What are you and what is Marco Rubio?
Conservative - The rising star of the Republican Party
18% (9)
18% (9)
Conservative - A passing fad, a la Sarah Palin
8% (4)
8% (4)
Liberal - The rising star of the Republican Party
8% (4)
8% (4)
Liberal - A passing fad, a la Sarah Palin
38% (19)
38% (19)
Other
28% (14)
28% (14)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Marco Rubio - Conservatives' best hope in 2016?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

US Senator (R-Florida) Marco Rubio is really making waves, and to that everyone can agree. He was a top contender for Mitt Romney's running mate, and is now a top contender for Republican nominee for President for the 2016 race.

But what's your take on it? Is this another Sarah Palin? Is he not a real latino, and instead a "token" like many are already saying? Is he going to sway latino voters? Should the Democrats be digging up as much dirt/smearing as they can about him, or laugh him off like a passing fad?

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/marco-rubio-gop_n_2657451.html

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marco-rubio-emerges-as-gops-star-but-is-he-the-answer-for-republicans/2013/02/10/3710c464-7207-11e2-a050-b83a7b35c4b5_story.html

Rubio called "Token Slave Boy": http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/02/08/univision-employee-calls-marco-rubio-token-slave-boy

More popular than Obama: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/new-poll-shows-hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-more-popular-than-obama-20130208

Unless a republican candidate is socially liberal, I don't really see them getting anywhere. And since Rubio is socially conservative, well... He might be the best hope that conservatives have for the presidency in 2016, but that doesn't mean he will actually win the race. :\

I would say him and Chris Christie will be at the forefront of the Republican primaries next round. With Latinoa a now desperate voting block for both parties, Rubio has the edge in this fight, and the fact that he's from Florida makes him a prime piece of politician. However, he is rather moderate, at least for what the Republicans are now, and I have a hard time imagining Republicans being able to sell such "liberal" republican to the Red Meat base. If anything, his frontrunner status is a good sign that Republicans are willing to move towards the center and ignore the "loonies" whom they tried to rally up for last years election.

On the other hand, Rubio can't escape the "token minority" argument and then of course his "mexican-ness" could also be brought into question. The one advantage here is that PC obsessed democrats would be walking on eggshells trying to find a racial argument against him, lest they be seen as racist. On the other hand, it's still the Republican party and latinos will not so quickly jump to the party that embraced a "Get the fuck out of our country" mentality after the commotion in Arizona and what continues in other states as they try to pass similar legislation.

In short, Rubio is a good step towards inclusion in the Republican party, but it might not be enough to wipe away decades of fostered racial resentment.

Honestly I prefer if Christie was the Republican nominee, fat jokes are just better when there's political edge.

P.S. Don't you dare lose more weight Christie, We need a fat president lest our best comedians lose their political edge.

He could indeed be the Republicans' best hope. I dunno about Conservatives since, to my understanding, the Republicans don't represent Conservative views (although of the two major parties, they are closer at least; same deal as with the Democrats for Progressives). As to the question of whether he'll just be a token, that really depends on the Republicans themselves: Will they actually change policy approaches to be more inclusive (primarily but not solely) to Hispanics or will they only put Rubio forth and say "See, he's Hispanic, now vote for him!"? That's up to them and time will tell. The results of the last election are in, differentiated into interest group, minorities, donors etc., so the ball's in their court now. The "Establishment Republicans" actually appear a lot more willing to do things in that regard and others, while the Social Conservative fringe is still very loud. Too loud perhaps? We'll see.

I'm just thankful that Dr. King's dream of people being judged by the content of their character alongside the color of their skin is so alive. Wait, is that how it went? Must've been. Racism's over, we elected a black president.

He's going to be forgotten by anybody with more than twelve brain cells four years from now, I figure. Too much media attention on him. Imagine if the media focused on Senator Barack Obama starting June 2004. Do you think he would've been elected president, when we've already had four years of him in the media? Plus, he's not white, and to probably a third of white americans (so about one-sixth of the population), spanning liberals, conservatives, and moderates, white is right. When push comes to shove, I've seen that most bigoted white people would rather vote for a white liberal than a non-white conservative. He just lost one-sixth of the population there, he's going to lose another sixth that will vote Democrat no matter what.

As somebody extremely socially liberal (excluding gun rights), fiscally moderate, I'd much, much rather have Chris Christie. I live in New Jersey, and there's a lot of negative things you can say about him, but they're things that could be said of every politician. I can think of a few positive things to say about him. Not exactly as altruistic as one would like, but he's certainly better than at least 80% of the federally elected politicians we have now.

