-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Nah I doubt it. He can no longer run on trying to do something about immigration but being blocked by dems/Obama. Instead his very idea has been hijacked and poisoned, and you best believe the base won't be happy.I can still see them picking him just to ride on the hype of picking a Hispanic for VP.
If he runs for president, this will be his Romneycare
maximum360
Member
Certainly not, this just reeks of such a blatant grab. Why wasn't this done years ago? I'd imagine the administration kept it in the card deck because Hispanics support Obama in such big numbers, and likely figured they wouldn't care about the timing as compared to the benefit.
It'll be interesting to see how Hispanic commentators/news reports on this, and how Romney reacts. In some ways this is like Rubio's watered down Dream Act.
I agree with you that's it's pretty much political but it's also very welcomed (by most sane people).
Nah I doubt it. He can no longer run on trying to do something about immigration but being blocked by dems/Obama. Instead his very idea has been hijacked and poisoned, and you best believe the base won't be happy.
If he runs for president, this will be his Romneycare
Rubio has not opposed this move outright - he has simply said it prevents a long term solution.
maximum360
Member
Nah I doubt it. He can no longer run on trying to do something about immigration but being blocked by dems/Obama. Instead his very idea has been hijacked and poisoned, and you best believe the base won't be happy.
If he runs for president, this will be his Romneycare
Smart move politically though. It takes the spotlight off anything coming from the Romney camp for the next week or so. I wonder how many more calculated moves we'll see like this until November.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Rubio has not opposed this move outright - he has simply said it prevents a long term solution.
The only thing that prevents a long term solution is congress.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
June surprise!
So let's look at Obama's conservative record:
1. endorses tax cuts as a way to grow the economy
2. endorses budget cutting as a way to grow the economy
3. adopts and expands Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan / mandates
4. adopts and expands Bush/Cheney's Drone Program
5. adopts and expands Off-Shore Oil Drilling
6. adopts and expands Bush illegal immigrant deportation program
7. adopts and expands the war on drugs
8. adopts Marco Rubio's DREAM act
Not sure what I'm forgetting, but all of these aren't coincidences, and most of them run counter to liberalism, progressivism, and the general Democratic platform. It's pretty clear Obama has, as a strategy, adopted pretty much all the reasonable GOP "ideas," even at a dear economic cost.
Guessing this is the 20-year, 11th Dimensional Chess or w/e it's called, permanent majority strategy. Republicans look so fucking stupid ranting against everything they in which they were previously supportive.
Now, if I had ever seen John Kerry and Obama in the same room together, I might think this was some devious payback for making him look weak. But it's probably just the result of a somewhat sane, right-leaning centrist that happens to be a Democratic President. (hehe)
So let's look at Obama's conservative record:
1. endorses tax cuts as a way to grow the economy
2. endorses budget cutting as a way to grow the economy
3. adopts and expands Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan / mandates
4. adopts and expands Bush/Cheney's Drone Program
5. adopts and expands Off-Shore Oil Drilling
6. adopts and expands Bush illegal immigrant deportation program
7. adopts and expands the war on drugs
8. adopts Marco Rubio's DREAM act
Not sure what I'm forgetting, but all of these aren't coincidences, and most of them run counter to liberalism, progressivism, and the general Democratic platform. It's pretty clear Obama has, as a strategy, adopted pretty much all the reasonable GOP "ideas," even at a dear economic cost.
Guessing this is the 20-year, 11th Dimensional Chess or w/e it's called, permanent majority strategy. Republicans look so fucking stupid ranting against everything they in which they were previously supportive.
Now, if I had ever seen John Kerry and Obama in the same room together, I might think this was some devious payback for making him look weak. But it's probably just the result of a somewhat sane, right-leaning centrist that happens to be a Democratic President. (hehe)
PhoenixDark
Banned
Rubio has not opposed this move outright - he has simply said it prevents a long term solution.
The problem is that Obama attatched his name to what is essentially Rubio's plan, thus making it toxic to the base. This is essentially what I called for last month in terms of killing his plan with kindness.
So far the republican response has been to dismiss this as political, but the actual base isn't happy and eventually the more fringe law makers will make ridiculous comments on it. So while Rubi may no be opposed, the good will he gained among republican law makers on the issue has disappeared, and the base ain't happy
"while Republicans reacted with outrage that the move amounts to amnesty -- a negative buzz word among conservatives." -CNN
Man, how fast the conservatives abandoned George's plans.
They're also ignoring that there's actually only a two year deferral on deportation. So it's not actual amnesty in any sense of the word.
It's not like this is a change of heart, they vehemently opposed Bush's plans as well.
The problem is that Obama attatched his name to what is essentially Rubio's plan, thus making it toxic to the base. This is essentially what I called for last month in terms of killing his plan with kindness.
