Audio: Comprehensive immigration reform “will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” says McCain
posted at 4:53 pm on June 28, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Top priority overall or just top domestic priority? Iraq and the economy can wait, I guess. The clip comes, via reader Edgar M, from today’s appearance before NALEO, in which he and Obama took turns to see who could pander most cravenly on immigration. Truth be told, there’s little new here: Lip service is duly paid to securing the border despite the questioner’s emphasis on comprehensive reform “and not just enforcement,” and he recycles his old line about illegals being “God’s children too” as a way of insinuating, a la his crony’s notorious remarks about telling “the bigots” to shut up, that one really can’t oppose amnesty and be a minimally decent human being. Par for the course.
It’s nice to know, though, that the very first 100 days of a McCain administration will be consumed with an internecine fight on the right to stop his next round of crap legislation from passing. Can’t wait. If you’re curious to see what Obama said in reply, here’s a recap from Reuters. To the left, of course (minus Mickey Kaus), McCain’s problem is that he isn’t a big enough amnesty shill. Exit quotation from Obama, demonstrating a charming obliviousness to the fact that he himself flip-flopped on nearly every issue he commented on this past week: “If we are going to solve the challenges we face, we can’t vacillate, we can’t shift depending on our politics.”
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Excellent!
Talon on June 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM
The election of, “Holy Crap, we don’t have anyone worth a damn”
johnnyU on June 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
True.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Here is how an “instant run-off” voting system would work. You go into the voting booth and see several choices, as at present.
Let’s say that there is a Republican, a Conservative, a Democratic, and a Liberal candidate running.
Instead of voting for one you vote for all four in order of preference, one through four. After the first prefence votes are counted you might see a result like this.
Republican, 33%. Conservative, 20%. Democratic, 30%. Liberal, 17%.
Unlike at present, the Republican does not win, since he failed to get over 50%. The Liberal candidate is eliminated and his votes distributed among the other candidates, based on the “second preference” marked on his ballots. After this the result might be;
Republican, 36%. Conservative, 22%. Democratic, 42%.
Since nobody has yet reached 50% the Conservative candidate is eliminated and his votes distributed as above, at which point sombody will have a majority.
This allows people to vote for a candidate instead of against one, which is the normal experience for American voters. It allows people to express their dissatisfaction with the duopoly. And it allows for the existence of third and fourth parties which have a realistic shot at winning.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Oh, I get it. A ‘mood’ election.
We count all ballots three times and weigh the mood of the collective.
So what happens when everyone gets 25%? Does Scalia still get to give the election to Bush?
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM
People who advocate third parties should do the work needed for them to make sense. Our current system can easily accommodate four parties with slight tinkering. We just ned to hold election as in France: if no one gets a majority, we have a run-off. We don’t even have to go the polls twice as in France. People can just tell their second choice when they go to the polls.
I’m not sure it will help. If you are reading this you are politically minded and will know your second choice in an election, though you may be the kind of the idiot who claims to be unable to tell the difference between John McCain and Ralph Nader. Most people aren’t political, won’t have a second choice, and don’t know much about the political differences between John McCain and Ralph Nader.
thuja on June 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I will be very polite as I point out that you must have your head in the sand on this issue – do you not remember the infamous Z visa, or did you not ever read about it?
In 2006 the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration bill featured the Z visa, which allowed all illegal aliens to immediately apply for a visa, and DHS had only 90 days to perform background and health checks, otherwise the applicant would gain PERMANENT ‘temporary’ residency, with the right to: 1. leave and re-enter the country, 2. work, 3. have immunity against deportation.
In response to the loud complaints about these generous terms, McCain changed the 2007 version from 90 days to a SINGLE BUSINESS DAY to perform background and health checks.
Either he planned to hire 12 million FBI agents to get the job done in time, or he is the most angry, spiteful, cynical bastard you ever met. What is your guess??
fred5678 on June 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM
No fred, I have read it and I do object to it. I take exception to the label of being pro shamnesty because I will vote for McCain. I am very pro-fence, fine, back of the line. My objections go to where I feel they do the most good, to my represenatives and the campaigns. As I stated up in the thread the immigration issue is not a vote killer for me.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM
thuja
Most people know that they can’t stand the Democratic and Republican parties. I get the distinct impression that the only reason most Republicans support the GOP is because of their fear and dislike of the Democrats. Same for the Democrats in reverse.