All that having been said, unless the party can stop being less socially progressive than cavemen, they're going to lose most voters under the age of 30. I imagine the Tea Party, which is basically a skinhead movement within the Republican party, won't help with this matter. I think the Republicans will lose the 2016 presidential election because of the Tea Party, calling it now. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but its a movement, still growing, within the Republican party that is taking it in the opposite direction that it needs to go if it actually wants to win.

Edit: I just realized that the best way to get a third-party candidate to get major support in the presidential election in 2012 is to run two non-heterosexual women of differeing races. You will see a third-party candidate get 5% of the total electorate.

I don't get it. You have tribalism is the USA? I thought it was the glorious melting pot of the world.

Skeleon:
He could indeed be the Republicans' best hope. I dunno about Conservatives since, to my understanding, the Republicans don't represent Conservative views (although of the two major parties, they are closer at least; same deal as with the Democrats for Progressives). As to the question of whether he'll just be a token, that really depends on the Republicans themselves: Will they actually change policy approaches to be more inclusive (primarily but not solely) to Hispanics or will they only put Rubio forth and say "See, he's Hispanic, now vote for him!"? That's up to them and time will tell. The results of the last election are in, differentiated into interest group, minorities, donors etc., so the ball's in their court now. The "Establishment Republicans" actually appear a lot more willing to do things in that regard and others, while the Social Conservative fringe is still very loud. Too loud perhaps? We'll see.

Can you give me an example of current Republican policies that specifically "exclude" hispanics, and current Democrat policies that specifically "include" hispanics? I've never heard a liberal speak to the supposed "white guy club" reputation Republicans have other than simply claiming the reputation exists.

Note, I do not think bribing/favoring demographic groups is the purpose of our government. Parties putting demographics first was a big part of some European country in the 1930's, I forget the name.

Glasgow:
I don't get it. You have tribalism is the USA? I thought it was the glorious melting pot of the world.

Well, it's a funny thing. The "melting pot" term came from the early 1900s when lots of immigrants from Europe were flooding in to Ellis Island. Lots of cultures (Irish, Polish, Italian, German, etc) congregated in their own little sections of New York and slowly began to color the average American's life with their products and services.

But now, most people feel that this time is over. Since there isn't a mass immigration anymore, they think America has hit its "final form," if you will. But there is still mass immigration going on--illegal immigration from Mexico. But because it's illegal and because these people are so poor (and in some cases, because the people are so brown), most everyone isn't keen on accepting it. Now the idea of them coloring our society is revolting. They complain these people from Mexico are so poor they are ruining us. Well, the thing is they probably have about as much money as the people who found themselves on Ellis Island at the turn of the century. The people there had a little money, but certainly not a lot. And certainly not the equivalent of $15,000 in today's money, which is what it initially costs to immigrate to the US legally, and the reason so many of them choose to jump the fence rather than go the legal route. We've set up sich a high pay wall that people are just finding ways around it.

The people coming from Mexico are coming for the same reasons and under the same conditions as people coming from Europe way back when. They're poor, their government is broken, and in general things just aren't going well over there. I'm sure if it had cost as much as it does now to immigrate back then there would have been a problem with illegals, as well.

So yes, there is a lot of tribalism in America, lol. Though I have a feeling you knew that.

Anyway, on topic, I don't know a lot about Rubio but I think if they had given him the VP nomination, he would have at least helped the GOP to appear to be trying to make nice with all of the people they've marginalized in the last four years. Really, they did just about everything wrong in this election, especially the VP nomination. They knew Romney had image issues, having that rich white guy persona that nobody wants to hear from during an economic recession. So who do they pick for VP? Another uppity rich white guy. In fact, one that is even more uppity than Romney and more determined to take away people's safety nets. Never giving any specific numbers, mind, just saying "it's budget neutral" over and over until he hopes we believe it.

So unless somebody new comes on the scene I do feel like Rubio is their safest bet, unless they can convince Condelizza Rice to join the race. I imagine even if they nominated a mop and bucket they would win the election, the way the last couple of election cycles have gone (two term Presidents followed by another two terms of the opposite party). But in the meantime the GOP really needs to settle down on the social issues. There's no way in hell they're going to win, so for every moment they keep trying to fight gay marriage and abortion they're just going to continue to make themselves marginalized and weak in support. Romney didn't lose because of his specific positions on those issues. He lost because his party has some pretty domineering positions on those issues, and he himself never proved himself to have enough backbone and conviction to have his own opinion. He changed like a fucking transformer when he got the nomination, going from the "Moderate from Massachusetts" to "Tea Party Golden Boy" overnight. After that sort of a change, there was no way he could prove to the people that he was capable of having his own opinion, or able to uphold any limits on anything the GOP wanted, and that is what scared people into voting for Obama.