So far the republican response has been to dismiss this as political, but the actual base isn't happy and eventually the more fringe law makers will make ridiculous comments on it. So while Rubi may no be opposed, the good will he gained among republican law makers on the issue has disappeared, and the base ain't happy
Too late. Brewer and King are already talking lawsuit and that will only be the beginning
The heckler was one of Tucker Carlson's DailyCaller reporters Neil Munro.
Sirpopopop
Member
Regardless of the politics of the measure, this is a good decision, and a good first step.
Check out Drudge's front page.
that drudge headline pic right now is rather hilarious tho...
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The problem is that Obama attatched his name to what is essentially Rubio's plan, thus making it toxic to the base. This is essentially what I called for last month in terms of killing his plan with kindness.
So far the republican response has been to dismiss this as political, but the actual base isn't happy and eventually the more fringe law makers will make ridiculous comments on it. So while Rubi may no be opposed, the good will he gained among republican law makers on the issue has disappeared, and the base ain't happy
Someone said earlier that this was a trap move, and that person is essentially correct. Either way, I'm guessing that it isn't just the DREAM act that is toxic now, but Rubio himself.
But rather than be reactive, I'd rather see what you guys as strategists would suggest Romney say/do as reaction. There's at least two directions you can take this:
1. Fuck the base, fuck toxicity -- lurch to the left, call Obama's move exploitation of helpless children, and demand immediate amnesty for everyone, then announce Rubio as your VP candidate.
2. Lurch to the right-er! Call this move a traitorous executive over-reach, say it hurts the economy, costs jobs, and encourages more Illegals (I'm running for office for pete's sake!).
lol holy shit Romney is fucked on this one. democrat partison overreaction circle-jerk +1!!!!
There are a lot of things GWB did that conservatives retroactively were opposed to.
What does that have to do with Congress opposing GWB's immigration policy while he was trying to get it through?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
June surprise!
So let's look at Obama's conservative record:
1. endorses tax cuts as a way to grow the economy
2. endorses budget cutting as a way to grow the economy
3. adopts and expands Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan / mandates
4. adopts and expands Bush/Cheney's Drone Program
5. adopts and expands Off-Shore Oil Drilling
6. adopts and expands Bush illegal immigrant deportation program
7. adopts and expands the war on drugs
8. adopts Marco Rubio's DREAM act
Not sure what I'm forgetting, but all of these aren't coincidences, and most of them run counter to liberalism, progressivism, and the general Democratic platform. It's pretty clear Obama has, as a strategy, adopted pretty much all the reasonable GOP "ideas," even at a dear economic cost.
Guessing this is the 20-year, 11th Dimensional Chess or w/e it's called, permanent majority strategy. Republicans look so fucking stupid ranting against everything they in which they were previously supportive.
Now, if I had ever seen John Kerry and Obama in the same room together, I might think this was some devious payback for making him look weak. But it's probably just the result of a somewhat sane, right-leaning centrist that happens to be a Democratic President. (hehe)
Quoting myself here, but hearing about the Brewer reaction, which Jeb and Rubio will obviously have to disavow, makes me think the strategy outlined above is less about making Republicans look ridiculously silly, but more about dividing the party right down the middle -- expanding the Democratic tent, so to speak.
The tea party has increased the numbers of so-called independents (no longer willing to call themselves Republicans, obviously), but the lure of racism and infectious calls of tyranny coming from right wing hysterical radio are very, very powerful. I expect this Republican party will be much, much different in about 20 years.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing.Check out Drudge's front page. It says this tracks closely to Rubio's plan. I don't normally give Obama props but this is brilliant. Not only is it good policy that helps Hispanics, it destroys Rubio's brand; he crrtainly can't be VP as the "blueprint" of this. Two birds with one stone
Of course Rubio comes out swinging saying this is a "short-term solution to a long-term problem." Well then maybe you should work on getting your party to embrace long-term solutions you fucktard, because this is the only thing Obama can possibly do at this point.
Want some fun? Tune in to CSPAN and listen to the callers.
Oh man, yeah every morning I used to do that, I think it actually makes you less intelligent , be careful.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm also curious how white voters will respond to this. There could be an opening here for Romney in terms of arguing Obama has a jobs plan for illegal immigrants but no plan for actual Americans (note: I know Obama has a jobs plan). Given the state of the economy, resentment politics could work here.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
1 is completely untenable, at odds with everything the GOP has done the last four+ years.
But I'd say a stripped-down 2. Hammer on this being an authoritarian, anti-democracy move, how this is the sort of thing Congress should be doing, etc, etc. No need to touch too much on the actual immigration stuff.