You must have mixed me up with some other idiot. There are a lot of them here.
Gee, you think?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Is there someone here who actually believes that Scalia gave the election to Bush or was that sarcasm?
Rose on June 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM
sarcasm Rose. My apologies for the confusion.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM
One of these statements is false. You are not “very pro-fence, back of the line” and at the same time a person who belives that immigration is not a big deal or a vote killer.
You have had time to think it over. Any chance you will explain how immigration does not doom the fiscal conservative things you said you believed in?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:09 PM
The quality of your comments is going downhill. And they were not much to brag about to begin with. If you have any defence of the current setup, lets hear it. Or even any non-nitwittish comments on my proposal.
Or continue to emote. You’re good at that.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:13 PM
If you are asking does Limerick believe that we pay a heavy price for illegal immigration then Limerick says yes. What you cannot accept is that I don’t prioritize illegal immigration to be a McCain vote killer. It isn’t, and won’t be.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Somebody went to the trouble of explaining how flawed this is. If you want to say that you consider other things more important so you will reluctantly accept open borders, that’s your choice. But don’t try to pretend that you are not accepting open borders.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Emote? I’m sure the HA readership is capable of reading back through your comments to find the culprit of emote.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I have no idea whay you say that I don’t accept that. I do accept it. I’ve never been in the dark about the fact that illegal immigration is not a “vote killer” for you.
I am in the dark as to what would be a vote killer for you. And I am in the dark as to why you are so nonchalant about illegal immigration, given its entirely predictable and negative consequences for the things you do care about.
Any chance you will enlighten me on these? Or am I correct in suspecting that you just have never really thought about it?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Is that your best response to my request for a non-trollish comment from you with respect to the election process?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Simple flense….I don’t buy a new car when the tire goes flat. It really is that simple.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Given the general tone of his remarks, it may not be sarcasm. The typical McCain supporter on this site seems to be somebody who voted for Gore in 2000 and is only voting GOP now due to 911.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM
If you object to Z visa provisions, why did you reference McCain’s background checks as if they meant anything at all?
Fines or any sort of accommodation are all ways of PROMOTING more future illegal immigration. No matter how high and wide a fence we build (and we should), and how many BP agents we hire (and we should hire many more), we will never stop the future flood if we don’t stop rewarding illegal behavior through 1. granting residency to illegals under any terms, 2. in-state tuition, 3. sanctuary policies, 4. free non-emergency medical care, 5. and most of all, ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT.
Attrition through strict and thorough enforcement is the only way to slow future illegal immigration.
See this poll (the only one I have ever seen that offers all 3 choices)of what American citizens want – check the Rep. and Dem. numbers for each choice.
Check what states are voting for overwhelmingly.
Any policy that in any way rewards illegal behavior will encourage more of the same. That is simple human nature.
We must stop all rewards now.
Off to work – have a great weekend, all.
fred5678 on June 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I’m starting to think that you are that simple.
Does it bother you at all that you are engaging in “Jet Boy” style evasion and refusal to answer questions?
I can only come up with two possible explanations. Either you don’t have answers, or you do have answers but they are not ones that dare be spoken. Which is it?
Add that to the list of questions you won’t answer.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Another question for Limerick to ignore.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:30 PM
If you think it’s time for shots at Lim and that they will be well-received, you need to back that wagon up and rethink your strategy.
No. We have a system, no majority goes to the House of Representatives. Don’t tamper with it.
To make a 3rd party viable, we don’t need to blow up what our forefathers gave us…what they gave was not a 2 party system.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Reading back through the McCain threads the last three days you will find I have answered all your questions with answers direct from Limerick. You have chosen to either ignore or disregard those answers. That I won’t ‘emote’ them to you seems to be issue.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Mind telling me who you think you are? I don’t need your permission to make any comments about Limerick. You can shove your “well-received”.