So as long as they are willing to give Rubio the nomination and not make him bend over a rail like they did with Romney, I think they might just have a good chance. Plus, people will be even more exhausted with Democrats by then, so the hype of the GOP nominating somebody not white will be even higher than ever.

Not really interested in this. The guy's just another conservative clone. Anti-abortion and thus pro-theocratic and other War on Women views. In favour of dumb small government dogma in budgets and extremely low taxes for the rich so the US will go bankrupt. Homophobic, in favour of gun violence...

Seriously, what's the discussion value of this guy? Why not just fit them all with Star Wars'ish stormtrooper outfits and make it official that they're all the same?

Blablahb:
Seriously, what's the discussion value of this guy? Why not just fit them all with Star Wars'ish stormtrooper outfits and make it official that they're all the same?

Because, my dear Blablahb, his skin is brown. In the GOP, that's a bit of a big deal. Like spotting a vegetarian at a KFC convention.

Well, I suppose that is a bit harsh. Still, the GOP has done its best to marginalize everyone who isn't a white male, so they are hoping that a dash of color will earn them back a few brownie points. He may be the same as any other conservatives on paper (except for immigration, just a bit), but he's not white so that gives them (a bit of weak) ammo to fight the criticisms that all they support are whiteys.

we JUST got out of an election and all of the craziness that is associated with it. I dont even want to think about the 2016 election until 2015.

harmonic:
Can you give me an example of current Republican policies that specifically "exclude" hispanics, and current Democrat policies that specifically "include" hispanics? I've never heard a liberal speak to the supposed "white guy club" reputation Republicans have other than simply claiming the reputation exists.

Eh, I don't think I even said anything about specific policies. Various things can be quite media-effective, whether they are specific policies or not. Things that immediately come to mind are the "show me your papers"-stuff in Arizona, the "self-deportation"-comments by Romney and the like, but there are tons of smaller and bigger things abound. Stuff like that is quite significant in creating feelings of resentment, especially when they are brought up by Republicans near elections and then of course amplified by Democrats pointing them out.

Note, I do not think bribing/favoring demographic groups is the purpose of our government. Parties putting demographics first was a big part of some European country in the 1930's, I forget the name.

I'd be really wary of using that particular reference while talking about this, considering that particular party was all about ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist views, whites, the Christian majority and against multiculturalism, individualism and minorities like Jews, homosexuals, handicapped people, Atheists and so on. You might end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Not to mention the Republicans did that whole Southern Strategy thing, where they focused on particular demographics as well. Quite successfully for far too long a timespan, I might add.

harmonic:
His skin is not brown.
Also, your post is incredibly racist. Liberals are the most racist creatures on this planet. Anyone that's not a white male and is Republican, you people all them "Uncle Tom." Or "Token Slave Boy." You are the racists, not us.

Attacking someone personally because you can't deal with the fact that your political party is known for its racist tendencies is kind of sad.

You know what tendencies are right? They mean something sometimes happens, but often enough and related enough to be a part of something. For example Ron Paul when he wrote in a rare moment of complete honesty that he thought that, and I quote, "95% if not all black people are criminals". It doesn't means that everyone he encounters who's of a different race has them calling 911 on them in pure panic because there's a criminal nearby, but that he thinks in racial stereotypes and prejudices.

The republican party is racist because it is the party of the rich elites, against the American people. Those rich folk often tend to live rather isolated from the rest of society, and don't know what's going on as a result. Let me name an example: Sometimes you hear conservatives cry "The poor should just find jobs!". This is a good example of such ignorance. They never had to work because daddy provides, or if they're out of the basement, because they got landed a cushy job based on connections and never have had to struggle for anything. They're oblivious of the fact that nearly nobody is unemployed by choice.
Likewise, racial stereotypes flourish among rich republicans because they rarely ever encounter anyone from outside their own group.

harmonic:
His skin is not brown.

Also, your post is incredibly racist. Liberals are the most racist creatures on this planet.

Again, can you give us an example of current Republican policies that specifically "exclude" hispanics, and current Democrat policies that specifically "include" hispanics? I've never heard a liberal speak to the supposed "white guy club" reputation Republicans have other than simply claiming the reputation exists. I am getting quite sick of seeing Libs get away with just spouting off the same typical boring drone phrases straight from the left's playbook. Tell us, racist, why is conservatism only for "whiteys" ?

I suppose I should clarify.