Probably. This is more or less what Brian Beutler of TPM said:
This was a doubly clever move by the Obama administration. Over and above the obvious appeal to a key constituency, the policy here mimics, I assume intentionally, what Republicans claim they want to adopt in a scaled-down version of the DREAM Act. But for Republicans, embracing Obamas move carries the same risk with their base as rejecting it does with immigrants the voting bloc theyre most concerned about alienating.
A hunch: prepare yourself for a deluge of condemnations of executive-branch overreach, paired with real reluctance to say anything meaningful about what the directive actually accomplishes.
I don't like how we aren't following the constitution. And as long as were part of the United States I think we should follow it.
the 10th amendment says anything that isn't int he constitution should be left up to the states.
I raelly don't see how I'm anti-american. Mitt ROmney may have past a health care law, but he did it only to massachussets.
The 10th amendment says that powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited to state governments in the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
The 9th amendment says that there are individual rights belonging to the people that are not enumerated in the constitution, and the lack of enumeration can not be used to infringe upon these rights.
The 14th amendment says that individual rights recognized by the federal government can not be infringed upon by state governments (because the 14th amendment makes the 9th amendment apply to state governments as well as federal governments. This, combined with the supremacy clause, means any rights the federal government recognizes the people having must be recognized as belonging to the people by the states, as well),
and they must provide equal protection under the law.
The courts have assertive power in recognizing individual rights. The right to privacy is one such thing, used in Roe vs. Wade.
Essentially, if a law is created at the state level which the people believe to infringe upon their personal rights, they bring their grievances before the courts. If a federal court rules that the individual's rights have been violated, their rights have been violated, regardless of what the state legislature, state court, or state constitution says. If a federal court rules that the individual's rights have not been violated, the state supreme court can still rule on whether or not that person's rights have been violated, but if they rule that the person's rights have been violated, that right only applies to people within the state.
The 10th amendment doesn't say that the federal government can only do what's in the constitution, and eveyrthing else can be done by the states. The 9th and 14th amendments specifically state that the people have rights that may or may not be in the constitution, and governments have always had the right to act on behalf of protecting its citizens' rights. That is the essence of a social contract, of having a government by the people, for the people.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I'm also curious how white voters will respond to this. There could be an opening here for Romney in terms of arguing Obama has a jobs plan for illegal immigrants but no plan for actual Americans (note: I know Obama has a jobs plan). Given the state of the economy, resentment politics could work here.
If I were running Romney's campaign, I would be doing a lot of things differently. I was thinking in shower last night about how poorly they are doing ANY sort of messaging about themselves.
1 is completely untenable, at odds with everything the GOP has done the last four+ years.
But I'd say a stripped-down 2. Hammer on this being an authoritarian, anti-democracy move, how this is the sort of thing Congress should be doing, etc, etc. No need to touch too much on the actual immigration stuff.
I'm sure Romney's champing at the bit to explain how in 2010 the DREAM act passed 216 for to 198 against in the House and then "failed" 55 for to 41 against in the Senate.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Steven King plans to sue over this
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/steve-king-ill-sue-over-new-obama-immigration
bring it on
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/steve-king-ill-sue-over-new-obama-immigration
bring it on
Steven King plans to sue over this
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/steve-king-ill-sue-over-new-obama-immigration
bring it on
I am not opposed to the effect of this, but can anyone supporting the President's decision point me to where he has this sort of unilateral authority?
PhoenixDark
Banned
I am not opposed to the effect of this, but can anyone supporting the President's decision point me to where he has this sort of unilateral authority?
Eh? The executive branch controls the deportation process. The administration is essentially just refusing to deport certain immigrants that meet certain criteria. I don't see how that's a breach of anything, and would be interested in your evidence to the contrary
I am not opposed to the effect of this, but can anyone supporting the President's decision point me to where he has this sort of unilateral authority?
Easy, it isn't an exercise of Presidential authority. It is the DHS changing its policy on how it prioritizes deportation enforcement.
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/2...deferred-action-process-for-young-people.shtm
So, Pres. Obama will get the credit/blame, but this is an entirely in-scope DHS decision. DHS is part of the exec branch, so there is a straight line connection.
But until someone can illustrate how the President somehow strong-armed Napolitano into this decision, there's no real argument to be had.
Eh? The executive branch controls the deportation process. The administration is essentially just refusing to deport certain immigrants that meet certain criteria. I don't see how that's a breach of anything, and would be interested in your evidence to the contrary
Ah Ok, I missed what the mechanism was - I was thinking it was an Executive Order. So I guess there is then the question of if the President is ignoring his oath to uphold the Constitution.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Ah Ok, I missed what the mechanism was - I was thinking it was an Executive Order. So I guess there is then the question of if the President is ignoring his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Ah I see. The initial reporting said it was an executive order, but it's actually a change in policy for the DHS, and interestingly the waivers have to be renewed every two years. Talk about an incentive for Hispanics to vote. This issue isn't going anywhere
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Obama down to 44% in today's Gallup. Wheeee.