His behavior on this thread, and on other immigtration threads, is evasive and dishonest. He deserves all the “shots” he gets.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Sure, I’ll tell you – I’m part of the HA community. What I am trying to tell you is that bitching about someone who has a long history of being frank and forthcoming makes you appear at best confused, at worse trollish.
If you want your argument to be considered, it must be read. If you want it read, it must be received and not dismissed (as pertains to trollish behavior). You’re welcome.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM
You’re in Limerick?
You are lying, in true Jet Boy style. You answered one question, the one I posed about what your priorites are. When I asked you why you thought that immigration did not jepordise them I got silence in response.
On this thread I asked you for a non-trollish response to my comments on the US election system. You did not respond.
I’m amused that you think the HA commeters are on your side. I guess that fits in with your general level of reading comprehension.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Flense,
To make the subject of Limerick’s McCain vote clear to you here is my comment that outlines why I will vote for him and not abandon the nation to Obama. That those reasons aren’t good enough to you, Flense, isn’t my problem. They are good enough for me. These issues, to me, matter more in the immediate future of this country then illegal immigration. It is that simple.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/27/mccain-on-immigration-reform-im-glad-i-did-it/comment-page-5/#comment-1210999
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I answered. It’s in the pipe apparently.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 2:44 PM
That’s a lamea** copout. You have a candidate who is a big proponent of global warming; who wants to legislate and damage our economy based on a theory that is held together with rhetorical duct tape, scaremongering and out and out bullsh*t. A ‘consensus’ of scientists support the theory…so Backdoor John is ready to grind our economy into the dirt; now, on immigration, a high percentage of Americans from both parties don’t want amnesty, yet McCain is going to ram it up our nose anyway. There isn’t anger on this issue just because of the issue itself, but because he is ignoring the will of the people and is obviously pandering to a special interest group. Your tire isn’t just flat; Mccain jumped in, beat you across the face with a lead pipe, and threw your complacent a** in the street. The consequences of the amnesty have not even been talked about, and I doubt anyone has even given them much thought given all they care about is making them legal. Quit pretending like you care about it; you want McCain, you’ll probably get him, but don’t act like you give a f*ck about the immigration issue. It’s pretty obvious you haven’t given it much thought beyond ‘McCain wants, so it must be good.’
austinnelly on June 29, 2008 at 2:45 PM
As with Flenser, austinnelly, I listed my reasons for voting for McCain. That illegal immigration is an issue for me, just not a vote killer, I have admitted. That you believe I don’t care is your choice.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Flenser, are you working for the Obama campaign?
lol~
bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Sorry, I didn’t mean to contribute to the argument between you two. However, I wonder if there is a correlation between those for whom this issue is important and those who are affected adversely by illegal immigrants. I lived next door to a house full of illegals and it was a nightmare. I don’t think those who don’t live in such neighborhoods realize the negative impact it has on communities. We no longer live there but there are many others who still do. Look what it has done to L.A. It is an important issue to a lot of voters.
Rose on June 29, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Well, it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, so I’ll just repeat the essence.
I’ll be happy to. I’m a member of the HA community. My statement wasn’t one of ‘permission’, it was about reception.
ie Lim has a track record of open and frank discussion, so it makes your accusations ring hollow. The reason I mentioned it is once you take that track, it makes you appear trollish, which is to say your messages start get ignored and left unread. No argument, no matter how brilliant affects anyone’s mind if it’s skipped unread.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 3:00 PM
You didn’t contribute to it Rose. You just asked a question.
Flense wants me to do what he does, i.e. ‘dropped on your head, moron, idiot, troll’. That I, or others won’t, ups his volume.
My daughter lives in L.A. county and it is a gigantic issue between her and McCain. We have had many conversations, including the one about Obama would be better in the long run then McCain. Very much like HA, mostly. Where she ends up on Nov 4 is anyones guess. If she doesn’t vote for Johnny Mac I won’t be writing her out of my will.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM
A man finds out from his doctor that he has some degree of congestive heart failure and a small cancer tumor.
He can feel the effects of his congestive heart failure, he particularly felt the effects on September 11, 2001 when he had a very bad episode, so he follows the doctors advice and takes medication for it and loses weight.