The tea party within the GOP has been the main source of the racism that's come up in the illegal immigration debate. Joe Arpaio and that sort of ilk have been very vocal about how they want to legalize racial profiling. The reason in this case I said the GOP instead of the tea party is because at the moment, the tea party has the GOP by the balls. The GOP has retreated further to the right than they ever have before, and their stubbornness to not even give a little even when the public was begging them to come back is why they lost the election. They've lost touch with reality. Getting them to admit that illegal immigrants are anything but stains on America is like pulling teeth. Things like the DREAM act only make sense--I mean children who grew up here from infancy know about as much about Mexico as any other kid who grew up in the states. Sending them back there would just be cruel. Only now are they starting to begrudgingly admit that maybe children should be excluded from the wrath of deportation.

And as for everyone else, they are more interested in building fences with armed guards than actually trying to figure out why so many people are coming over illegally rather than legally. If you've got a kink in a water hose cutting off the pressure, you don't turn up the water to increase the pressure. You stop and go down the line until you find the kink, and then fix it.

Maybe you didn't see it where you live, but around election time this year I saw a lot of people in my community openly express disdain for Obama's "freebies" for "his people." Perhaps it's not quite as obvious on a national level, but on the ground there is a lot of disdain for illegal immigrants (and non-English speakers in general), and poor black people, particularly in urban areas. You never hear them disparage all the "white trash" that lives in trailers in and around town, using their government freebies to buy beer and cigarettes. They always jump right to the black people in downtown St. Louis, or that hispanic girl who said "Obama is going to give stuff to my people."

These people exist in more places than you think, and there are politicians who enable them. Just look at the governor of Arizona. She took $10 million given to her state by the federal government to be mostly used for education and put it all into border security. She made stories up about beheaded bodies in the desert to try and stir up fear about cartels and illegal immigrants. She issued an executive order to override and deny the privileges that were supposed to be given to young illegal immigrants under Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, including driver and non-driver's licenses and certain public resources including government-subsidized child care, healthcare, unemployment, business licenses, and government contracts.

I will make it perfectly clear that I understand not all of the GOP is like Jan Brewer. But, the way the party is at best split on the issue, and at worst can't make up their mind if illegal immigrants are humans or pests, they aren't exactly earning a lot of confidence from me. Or other voters, for that matter. When you've got a party that produces people like Jan Brewer, it's rather hard to put your confidence in them. That's why Romney got a lot of flak for hating women after Todd Akin said his bit, even after he denounced Akin. Romney had become such a puppet of the GOP that his attempts to reassure everyone that he wasn't like Akin weren't much believed because he had changed so much for the campaign up to that point, it wouldn't have been out of character for him to flip and go off the deep end on that one as well.

Rubio would definitely be more likely to win then anyone in the field last year. The latino share of the vote for romney was 27% with rubio I think it likely will at least go to the george Bush level of 35% possibly into the 40%. That would have been enough for Romney to win and it's an added bonus that the GOP actually like him.

Another important thing is he is moderate on women's rights. He might be pro-life but understands a woman's right by the law to do what she wants with her body. This could get rid of the anemic women vote for conservatives.

Rubio is positioning himself to be the next GOP candidate with recent moves to be the front man of his party. He has basically done what every GOP strategist has said is common sense moderate on Immigration and some social issues and don't say stupid shit.

If Rubio doesn't do anything stupid(ala 47% Romney), the economy doesn't boom to incredible heights, or the conservatives don't attempt to make a break he is poised to win by a decent margin. However these if's are all very questionable, especially the last one, they like Rubio but how long until he loses favor because is too "establishment" or some bs.

Skeleon:

Eh, I don't think I even said anything about specific policies. Various things can be quite media-effective, whether they are specific policies or not. Things that immediately come to mind are the "show me your papers"-stuff in Arizona, the "self-deportation"-comments by Romney and the like, but there are tons of smaller and bigger things abound. Stuff like that is quite significant in creating feelings of resentment, especially when they are brought up by Republicans near elections and then of course amplified by Democrats pointing them out.

So no specific policies, just a nebulous aura of racism, then? Not the strongest argument, even you have to admit. Saying "well, they just ARE" is basically just saying that the media and Democrats want so badly to convince people that they just are, it's not making any claims of substance.

Yep, the closest thing I've heard from the left for their justification that Republicans are brown-people-haters is the tendency for Republicans to prefer that the immigration policy that's already on the books actually gets enforced. It is the easiest thing in the world to politically blackmail the system by claiming that you're "pro brown people" by allowing immigration laws to be bypassed. That is called bribing.

I'd be really wary of using that particular reference while talking about this, considering that particular party was all about ultranationalist, ultratraditionalist views, whites, the Christian majority and against multiculturalism, individualism and minorities like Jews, homosexuals, handicapped people, Atheists and so on. You might end up shooting yourself in the foot.

But it is perfect in this case. I didn't bring up ultranationalist, ultra etc etc, I only brought up favoring one demographic over other, seemingly completely arbitrarily. There is a dangerous amount of distinctly anti-white, pro-racism rhetoric in the media regarding "changing demographics" determining elections in the future. Again, another easy, cheap tactic - tell brown people that you're their savior and the other guy is the devil.

But then the demagoguering slimeball gets elected, and people are confused. "I thought he would fight for me and all brown people?" Well, gullible demographic statistic voter, you got duped. That's not how government works, and thank God for that. I hope it stays that way, or at least, doesn't get any worse.

harmonic:
So no specific policies, just a nebulous aura of racism, then? Not the strongest argument, even you have to admit. Saying "well, they just ARE" is basically just saying that the media and Democrats want so badly to convince people that they just are, it's not making any claims of substance.

Hm? I gave you an example of a specific policy that targets Hispanic Americans. But, no, I'm not going to bother specifically looking up more policies than the one I thought of off the top of my head. I don't really think it's necessary.

But it is perfect in this case. I didn't bring up ultranationalist, ultra etc etc, I only brought up favoring one demographic over other, seemingly completely arbitrarily. There is a dangerous amount of distinctly anti-white, pro-racism rhetoric in the media regarding "changing demographics" determining elections in the future. Again, another easy, cheap tactic - tell brown people that you're their savior and the other guy is the devil.

Is it really "anti-white, pro-racism rhetoric" if the demographics really are changing? The Southern Strategy and associated behaviours are beginning to bite the Republicans in the ass. Depending on how they present themselves (and, yes, that includes possibly choosing Rubio), they may be able to mitigate all that.

harmonic:
Tell us, racist, why is conservatism only for "whiteys" ?

Small government conservatism, perfectly fine in most instances, in fact many would prefer lower taxes but conservatism doesn't just come with free capitalism.

Immigration: This affects immigrants in general but specifically hispanics. Close the borders down, arizona law a favorite that conservatives across the US want to implement. They want to deport illegal immigrants whose only fault was being here illegally when it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place for them to want work. The rhetoric about jobs being taken and defending the borders because they are being INVADED seen that phrase more than once.

Specific to minorities like Hispanics and Africans: We don't need anymore drains on our system, we don't need people pouring across the border using our social services, we don't need more inner city kids living off government cheese. Programs that help to diversify colleges, they need to go out the window instead of appealing to under represented minorities. Minorities are fine, market capitalism will help them, we don't need any special consideration for them despite them having the highest crime and poverty rates.

Specific to the LGBT crowd: No gay marriage, laws that challenge someone rights to express their sexuality, laws that prevent equal treatment of the LGBT crowd. Plenty of rhetoric invoking how these individuals are sinful and need to be "treated".

Specific to women: Trying to overturn roe vs wade, limiting funding for planned parenthood, state laws to prevent minors from getting BC.

Muslims: Too much rhetoric about them having the most evil and violent religion. Very little in the way of enacted policy but between the talking heads on radio and the southern politicians why would a muslim ever trust a GOP politicians even if that politician never said a bad word about a muslim.

So we basically covered all the groups and why they think the GOP screws them over. As you can see from the above groups the GOP doesn't leave much for these groups to like and Oh so much to hate them for. Is it any wonder when policy and rhetoric tends to go against the groups that they think your party is racist and why the GOP is branded that way?

A good example of why this brand won't go away is Asian and Jewish americans... they voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite having nothing against either party. If anything they should have voted for Romney because of their family ideals but guess what they didn't.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/why_did_asian_americans_vote_for_president_obama.html

Now are all of these people wrong or is half of the country's perception of the party wrong. I think the problem is the systemic exclusion from the party, a "we don't need to give into any of their wants" mentality. However you have your own hypothesis i'm sure.

dmase:
They want to deport illegal immigrants whose only fault was being here illegally when it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place for them to want work.

Is it the US job to give people av other nationalities jobs, though? After-all, they HAVE broken the law by immigrating illegally, so why shouldn't they be punished?

Realitycrash:
Is it the US job to give people av other nationalities jobs, though? After-all, they HAVE broken the law by immigrating illegally, so why shouldn't they be punished?

Because thus far, the law was such that they could be exploited, working harder than citizens for nearly nothing and getting no rights to anything in return. They did more and got less, that creates a debt towards those people.

It would be different if a single fair line had been drawn, but the US policy so far has been "Illegal immigration is fine, so long as it's big business to exploit you. If you're non exploitable, fuck off".

Breaking that law is justified and can't be used against anyone, much like someone breaking an anti-gay sodomy law is totally justified in doing so, and using that against someone says more about the enforcer than about the victim.

Blablahb:

Realitycrash:
Is it the US job to give people av other nationalities jobs, though? After-all, they HAVE broken the law by immigrating illegally, so why shouldn't they be punished?

Because thus far, the law was such that they could be exploited, working harder than citizens for nearly nothing and getting no rights to anything in return. They did more and got less, that creates a debt towards those people.

It would be different if a single fair line had been drawn, but the US policy so far has been "Illegal immigration is fine, so long as it's big business to exploit you. If you're non exploitable, fuck off".

You are going to have to explain that bit a tad further, for so far, all I hear is "they had the option of either working in the US for nearly nothing at all, or not working in the US". They could always, you know, not work in the US?
What, there are no jobs south of the border? Their governments are shit? Well, there are few jobs all around, and plenty of governments are shit. Doesn't mean they necessarily should be legally entitled to enter and live in another country, does it?

Realitycrash:

dmase:
They want to deport illegal immigrants whose only fault was being here illegally when it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place for them to want work.

Is it the US job to give people av other nationalities jobs, though? After-all, they HAVE broken the law by immigrating illegally, so why shouldn't they be punished?

To our North is Canada a 1st world nation where citizens can cross the border and can much more easily get visas. To our South is Mexico a major trading partner with many of our country's residents having family ties there. They also have a valuable labor force that we are severely lacking, ones that will do the jobs that americans don't want to do. We should have tons of legal visas with a relatively simple process that should take a year or two at most not decades which is the going average for mexico.

There are some illegal immigrants here that are gang bangers or in the drug trade but many if not most are working for illegal wages trying to get by. With their next generation going to college or at least graduating high school which is more than many in mexico can say. Should there be such a thing as illegal immigrants? yes, should they be defined as they currently are in the US? No. And the GOP has an unwillingness to change that because "they'll dake our dobs"-south park.

We're a country built on your meek and poor denying that is denying the history of america.

dmase:

Realitycrash:

dmase:
They want to deport illegal immigrants whose only fault was being here illegally when it shouldn't have been illegal in the first place for them to want work.

Is it the US job to give people av other nationalities jobs, though? After-all, they HAVE broken the law by immigrating illegally, so why shouldn't they be punished?

To our North is Canada a 1st world nation where citizens can cross the border and can much more easily get visas. To our South is Mexico a major trading partner with many of our country's residents having family ties there. They also have a valuable labor force that we are severely lacking, ones that will do the jobs that americans don't want to do. We should have tons of legal visas with a relatively simple process that should take a year or two at most not decades which is the going average for mexico.

There are some illegal immigrants here that are gang bangers or in the drug trade but many if not most are working for illegal wages trying to get by. With their next generation going to college or at least graduating high school which is more than many in mexico can say. Should there be such a thing as illegal immigrants? yes, should they be defined as they currently are in the US? No. And the GOP has an unwillingness to change that because "they'll dake our dobs"-south park.

We're a country built on your meek and poor denying that is denying the history of america.

I was under the impression that the US are suffering from unemployment, just like everyone else in the world is right now. You mean to tell me that I was wrong, and there are plenty of jobs that Americans 'don't want to do'? When you're staving, you'd be surprised to what you are willing to do.

So you want to allow more people easy access to the US? Alright, fair enough. Doesn't mean that everyone of those can enjoy it, though.

Skeleon:

harmonic:
So no specific policies, just a nebulous aura of racism, then? Not the strongest argument, even you have to admit. Saying "well, they just ARE" is basically just saying that the media and Democrats want so badly to convince people that they just are, it's not making any claims of substance.

Hm? I gave you an example of a specific policy that targets Hispanic Americans. But, no, I'm not going to bother specifically looking up more policies than the one I thought of off the top of my head. I don't really think it's necessary.

The only thing you said was that it's racist to enforce existing immigration law. An extremely weak argument. I'm not convinced, but then again, enough people are. Just need to manipulate and deceive enough useful idiots, don't need to actually be factually correct.

Is it really "anti-white, pro-racism rhetoric" if the demographics really are changing? The Southern Strategy and associated behaviours are beginning to bite the Republicans in the ass. Depending on how they present themselves (and, yes, that includes possibly choosing Rubio), they may be able to mitigate all that.

Saying that the Republicans are the "party of old white men" is racist. Saying that Alan West, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, (the list goes on for ages) are ALL tokens or Uncle Toms is racist. Democrats basically think that these brown/female Republicans are too stupid to think for themselves. That's racist.

harmonic:
The only thing you said was that it's racist to enforce existing immigration law. An extremely weak argument. I'm not convinced, but then again, enough people are. Just need to manipulate and deceive enough useful idiots, don't need to actually be factually correct.

Don't put words in my mouth. You asked for policies that "exclude" Hispanics. I gave you one. Whether you agree with the assessment or not, the law in question is highly controversial because it encourages racial profiling, especially of Hispanic American citizens. I never used the word "racist" talking about it. You on the other hand keep throwing it around like crazy in this thread.

One thing I will agree with you on, though: It doesn't really matter what either of us think. It matters what the voters think. And, as I said in the first post, the numbers on that are in, all analysed by groups and demographics and stuff. It's up to the Republicans what they decide to do next. Stay the course or do something differently.

Saying that the Republicans are the "party of old white men" is racist. Saying that Alan West, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, (the list goes on for ages) are ALL tokens or Uncle Toms is racist. Democrats basically think that these brown/female Republicans are too stupid to think for themselves. That's racist.

Just like saying "blacks vote for Obama because he's black" is racist. "Oh, you just support him because he's one of you. You don't give a damn about or even understand any of the actual issues." Colin Powell actually very recently spoke out quite nicely against that idea that, as a black man, his support for Obama over Romney has to be tied to his race. That his vote for Obama was due to some sort of racial loyalty rather than policy disagreements.

Also, if you read my first post in this thread, you may remember that I never accused Rubio of being a token. I said that whether he is a token or not will depend on the party's actions. If they use him as a token, then, yes, he's a token. If they actually change something about their behaviour, he's not. The Establishment Republicans are much more willing to change in those regards because their priorities are winning elections.

Realitycrash:

I was under the impression that the US are suffering from unemployment, just like everyone else in the world is right now. You mean to tell me that I was wrong, and there are plenty of jobs that Americans 'don't want to do'? When you're staving, you'd be surprised to what you are willing to do.

So you want to allow more people easy access to the US? Alright, fair enough. Doesn't mean that everyone of those can enjoy it, though.

It should be obvious unemployment isn't going to be universal across all industries. Agriculture workers are and have been in short supply for years. A significant problem is there are a shit ton of people that don't want to work at mickey d's, landscaping, or agricultural work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-of-farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

Your correct we can't and I wouldn't suggest that however when we have a million people waiting to get here from mexico and we only give out 50k visas to Mexico a year(one of the highest mind you). 500k a year would fix that problem along with our agricultural one not to mention reduce the amount of illegal immigrants that aren't drug dealers. We'd actually be catching criminals at the border instead of families. Then of course when we have all these jobs on the books with legal immigrants making a legal wage we can evaluate where to draw the line, that and many of immigrants will stop coming here when the jobs run out. Unless you hold the GOP opinion that they'll just mooch off the government with their significant amount of fake SSN.

harmonic:

Skeleon:

harmonic:
So no specific policies, just a nebulous aura of racism, then? Not the strongest argument, even you have to admit. Saying "well, they just ARE" is basically just saying that the media and Democrats want so badly to convince people that they just are, it's not making any claims of substance.

Hm? I gave you an example of a specific policy that targets Hispanic Americans. But, no, I'm not going to bother specifically looking up more policies than the one I thought of off the top of my head. I don't really think it's necessary.

The only thing you said was that it's racist to enforce existing immigration law. An extremely weak argument. I'm not convinced, but then again, enough people are. Just need to manipulate and deceive enough useful idiots, don't need to actually be factually correct.

Is it really "anti-white, pro-racism rhetoric" if the demographics really are changing? The Southern Strategy and associated behaviours are beginning to bite the Republicans in the ass. Depending on how they present themselves (and, yes, that includes possibly choosing Rubio), they may be able to mitigate all that.

Saying that the Republicans are the "party of old white men" is racist. Saying that Alan West, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, (the list goes on for ages) are ALL tokens or Uncle Toms is racist. Democrats basically think that these brown/female Republicans are too stupid to think for themselves. That's racist.

You're the one who keeps calling them token or Uncle Tom. Do stop projecting.

Also you may not realize this but not all Hispanic Americans are illegal immigrants. Do stop being racist by trying to say that all Arizona's law does is affect illegal immigrants.

harmonic:

Saying that the Republicans are the "party of old white men" is racist. Saying that Alan West, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Clarence Thomas, (the list goes on for ages) are ALL tokens or Uncle Toms is racist. Democrats basically think that these brown/female Republicans are too stupid to think for themselves. That's racist.

I'm trying to figure out where are all these uncle tom quotes? So I look them up there mostly from black comedians and the occasional black journalist oh and random black people on twitter. However every big reporter that tows the GOP lines has accused Obama of being a muslim or maybe not being born here or being to concerned with the black vote or being even being racist against white people. And Several politicians all through the country.

You act like having minorities in your organization doesn't make it racist. Old South Democrats where undeniably racist but they probably had minorities voting for them somewhere. Hell the first black man to hold congressional office was black in reconstruction era, was the old republican party racist? No. Weird to see how the spectrum shifted but that's how it did.