And this is when it does start to matter...
Didn't you just say two days ago that it was only June? Because it still is...
Didn't you just say two days ago that it was only June? Because it still is...
Bipolar people say the damnedest things.
Didn't you just say two days ago that it was only June? Because it still is...
By June he meant early June; we're now halfway through June - Obama should have his shit together at this stage in the game.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Ah Ok, I missed what the mechanism was - I was thinking it was an Executive Order. So I guess there is then the question of if the President is ignoring his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Here it is!
Precisely. They'll attempt to obfuscate by decrying executive overreach rather than engaging the issue substantively.1 is completely untenable, at odds with everything the GOP has done the last four+ years.
But I'd say a stripped-down 2. Hammer on this being an authoritarian, anti-democracy move, how this is the sort of thing Congress should be doing, etc, etc. No need to touch too much on the actual immigration stuff.
Labeling yesterday's events a coup is a bit of a misnomer. I understand the disparate opposition has labeled it a coup. But that that's principally a ploy to maintain the moral imperative and public support. Effectively, the SCAF had not relinquished control. And they are clearly the premier political institution. They reaffirmed their grasp on power. And I suspect the outcome of tomorrow's runoff will be felicitous for them. Further, this demonstrates why the military, not the MB or Islamism, remains the largest impediment to a democratic transition as I've previously noted.So..Egypt just witnessed the most silent and smoothest coup d'etat today. Supreme council court declares Parliament invalid, SCAF says it will command total legislative authority, dissolve the parliament and create a new legislative assembly. That historic election couple of weeks ago? lol
PhoenixDark
Banned
Arizona should be interesting to watch now. The state leans to Romney but maybe this will tip the scale
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Hey, I just want to note that somedude's passing should remind us all of a few things.
First, there are actually people out there that believe that stuff, even if he was trolling or not actually being genuine.
Second, this is the continued legacy of the civil war and the mistakes made during reconstruction, and the continued mistakes made before the Civil Rights era and the devastating consequences of local, under-funded education in incredibly poor and rural parts of the South.
Last, the incredible tolerance for masked bigotry on this forum is a credit to the mod staff, which obviously has its hands full.
First, there are actually people out there that believe that stuff, even if he was trolling or not actually being genuine.
Second, this is the continued legacy of the civil war and the mistakes made during reconstruction, and the continued mistakes made before the Civil Rights era and the devastating consequences of local, under-funded education in incredibly poor and rural parts of the South.
Last, the incredible tolerance for masked bigotry on this forum is a credit to the mod staff, which obviously has its hands full.
Officerrob
Banned
Just saw the video, yeah, Obama was pissed, and rightfully so
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
And Mitt Romney didn't say anything about Obama's decision during his rally.
He's not sure which of his previous positions he's supposed to take yet. Give the man a break.
And Mitt Romney didn't say anything about Obama's decision during his rally.
Thats probably the best play for him, simply avoid talking about it and hope it goes away. If he supports it, his base will be pissed and might appear 'weak' (i think the last bit is stupid pundit talk). If he comes out against it, he might lose independents and Hispanics
PhoenixDark
Banned
Thats probably the best play for him, simply avoid talking about it and hope it goes away. If he supports it, his base will be pissed and might appear 'weak' (i think the last bit is stupid pundit talk). If he comes out against it, he might lose independents and Hispanics
He's doing his first non-Fox TV interview of the general campaign on sunday (CBS). Best believe he'll be asked about it and have to give an answer
cartoon_soldier
Member
He's doing his first non-Fox TV interview of the general campaign on sunday (CBS). Best believe he'll be asked about it and have to give an answer
The guy interviewing him is the same person who claimed Obama has been largely running negative ads.
Yeah. His rebuke was justified. If I were impudently interrupted, I'd respond likewise.have not seen Obama that visibly angry in a long, long time. and rightfully so - incredibly inappropriate to interrupt the president during a rose garden statement. of course it would be a reporter from the daily caller.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
At some point Obama needs to get a few pointers from standup comedians on how to handle heckling. Not Kramer, obviously, but there has to be a dignified way to destroy these people's career (Joe Wilson, this guy, etc).
PhoenixDark
Banned
That guy better be banned from the press pool. In fact, I'd just ban Daily Caller in general considering Tucker Carlson's response to all of this
The guy interviewing him is the same person who claimed Obama has been largely running negative ads.
I support Obama, but based on the ads I've heard about this sounds true.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.