The cancer tumor is small, doesn’t seem to be growing that fast, and he can feel no particular ill effects from it so he ignores the doctors advice about having surgery. An alternative medicine “doctor” agrees with him.
What he does not realize is that the small cancer tumor, now still operable, is by far the bigger threat as it will metastasize throughout his entire body if not removed fairly soon and be fatal.
MB4 on June 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Gotta go, wifey says chores, Limerick does chores.
Limerick on June 29, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Limerick,
I live in Ventura county and it would appear your daughter and I are at the same place on this issue. I go back and forth also. My fear is that this is such an up front issue for McCain that if it wins he will think that he has a mandate. The Republicans in congress may feel the same way and not fight him on it, where as if he loses they will feel emboldened to fight Obama.
Rose on June 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I mean “if he wins”.
Rose on June 29, 2008 at 3:24 PM
There is a moral in there somewhere if only one can find it.
Sigy on June 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Flenser wants you to attempt to answer a question from time to time, that being an essential part of debate.
Why can’t you answer a question?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I don’t see anything new here. McCain has said that he would secure the borders first, and then move to a pathway to legalization program. In that clip you showed, he said the same thing.
But here’s the problem: McCain is not very trust worthy on illegal immigration. Simply stating general statements and repeating the same lines over and over again does not mean you understand why the right was upset with him. What the right wanted to hear is what is your measuring stick for a secured border (is it simply putting up new border security technology or is when we come to the conclusion we have reduced the flow of illegal immigration by say over 90%) and why you think that illegals shouldn’t have to leave the country and then come back in again, like the other immigrants do.
And btw, somebody needs to tell him to cut out the Gods children rhetoric because it is insulting to many conservatives.
Frank T.J Mackey on June 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Of course he will claim a mandate even if he knows it isn’t true. That’s what politicians do. Then he will go on with his agenda, saying it’s clearly the will of the people.
Whoever wins, we have to remember we shut it down before; God help us to do it again.
sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I only thought I had seen the all time low with Gore v Bush and then Kerry v Bush. Never did I imagine it could get this screwed up. Vote for none of the above!
Buzzy on June 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Limerick
Is there any particular reason why you refer to yourself in the third person?
Anyway, here is your list.
Obama;
These seem like rather odd things to be concerned about to me. You sure seem wrapped up in the military though.
My question, which I’d like an answer to, is how does filling the country with people who think Obama is a bit right wing help you with your focus on building up America’s military? How does it not mean that at some time in the not too distant future, all the cuts in military spending you are worried about will come to pass?
In other words, how can you oppose Obama style policies while ignoring the fact that this is becoming a country where only Obama style policies will be possible, thanks to immigration?
To be a conservative is to take long views. You don’t seem to be looking any further ahead than next years budget. Keep in mind that Congress makes the budget, not the President. If the Democrats want to cut these things they will do so regardless of who is in the WH. I’m not telling you that your priorities are wrong, but I am telling you that you are not going to get them by following the course you are on.
Civilians already do that. The civilians in Congress decide whether or not to fund particular weapons programs. More often then not, they end up forcing the military to take stuff they don’t want. But that’s the way our system works. Civilan control of the military is one of the good things about this country, not one of the bad ones.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Spirit
Not on this thread he does not.
There is nothing “trollish” about pointing out when people refuse to answer questions, or respond to reasoned arguments with witless insults.
Since you have appointed yourself thread moderator, go back and read my discussion of the problems inherent in the US election system, my suggested solution, and “Lims” response to it.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 4:41 PM
God helps those who help themselves.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Thought it was worth repeating. It’s a provocative idea, and perhaps a practical one as well. Don’t hear that too often.
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Mojo workin’?
a capella on June 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Um, what? Please show where I have ever lied.
You’re nothing but a two-bit hack loaded with nothing but petty insults.
JetBoy on June 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM
You miss my intent. Suit yourself.
I’ll save us all the trouble:) No changes that change the Constitution. Thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 5:57 PM
OK, this might be a little off-topic, but:
Immigration policy reform has Obama, McCain in agreement
To all you pro-amnesty types: it doesn’t give you even a moment’s pause to know that Bambi and McCain agree on immigration?
