides Obama and Biden have not received any harsh criticisms, yet.
Hint: rhymes with Omni.
bump
Most FReepers don’t consider Romney and Huntsman to even be Republicans.
Then again many FReepers are conservatives first and Republicans second, if that. If the Republicans fail to nominate a conservative then they are saying they don’t want our votes.
“Rick Perry Chasing Illegals Out of Texas. The man says what he means. “
He can ‘say’ whatever the hell he needs to. He’s had over 10 YEARS to get a 2/3’s REPUBLICAN legislature to ACT, and they haven’t...and that’s in large part because Perry has barely proposed jack.
Some of us do judge people by their actions...particularly when they’ve had more than enough opportunities.
Wow. So you'd refuse to vote with a guy you agree with probably 90% of the time at least, thereby helping a guy you probably agree with on ALMOST NOTHING win re-election? All over one issue? Wow. Our party is truly bent on self-destruction.
Heck, I agree with Ron Paul only about 30% of the time, and think his foreign policy would probably cost the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of Americans, but I'd STILL probably vote for him over Obama, whom I only agree with 1% of the time, that 1% being his extensive use of drones to go after al-Qaeda.
Why do you keep equating “reasonable” with amnesty? Reasonable means using sound judgement. A reasonable course of action on any issue can be “humane” or not. From a business standpoint (which is the philosophical approach Cain knows best) reasonable has much more to do with how practical an action is and/or how it affects the bottom line. It’s “reasonable” for a business that needs to dramatically cut expenses to let 100 workers go but I bet those getting pink slips wouldn’t consider it humane. In the case of Cain, every time he’s asked he says “not amnesty” when saying a “reasonable” course of action. How you extrapolate that into meaning he wants non deportation?
Cindie
There are likely closer to 40 million folks here illegally, not the often trumpeted 11 million. How can an economy ever be fixed carrying that many additional people? To the best of my knowledge, there is no way an illegal alien can work legally in this Country. But, there are numerous ways illegal aliens can acquire Government benefits. By adding more and more illegals to our society, our system of government will eventually implode. I can't see an alternative.
To the politician, they don't truly see amnesty as “humane”. They see a huge voting block, meaning they care more about their own political careers than they do our Country. If they're truly honest in their beliefs about being humane, why not let everyone from an oppressed society worldwide come here? If the humanity argument is solely based upon Hispanics, why doesn't the US officially take over Mexico? Then we could take care of the millions living in poverty while providing stability to the region and acquiring Mexico's national resources.
As to deportation, if our government enforced our current laws, making things far less comfortable, much of the illegal immigration population would eventually self deport.
I had a strong suspicion that Newt (much like the Republican Party) would eventually say something to shoot himself in the foot. It appears that the old Newt probably isn't too different from the revised “Conservative” Newt 2.0.
Odds just increased again for a major Third Party candidate in 2012.
“There is simply no way a politician could practically pull off 100% deportation... it would never get through Congress”
...ahhh, what say does Congress have about deporting Illegals.
As far as I know, the laws are in place ALREADY. It’s just a matter have having the Justice Department (and INS) start ENFORCING them.
Congress is only needed for crap like Amnesty...and then only until the courts deem Amnesty on the nation (which is why many of us want them OUT NOW).
They all are unless you think your candidate has to be perfect. All will have flaws but every single one of them will be 100 times better than 0bama.
Cindie
Who are you talking about, Romney or Perry?
Seriously, I believe Newt does have core convictions. One I happen to disagree with is that people who have been here 25 years shouldn't be sent back. But to me, it's a minor disagreement because practically speaking I don't see how any president could accomplish sending them back. 99% of the time I agree with Newt.
And core convictions are nice, but I'd rather have a guy who's RIGHT on most things whether or not they are core convictions, than a guy who's wrong on core convictions like Ron Paul for example, or a guy who's got no chance in heck of beating the Democratic nominee, hmm... Ron Paul's a good example for that one too!
I'm going for the guy I agree with most (core convictions or not) between the top two candidates when my state votes. I prefer Newt, but I'd also be OK with Cain, Santorum or Bachmann if that's the non-Romney that conservatives settle on. Currently my biggest concern is we WON'T settle on one, giving Romney an unopposed path to the nomination.
That’s disingenuous. You tried this on another thread too. You pull a partial sentence out of context. Please show me where “reasonable program” means amnesty or “let them stay”. Anywhere. If we’re going to try to read a candidates tea leaves how about looking at the many things he’s said to see if it gives with “reasonable” equals some kind of amnesty.
Cindie
Newt Gingrich doesn’t have core beliefs, he could flip flop on ObamaCare tomorrow if he thought it was politically expediant.
Mexico's sponsor of illegal immigration into our nation is a bigger threat to the survival of our nation than is Iran, or any other nation. Yet we call Mexico's corrupt government a friend. There are a few issues you have to be on the right side of, or I won't support you no matter what because those are issues that will destroy our nation. if not resolved.
Some people do not understand that some issues are BIGGER than others.
I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT equate hispanics and illegals. The post I was responding to disqualified someone else from having an opinion on the subject because that person didn't live in hispanic SoCal. I was merely pointing out that I shared the view AND DID LIVE in hispanic SoCal.
They have shown no intention to wanting to become Americanized,
First gen immigrants often don't assimilate much, even legal ones. By the time you get to grandkids, the 3rd generation almost always assimilates, even sometimes against the wishes of the first generation.
But I don't want to argue with you on this. I agree with you more than I agree with Newt. Mainly however, I think it's a stupid argument. If Newt does the stuff he says, i.e. closes the border and deports the worst of the illegals, it's 1,000,000 times better than any president in my lifetime. If I disagree with him about whether he should try to do something he probably couldn't accomplish even if he tried, it is, to me, somewhat trivial. And not NEARLY as concerning as the idea of Romney getting the nomination because conservatives can't find a single candidate to agree on.
I knew this was Newts stand weeks ago with his comments “I think some illegals deserve amnesty”.
I don’t think its worth arguing about because Newt can turn on a dime if the political winds change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.