Las Vegas Republican Debate

[chance1]

^ it's ok that Axelrod wants Romney dead

Not ok for MSNBC to misrepresent

 

[frankfrank]

I hire for the US Govt and wish i could hire illegals.

Honestly the 11million aren't going anywhere. SO why not provide a path that benefits us all?

AGREED. My solution to the immigration "problem":

1. So that NEW people don't come in illegally, shut the border as tightly as possible, though not so tight that COMMUTERS, for example, cannot cross it.

2. STREAMLINE the process for LEGAL immigration, for people who wish to immigrate. Computers are everywhere, for Christ's sake...background checks can be done with a few mouse clicks. There is NO reason that legal immigration should take **YEARS** as it did in the 19th Century, but it still does. Legal immigration shouldn't take more than one or two weeks, and an exhaustive check of background, etc. could be done in that time.

3. For *ALL* people who are LIVING here illegally, provide a PATH TO amnesty for the one final time...ever. It is unfair to summarily uproot people who came here under the unofficial "Undocumented immigrants, PLEASE flood across our borders so we can have the cheap labor!!" policies that were already in place before most of us here were born. Children are coming home from school and suddenly finding their parents forever missing, and they probably rarely ever are reunited, and that's a very hefty price to pay for children who are here through no decisions of their own.

4. People who are here illegally would have SIX MONTHS (or a similar designated period) to get their paperwork in order, APPLYING for permanent residency. Yes, the "path to amnesty" would require the affected people to take deliberate action, they wouldn't just get amnesty automatically. It would also be widely known that, after the selected time period (6 months, one year, whatever...enough time to allow compliance), any undocumented immigrant who has not applied would be subject to IMMEDIATE AND MANDATORY DEPORTATION when found out, and it would become an enforcement priority for a given amount of time, perhaps for five years. During that time 100% of "illegals" should have had time to apply, and if they're STILL here after all that time and did not yet apply, there is no excuse.

5. If somebody didn't apply during the initial mandatory application period, and they manage not to get "caught," they may still go ahead and apply, but every day they go past that initial time period without applying, they would be at great risk of being "found" and unconditionally kicked out.

6. There would have to be some humane exceptions to the otherwise-strict "apply or you can be deported immediately if we catch you" time period. For example, if somebody is entirely incapacitated (such as bedridden in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice) during a time which goes past the compliance date, they would be allowed to apply within two weeks of being able to do so.

7. Undocumented aliens who are incarcerated would be covered by a requirement that all jails, reform schools, "juvies," prisons, and penitentairies must determine the immigration status of inmates, and these aliens would be furnished the means to apply by the institutions they're incarcerated in, and they would be required to apply.

8. I'm not sure what would be done if a MINOR is incarcerated, and the parents didn't apply, and the minor will be released after the period has elapsed - especially if the minor complied with the application rules.

9. There could even be a Constitutional amendment that, after this final period of applying for amnesty, it would be federally prohibited ever again to offer amnesty.

10. Some version of the "Dream Act" would be available to all immigrants who have complied, even if they were originally here illegally.

11. Actually, if there is a complete understanding that there would NEVER again be an amnesty for people who came here illegally, and would be subject to unconditional and immediate deportation, and that the legal immigration queue would be no more than one to three weeks long, there may not even be a need to close the border tightly. Word would get out that those who come here illegally are entirely unwelcome, and the legal alternative is QUITE VIABLE and no longer requires years of waiting.

12. All illegal immigrants who have applied (as well as all those who are here legally, as well as people who were born in the USA) would be in a "federal database" of some type, which would not be allowed to detail any more than immigration status - perhaps no other data than whether a person is a non-immigrant, a legal immigrant, a citizen or naturalized, or here on a work visa/green card. People not in the database would be considered to be here illegally, but...

13. UH-OH!!! Of course something like a typo would mean that you or I might not be in that database, and suddenly one of us get deported, LOL. Human fallibility as it is...

 

[chrisrobin]

^ $70 million raised doesn't bother you?

No, it doesn't. The SCOTUS' "Citizens United" decision gave contributors carte blanche to contribute whatever they can, including the Koch-suckers. Besides, Mitt Romney said that corporations are people and political contributions are free speech.

 

[chrisrobin]

^ it's ok that Axelrod wants Romney dead

No, but I hear Axelrod has been sending Romney Voodoo hate mail.

 

[chance1]

No, it doesn't. The SCOTUS' "Citizens United" decision gave contributors carte blanche to contribute whatever they can, including the Koch-suckers. Besides, Mitt Romney said that corporations are people and political contributions are free speech.

Hmmm

I repeat - not very 99%

Must be nice to have it both ways

Nice

But lame

Shame on the lame

Saturday baby .

 

[chrisrobin]

I repeat - not very 99%

Cheap shot. The problem is not Obama, but the lack of campaign finance reform. It's been talked about since Watergate (1974) but talk is also cheap.