Bambi is being reasonable, and fair, and judicious, on this issue?
misterpeasea on June 29, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Thank you.
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 6:12 PM
i.e. no majority goes to the House.
Why is that better than a second round for the citizens?
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 6:13 PM
The easiest fix to making the two party stranglehold a little more tolerable would be just to revise the primary system. Doesn’t require any Amendments or legislative action.
Nation wide primary held on one day (April 15th would be a good day to hold it ;-). No crossover voters allowed. That way we all get a say…. By the time I got to indicate my preference, Everyone had dropped out but McCain and Paul.
LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM
But these decisions are left up to the parties. They aren’t moving in those directions. I daresay they even prefer some of the very things you find wrong.
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Post faster, you dogs! We still have not reached AP’s quota!
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes. But how does it break the two party monoply on power?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Yeah, there is alway a reason why people get screwed… Political games to take the decisions from the people and put it in the hands of the party leaders.
That’s why they don’t get any of my money anymore. If everyone would quit sending them money, we might be able to reclaim some of the power that the Founding Fathers gave us.
LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Agreed. I saw some good solutions to the primary system here on HA a few months ago, one of the best of them had a weighted delegates division over a three-week period. But April 15th is an excellent idea too, if it’s do-able.
Like LegendHasIt, by the time my state primary happened – after super Tuesday – the choices were very limited.
sloopy on June 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM
No worries this year on that score. I’m saving mine for heating oil. No sh*t.
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 6:24 PM
LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I stopped donating long ago, and changed my status to Independent so they’d stop hounding me for money as well.
bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 6:26 PM
The Mexican or Pro-illegal immigration Lobby, whatever it’s called must be damn Powerful~
bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Jet Jerk
Why not tell me when you have ever not lied? How about your endless dishonesty on the border?
“Look, I do too support securing the border! How dare anyone suggest that I do not!
“It’s just that I think securing the border is a stupid idea, a waste of time, and would have a devastating effect on our country.”
“But I do indeed strongly support border secuity!”
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM
It’s is, in principle, the second round for the citizens by proxy. That’s why it’s the House and not the Senate. But such a move or alteration moves us toward direct democracy, which is a thing to be avoided.
What we are postulating is a corrective for the stranglehold of two parties system, right? But I don’t even that is correct, mostly members of parties are upset becuase they don’t have engagement in the process, so their parties nominee is determined for them. That was the initial comment, I think by JB, that you can just move. The way our system is right now needs changing within the primary system, we don’t need an alteration for the general or to the Constitution to resolve these problems. We just need better primary systems to engage more voters. I think we are seeing states take action on this such as Michigan and Florida, etc. I hope we see more of that in the future to break the pattern we are in now.
LegendHasIt says it here “The easiest fix to making the two party stranglehold a little more tolerable would be just to revise the primary system. Doesn’t require any Amendments or legislative action.” I wholly agree.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM
You people cry about the poor quality of debate here, but you have only yourselves to blame. Sort of like the problems with the country.
You won’t even discuss the issues, let alone take any action.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I once had a patient very similar to the one you are describing. He was a fellow doctor in fact. His name was Doctor Henry L. Jekyll. I never was able to help him much I’m afraid.
Sigy on June 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I’ll have to leave it to someone else to respond substantively.
I don’t know what the reasonable likelihood of the primary system being improved is.
I don’t know if primary reforms increases the likelihood of viable 3rd party nominees.
I don’t know if a second Pres. round is a radical turn towards direct democracy.
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 6:38 PM
How does that “make the the two party stranglehold a little more tolerable”? How does it do anything about the two party stranglehold?
That’s not correct. The problem is that both the two big parties are in the hands of the same people and follow the same policies. AT the same time, most people are scared to vote for a third party in case “the others guys get into power”. Stupid, but thats how they think. And it’s how they are strongly encouraged to think by both the Reps and the Dems.
The only way out is to make it feasible for people to vote for their hopes instead of against their fears. What I suggested would do that.