Also this statement isn't racist, "Republicans are the "party of old white men"" it's fact just like saying the democrats are the party of minorities is a fact. I mean think about it your party loses the minority vote, the woman vote, the gay vote and the young vote all in double digits which according to my calculations makes the republican party the party of older white straight men, I assume older is more pc for you than old.

Realitycrash:
You are going to have to explain that bit a tad further, for so far, all I hear is "they had the option of either working in the US for nearly nothing at all, or not working in the US". They could always, you know, not work in the US?
What, there are no jobs south of the border? Their governments are shit? Well, there are few jobs all around, and plenty of governments are shit. Doesn't mean they necessarily should be legally entitled to enter and live in another country, does it?

They've always been able to work in the US. They were even supported. It's been well documented (Doreen Massey being one of the authors involved) for instance that business owners who exploited illegal workers lobbied with the government to give them money to 'help them through the winter'.

It looked like charity, but what was really going on, was ensuring they didn't migrate, and remained available for exploitation. (Marx' old theory of the reserve armee, one of the few occasions his ideas were actually correct)
Migratory workers have never been unwelcome, they were just made 'illegal' so they could be exploited instead of welcomed as workers.

It's because of that, that the US government owes them, and wanting to just deport the lot is downright immoral. We're talking about people who ussually work harder than most US citizens, often for years, and were actively kept around in that role for all that time. That entitles them to citizenship.

Not everybody will agree to that, but those will just have to accept that the conservatives ruled government policy of the relevant states and federal government during those days, made immoral choices, which have resulted in a debt towards these migratory workers. Don't vote republican or libertarian and you've done what you can about it, because the rest is just the downside of democracy.

I'm pretty much with Ann Coulter on this one.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-01-30.html

"RUBIO'S AMNESTY: A PATH TO OBLIVION FOR THE GOP"

"Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands "Enforcement First!" the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal."

She thinks these people, once legal, will then start voting. And they'll vote Democratic. That is hardly being a great Republican hope.

Gorfias:
I'm pretty much with Ann Coulter on this one.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-01-30.html

"RUBIO'S AMNESTY: A PATH TO OBLIVION FOR THE GOP"

"Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands "Enforcement First!" the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal."

She thinks these people, once legal, will then start voting. And they'll vote Democratic. That is hardly being a great Republican hope.

I think the priority should be on finding a reasonable way to deal with the situation, rather than ignoring it because you're afraid of the political implications. Illegal immigration isn't going to go away on its own, and continuing to ignore it will only make things worse for Republicans. If the Republicans were to approach the subject reasonably and do better to stifle people like Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer, they wouldn't be in such hot water with the Latinos and they can move onto other problems.

I don't get you lately, Gorfie. Last time I talked with you, you said you were so angry with the Republicans you wanted to change parties. Now you're saying let's throw the entire issue of illegal immigration under the bus over mere speculation. If there's anyone I wouldn't count on for an accurate gauge of what will be good for the Republican party, it's Ann Coulter. And even then, if the Republicans are going to continue to stand in the way of dealing with the issue then they deserve to lose more votes, just like they deserved to lose this last election.

Honestly, one of the main causes for illegal immigration will probably never be adressed. It's an easy and very populistic act to put the blame squarely on the illegal immigrants and rile people up for more and more Draconian and big government policies towards them, including the "show me your papers"- and "let's build an electrified fence or a wall"-stuff.
This is really more about incentives. Blablahb already mentioned the working conditions for illegals, well. As long as nobody places any severe consequences on the corporations who employ illegals, they will keep coming. As long as there's an incentive for a cheap labour force to cross the borders, a labour force that lacks a lot of the usual rights of workers, nothing will substantially change.
But that's against these employers' interests: Not only would it remove their cheap labour and force them to pay people a proper wage, insurance and so on, it would also move them themselves into the crosshairs of actual consequences for breaking the rules.
And since these are powerful special interest groups, nobody will actually adress these issues. They'll keep things the same while, every now and then, also using this issue as a populist rallying cry for (and against) particular voter demographics. That's why a lot of policies supposedly aimed at preventing illegal immigration end up doing little to help and actually hurt citizens.

Gorfias:
I'm pretty much with Ann Coulter on this one.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-01-30.html
"RUBIO'S AMNESTY: A PATH TO OBLIVION FOR THE GOP"
"Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands "Enforcement First!" the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal."
She thinks these people, once legal, will then start voting. And they'll vote Democratic. That is hardly being a great Republican hope.

She thinks people shouldn't be given rights, because they'll use those rights to vote democratic....

So you're with Ann Coulter, who wants to commit electoral fraud by excluding any potential voters who may choose another party than her own? I knew she was crazy, but openly arguing that political loyalties should determine one's rights is a step further even for her.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here