Must be nice to have it both ways

I don't think Obama has ever claimed that corporations are people. I think you're getting him confused with Mitt Romney, who gets to have everything both ways... at the very least.

What would you rather the Obama campaign do?* Let's be honest here. You simply don't like the man. There's nothing wrong with that. The cheap shots are rather low rent and aren't very beneficial to anyone, except maybe you.

*Returning the $70 million is not an option.

 

[rareboy]

Yeah, nice derailment of the thread there in the last few posts by making Obama's fundraising the issue and not the bizarre , anaemic, confused and hilarious performance by the last men (and I'm including you, Michele), standing.

I assume that no one has anything left to say of relevance or substance with respect to the low rent Las Vegas bump and grind show put on by the sorry group of lightweights that apparently represent the best of God's Own Party?

 

[chance1]

Cheap shot. The problem is not Obama, but the lack of campaign finance reform. It's been talked about since Watergate (1974) but talk is also cheap.

I don't think Obama has ever claimed that corporations are people. I think you're getting him confused with Mitt Romney, who gets to have everything both ways... at the very least.

What would you rather the Obama campaign do?* Let's be honest here. You simply don't like the man. There's nothing wrong with that. The cheap shots are rather low rent and aren't very beneficial to anyone, except maybe you.

*Returning the $70 million is not an option.

Cheap shot? Get a grip

Mr. Which republican do I attack today with some bullshit non story that I will create and have other partisan hacks jump on because .......

I voted for the Pres in the dem primaries so take you're "u don't like the man" and insert with other nonsense

He has failed miserably as a leader at a time when we desperately needed one and he sold himself as one

He is full of shit with his mofo rich guy wall St cabinet hacks who fucked the economy worse than it was

Now he's with the 99%?

Bullshit

And you with the $70 million is "legal"

Yeah it's "legal" so were all the phony mortgages

Get a real soul

 

[chance1]

Yeah, nice derailment of the thread there in the last few posts by making Obama's fundraising the issue and not the bizarre , anaemic, confused and hilarious performance by the last men (and I'm including you, Michele), standing.

I assume that no one has anything left to say of relevance or substance with respect to the low rent Las Vegas bump and grind show put on by the sorry group of lightweights that apparently represent the best of God's Own Party?

Yeah - your contributions have been as usual .......

Priceless

Partisan attacks w/o merit

Whatever gets u thru the darkness

 

[MystikWizard]

^ it's ok that Axelrod wants Romney dead

Not ok for MSNBC to misrepresent

But does MSNBC really misrepresent? I have heard in commentaries from Olbermann when he was there and Maddow admit they are a Left-Wing network. I think everyone knows that the news industry is biased in some fashion or another. I think frankly that has primarily to do with advertising dollars so networks can target particular audiences more than anything.

But I have never heard MSNBC claim they were "fair and balanced" in their slogans, commentaries.

 

[Joshua_me]

The winner of this republican debate was President Obama.

Agreed.

Some people know what time it is, and some people don't.

 

[Just_Believe18]

The winner of this republican debate was President Obama.

You are correct, sir.


The clear candidate from this debate that I saw was Mitt Romney. Every other Republican candidate is no where near his caliber. Perry had such a defeated look on his face and new favorite Cain is going down with his 9-9-9 plan. As Mitt Romney stated, Cain's national sales tax would compound with any state sales tax. Almost every American would be paying more in taxes because of that national sales tax. It would also drag down the economy that is 70% run on retail.

All the other candidates in the debate were irrelevant. Nobody cares about Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, etc.

Mitt Romney is going to win this nomination, and he will lose to President Obama in 2012. America will not elect a hypocritical, ultra-rich white Mormon to replace our first black President who saved us from an economic depression and killed Osama bin Laden.

 

[rareboy]

It was going to be Romney all along.

I even think that strategically, the party owners have known this all along. All we've been watching is a show designed to reassure the American moderate conservatives that the Republicans aren't only the party of crazy. At some point soon, in order to cut their losses and contain the damage, the deadwood needs to be pruned out and the in-it-for-the -book/FOX news wonk-deal have to be gotten rid of.

My greatest fear is that while Romney can't beat Obama, he could beat Biden.

I do see, however, that some anger management issues continue to bubble up.

 

[MystikWizard]

I still think everyone is completely off-base here in thinking Romney stands a chance for the nomination. These poll numbers are ridiculously skewed and I do not think they are a representative sample of the Republican Party voter-base.

Romney is not popular amongst most Conservatives at all. He was considered the Front Runner in 2008 as well, polling the highest amongst everyone ... and he didn't manage to capture a single Primary from what I recall.

I think these polling companies are polling too many states from the coasts, and too many cities in general ... and not enough of the true Bible Belt and rest of the country. And the problem is that I think the people who will show up at the polls are the Bible Belt states and people in the suburbs as opposed to the cities. I think they are the more likely voters to show up at the polls, than not.

And the true "likely voters" want to play an "All or Nothing" game this time, just like they did in 2010. They want it a "true Conservative" and they aren't going to accept anything less.

Unfortunately, with that mentality, they will unquestionably lose in 2012, but they really don't see it that way, at all.

That is why I see another John McCain, who was in 3rd or 4th place in the Primaries of 2008, happening one more time this go 'round, as well.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida will select ... and the rest of the states will fall in line based on the way those elections go.

And yes, I think the voters would elect an unfaithful Christian like Newt Gingrich over a "Mormon", "Too Liberal to be a Conservative", "Enacted Universal Health Care in Massachusetts", "Will say anything to get elected" guy like Mitt Romney.

People shouldn't forget that if your political affiliation registered is that of an Independent, you can not vote in the "Republican" Primaries.

I actually have a $50 bet with hotatlboi that Romney won't be the nominee, as I am that confident he won't be.

 

[chrisrobin]

.....................

For the sake of reasonable discussion, let’s momentarily set aside idealogy, partisanship and mendacity.

The President of the United States, who is also the Commander in Chief, is the custodian of the brief case which contains the nuclear weapons launch codes AKA “the football.” Look over the Republican field and tell us if you would trust anyone there with this responsibility – a matter of life and death.

In retrospect: during the Cuban Missle Crisis (1962) when JFK was meeting with the Joint Chiefs, it was they who wanted to nuke the Soviet Union. Mr. Kennedy was outnumbered: he wanted to try negotiation first. Guess who won that argument. If I may reiterate, would you be willing to put any of the 2012 Republican aspirants for president in a similar position?

 

[chrisrobin]

I may disagree with their policies, but I don't think any Republican in the field is outright crazy.

having the "nuclear codes" isn't keeping me up at night. the policy is pretty entrenched that there isn't a chance in hell that he'd ever drop a nuke unless one was dropped on us first.

You're probably right. However, you don't have to be crazy to be untrustworthy.

 

[hotatlboi]

I still think everyone is completely off-base here in thinking Romney stands a chance for the nomination.

Obviously I disagree.

Perry has tanked. Cain is a joke, once more people realize that his tax plan will ding the poor and middle class he will be done.

Romney will obviously win New Hampshire, and the latest poll (just out today) shows him ahead in Iowa and South Carolina.

 

[MystikWizard]

Obviously I disagree.

Perry has tanked. Cain is a joke, once more people realize that his tax plan will ding the poor and middle class he will be done.

Romney will obviously win New Hampshire, and the latest poll (just out today) shows him ahead in Iowa and South Carolina.

Didn't the polls have him as the Front Runner in all of those states in 2008, as well? How many Primaries did he win in those states?

 

[rareboy]

I still think everyone is completely off-base here in thinking Romney stands a chance for the nomination. These poll numbers are ridiculously skewed and I do not think they are a representative sample of the Republican Party voter-base.

Romney is not popular amongst most Conservatives at all. He was considered the Front Runner in 2008 as well, polling the highest amongst everyone ... and he didn't manage to capture a single Primary from what I recall.

I think these polling companies are polling too many states from the coasts, and too many cities in general ... and not enough of the true Bible Belt and rest of the country. And the problem is that I think the people who will show up at the polls are the Bible Belt states and people in the suburbs as opposed to the cities. I think they are the more likely voters to show up at the polls, than not.

And the true "likely voters" want to play an "All or Nothing" game this time, just like they did in 2010. They want it a "true Conservative" and they aren't going to accept anything less.

Unfortunately, with that mentality, they will unquestionably lose in 2012, but they really don't see it that way, at all.

That is why I see another John McCain, who was in 3rd or 4th place in the Primaries of 2008, happening one more time this go 'round, as well.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida will select ... and the rest of the states will fall in line based on the way those elections go.

And yes, I think the voters would elect an unfaithful Christian like Newt Gingrich over a "Mormon", "Too Liberal to be a Conservative", "Enacted Universal Health Care in Massachusetts", "Will say anything to get elected" guy like Mitt Romney.

People shouldn't forget that if your political affiliation registered is that of an Independent, you can not vote in the "Republican" Primaries.

I actually have a $50 bet with hotatlboi that Romney won't be the nominee, as I am that confident he won't be.

So you're saying that Huntsman has a chance?

 

[rareboy]

in this day and age, you'd need to be crazy to start a nuclear war.

if we ever see a nuclear weapon used in our lifetime, I think it will be at the hands of a radical, fringe group who manages to get their hands on one -- not anyone so boring and milquetoast that they're capable of winning a presidential election.

trust is a whole different issue, but being concerned over whether the president would drop a nuke is like expressing concern on their policies towards Big Foot.

Or you'd only have to believe in Revelations. And the End Times. And that you are the agent of God to bring about the return of Christ.

That is all you have to believe.

Now. Ask that question at one of the debates.

Then tell me who you'd like to see in the Oval Office.