“Politics, as a practise, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” – Henry Brooks Adams
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM
So just when is Juan “Z-Visa” McCain and The Dali Bama going to discuss reparations to the millions of American workers who have been displaced over the past 30 years due to unjustified outsourcing and The Illegal Alien Crisis?
DfDeportation on June 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Perhaps if you left off the name calling and belitting of those who do engage with you, you might get a little more action..
just saying…
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I have not really understood the back and forth between you and Spirit. If you’re discussing my idea, it’s not direct democracy. It’s no more “direct democracy” than the current setup.
There would be no second round of voting. Everything would be taken care of after the first and only round.
Spirit
I’d love to see you make arguments to back that up, rather than simply asserting what you think. You seem determined to keep the two party system going. Any reason why?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Texas Gal
Either say something or go away and stop pissing on people who are saying something. I don’t give a rats ass for your opinions.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:48 PM
And who might they be? You?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I don’t think it’s anymore direct democracy than we currently have. Also, I didn’t mean an actual second vote. I meant a second (and third, etc.), tabulation of the vote, as you suggested.
JiangxiDad on June 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I was worried about McCain for awhile myself but now that he is meeting with Son of Graham we can rest easy.
Anybody voting for McCain this year should wear a “kick me” sign on their back.
moughon on June 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Let me answer with a statement and then a question, if you will.
Statement: I am suggesting you are already seeing movement for primary reform by what some of the states have done this cycle, Florida and Michigan for example. There is already movement. Now the question is what will the parties respond with in the next 4 years.
Question: What exactly is your hope with a viable 3rd party? To prevent majorities?
There are some powerful forces working against a 3rd party, but the real reason that the two party system has entrenched itself is because the average person can be “comfortable” with one of them. Would you rather have a 3rd party or a Republican party that followed it’s platform?
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM
I don’t know how old you are, but I can safely say you are wise beyond your years. :)
Regardless,
Not so. Setting the boundaries for debate.
Who are these “same people”? I don’t even know how to answer the rest without a frame of reference.
I don’t care if we have 2 parties or 40 parties, frankly. If one of the 2 parties represented me, that would be just smashing. I just don’t want to go changing the founding document because you think “these people” control the whole process.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Yes, you have made it perfectly clear that you only GIVE A RATS ASS FOR THE OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH YOU!
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM
I’m old enough to have been there .. done that… got numerous t-shirts!
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Well thats it, fuck McCain because he is a liar. The people on “our side” that pushed this moron on us should be purged and humiliated. I am not voting and I don’t care if Obama wins or not. It is clear that Americans must learn the hard way about what Jimmy Carter policies do for you. There isn’t a lick of difference between McCain and Obama really, I would rather have a lib wreck the country than reward a RINO and do more damage to the Republican brand.
echosyst on June 29, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Did I say that it would do anything about the two party stranglehold? NO. I said it would be the easiest way for all the members of the two major parties to be able to have their chance to select their favorite candidate.
Making a viable third party is a long range, difficult task; The short attention span and basic laziness of the electorate makes it about an impossible task, barring a huge national tragedy spurring an immediate change.
My suggestion won’t help that a bit. But it is something that could be done in one day … if the party leaders had any courage or honesty.
But cheer up. As I told you a day or two ago, If McCain gets elected, a viable third party will have the best chance of arising in the last 100 years… Unfortunately, it will have to arise from the ashes of a once great nation… But thats the price we have to pay for the shortsightedness of the GOP.
LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I don’t think that is the case. You would still have the same problem, peole voting for a candidate because they want to stop a worse one, not because he is their favorite. I voted for Romney. He was not my first choice, but I had to do it to try to stop McAmnesty.
My suggestion could be done in a day, at the party primary level. All right, maybe a a little longer. But it’s not that hard a change to make. Making the change at the state level would be a lot harder. But when did Americans get afraid of things which are hard?
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:10 PM
No, I have made it perfectly clear that I don’t give a rats ass for the sort of silly twits who sit on the sidelines and shoot spitballs at the people trying to have a discussion. That is you, in case it’s still unclear to you.
