Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Nov 2012, 5:23 pm

Sassenach wrote:Maybe, but then again maybe not. By definition any latinos who have the vote are unaffected by any of these policies. They're important symbolically but not on a practical level.
That doesn't mean they are divorced from the issues. They may well have family affected. And it's also the policies in places like Arizona where 'suspected' illegals are to be ID'd that can alter the opinions of voting Hispanics.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 17 Nov 2012, 6:01 pm

By the way, Florida after filing lawsuits and culling lists was able to identify about 200 non-citizens registered to vote;Colorado found 140
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6645
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Nov 2012, 7:19 pm

Is that acceptable?

In my opinion, no.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Nov 2012, 4:07 am

No, it's illegal. But it hardly amounts to a major or significant proportion of votes. Insinuations that it does as itself likely to annoy Latino/Hispanic citizens further.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Nov 2012, 5:00 pm

bbauska wrote:Is that acceptable?

In my opinion, no.


True story: to get allergy meds (OTC, not prescription), I had to not only show ID but sign that I was not lying about my identity.

Liberals have no problem with that--or telling me what I can/cannot do with my own property, or demanding that I keep my guns unloaded in my own house . . .

But, it's a terrible infringement of freedom to show ID in order to vote?

Sorry, but that's dumb--and it polls at like 80%. All but hardcore libs know this is ridiculous.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 02 Mar 2016, 2:59 pm

I find it interesting to see how various threads evolved years ago. This one was a good one. Remember Freeman?

In some ways elements of this thread apply today...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 8:48 am

Yeah, we've have had our moments here at Redscape...we would have laughed pretty hard four years ago that the future of the GOP is...Donald Trump. For the past 8 years the Republican Party has been defined by its opposition and antipathy to anything President Obama. But a significant portion of the base--meaning angry white males--thought the Republican leadership caved to Obama. So now we got Trump who is going to go kick ass down in Washington...the party of Lincoln has devolved to this. Republicans need to figure out what they are actually for as a party. They got anger , they are against stuff...but what are the principles that hold them together as a party?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20737
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 8:54 am

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, we've have had our moments here at Redscape...we would have laughed pretty hard four years ago that the future of the GOP is...Donald Trump. For the past 8 years the Republican Party has been defined by its opposition and antipathy to anything President Obama. But a significant portion of the base--meaning angry white males--thought the Republican leadership caved to Obama. So now we got Trump who is going to go kick ass down in Washington...the party of Lincoln has devolved to this. Republicans need to figure out what they are actually for as a party. They got anger , they are against stuff...but what are the principles that hold them together as a party?


What they have been about is making money for themselves and corporations--much like the Democrats. That's what the rebellion is about.

Trump as a nominee could pretty much end the GOP. Something will arise to take its place. Parties have ebbed and disappeared before--or changed their position entirely. The Democratic Party was once more "conservative" than the GOP.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2016, 9:05 am

Can't really argue with the idea that the political elite of whatever stripe has been primarily interested in enriching itself. The Democratic Party has its own divisions based on the party not doing enough to reduce economic inequality but I suspect Hillary will probably be able to mollify the liberal wing just enough.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2016, 10:14 am

Fate[
quote]What they have been about is making money for themselves and corporations--much like the Democrats. That's what the rebellion is about[/quote].

Martin Wolf

Yet, as Robert Kagan, a neoconservative intellectual, argues in a powerful column in The Washington Post, Mr Trump is also “the GOP’s Frankenstein monster”. He is, says Mr Kagan, the monstrous result of the party’s “wild obstructionism”, its demonisation of political institutions, its flirtation with bigotry and its “racially tinged derangement syndrome” over President Barack Obama. He continues: “We are supposed to believe that Trump’s legion of ‘angry’ people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past seven-and-a-half years”.
Mr Kagan is right, but does not go far enough. This is not about the last seven-and-a-half years. These attitudes were to be seen in the 1990s, with the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, they go back all the way to the party’s opportunistic response

Indeed, they go back all the way to the party’s opportunistic response to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Alas, they have become worse, not better, with time.
Why has this happened? The answer is that this is how a wealthy donor class, dedicated to the aims of slashing taxes and shrinking the state, obtained the footsoldiers and voters it required. This, then, is “pluto-populism”: the marriage of plutocracy with rightwing populism. Mr Trump embodies this union. But he has done so by partially dumping the free-market, low tax, shrunken government aims of the party establishment, to which his financially dependent rivals remain wedded. That gives him an apparently insuperable advantage. Mr Trump is no conservative, elite conservatives complain. Precisely. That is also true of the party’s base.


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/743d91b8 ... z41qtNRFAF
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Mar 2016, 7:01 am

Helluva debate last night. Really advanced the Republican Party.

Clear winner?
Hillary.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Mar 2016, 8:39 am

rickyp wrote:Helluva debate last night. Really advanced the Republican Party.

Clear winner?
Hillary.


Yah. Is there any correlation between hand size and # of typos? :smile:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15868
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 11:48 am

Ray Jay wrote:
rickyp wrote:Helluva debate last night. Really advanced the Republican Party.

Clear winner?
Hillary.


Yah. Is there any correlation between hand size and # of typos? :smile:

He's got a point though. Rubio and Cruz should be attacking Trump, but perhaps the "small hands" thing was a really dumb move. Trump is at home when it comes to personal insults.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:39 pm

He absolutely has a point. It is very depressing for both the party and the country.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Mar 2016, 12:48 pm

What seems the most bizarre to me is that of the remaining candidates, Kasich would seem to have by far the best chance of winning against Hillary, but he's a dead man walking. I get that there's a proportion of the base who might perceive him as a 'RINO', but he's clearly more conservative than Trump and less flawed than either Cruz or Rubio. The sensible thing would have been to rally round him as the not-Trump candidate.