Of course you could always, you know, say something about the topics under discussion. If you are capable.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Why not tell me when you have ever not lied? How about your endless dishonesty on the border?
“Look, I do too support securing the border! How dare anyone suggest that I do not!
“It’s just that I think securing the border is a stupid idea, a waste of time, and would have a devastating effect on our country.”
“But I do indeed strongly support border secuity!”
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Insult? Check.
Fabricated quotes? Check.
No answer to the qustion? Check.
That’s flenser.
JetBoy on June 29, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Probably right around Mid-August, 1969, Maybe a little earlier.
LegendHasIt on June 29, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Spirit
Ah. I’d forgotten that you saw yourself as the moderator, the one whose role it is to “set boundaries for debate”.
Well, do one of the two parties represent you? Or is that question also ouside the “boundaries for debate”?
If not, do you have any inkling as to what to do about it? Again, only answer if it’s within the “boundaries for debate”.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Keep lying, Jet Jerk.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:19 PM
CHECK!
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM
For you, that probably passes for deep thought.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Sorry JxD, passed over that. If you wanted an answer…
In brief, here’s why. When you vote, what you are really doing is casting your vote for an elector to vote on behalf of the state. Your elector has one vote, he doesn’t have the opportunity to say ‘I’m 65% for Cand1, 25% for Cand2, etc”. He has one vote.
So when you add a graded system, ie no longer one citizen, one vote, you are effectively removing the elector. (Which alone removes move you closer to dd). Once you do that, there is no reason to even be represented at the state level. Meaning, if my state breaks it’s vote down by proportion, then my state votes, essentially not as a state, but as a pool of voters to get mixed in with all other voters. That’s bad news for small states and flyover country.
What flenser suggest would be viable, it’s creative I think, for a primary within the party. But it doesn’t have place in a general. And in a primary, it not on his point of a third (+) party. But it’s an interesting idea for within a party. The inevitable result though of course would be more convention decisions because it would augment the proportionality issues the dems had this last cycle with their primary.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Hell no it’s not. You shoot spitballs at everyone who doesn’t agree with you and everyone sees it but you.
Last time I checked we have a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green and any other party that any group wants to form. You’re problem is that most Americans fall within the Republican or Democratic Parties as the major parties within our system. My suggestion to you is to go ahead and form your own party and solicit Americans to join.
Go for it!
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM
News flash. Everytime you get in a conversation with someone (and I assume when you discuss the issue with me you want a conversation) you set parameters for the conversation. Ie a conversation about Iraq isn’t fruitful if one party is saying ‘hey, let’s nuke it’ every post.
So, maybe you can take another look at that and realize it means that conversation about Constitutional changes is the “nuke” option when the problem we are discussing isn’t even Constitutionally oriented, it’s party/primary oriented.
And have a drink, take the edge off will ya’.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM
And have a drink, take the edge off will ya’.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Wow, I almost typed this and you beat me to it.
lol, I second that emotion. Do have a drink, Flens, or something. c h i l l
bridgetown on June 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM
See this immaturity on your part is why I don’t engage with you. I’ll guess that is why others don’t engage with you also.
Why is it that you have to result to insulting Jetboy rather than discussing the issues that you say you bid others to discuss?
It leaves the impression that Jetboy has the upper hand with you and you can not discuss issues with him on an even field… alas you result to personal insults.
Texas Gal on June 29, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Sure. Party machine runs on $. Party doesn’t represent you? Don’t contribute. Party either shifts position or fades. Market at work.
Party doesn’t shift your way? Form another party. Or form a group that forces the party to address your concerns. As social cons did, just for ex.
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM
:)
Spirit of 1776 on June 29, 2008 at 7:34 PM
This is not an accurate discussion of that I’m proposing. Or even a discussion of it at all. You don’t have to remove any elector. And there are no electors involved in the vast majority of elections.
Again, I have no idea what you are discussing, but it’s not anything I proposed. There is no “proportionality” involved.
flenser on June 29, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Dogs wag tails.
Dogs are worthless but adorable.
Dogs are posting just to throw it over 500.
flenser may insult dogs all day.
Entelechy on June 29, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »