US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2



5 of the 19 violated federal immigration laws. They were illegal aliens, and if the police had known that when 4 of them were stopped for speeding, they could have been arrested.

3 of them were illegal. 8 were registered voters.

[BVS]

Originally posted by 2861U2

They were illegal aliens, and if the police had known that when 4 of them were stopped for speeding, they could have been arrested.

How would they have known? Did they not check IDs.

[2861U2]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


How would they have known? Did they not check IDs.

From ABC News:

On April 1, 2001, Hazmi was stopped for speeding in Oklahoma while traveling cross country with Hanjour. Had the officer asked Hazmi a few basic questions or asked to see Hazmi’s visa, he might have discovered that Hazmi was in violation of U.S. immigration law.

The Maryland trooper did not know about Ziad Jarrah’s immigration violations. Had the officer asked a few questions or simply made a phone call to the federal government’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which operates around the clock from Williston, Vermont, he could have arrested Jarrah. Instead, the trooper issued Jarrah a $270 speeding ticket and let him go. The ticket would be found in the car’s glove compartment at Newark Airport two days later, left behind when Jarrah boarded Flight 93.

[BonosSaint]

What would the response been from the Immigration Department, particularly back then? Likely," What do you want us to do about it? It's a traffic violation." He likely would not have been deported and would have been out on the street shortly thereafter anyway.

[U2democrat]

Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

Now why isn't he higher in the polls?

[BVS]

But nothing would be different if there were a wall(or whatever your approach). For they didn't immigrate here illegally, they were in violation of immigration law, completely different. Plus cops still aren't going to check all the time, 99% of the time it would be a waste.

So this example really has nothing to do with "safer borders".

[martha]

Originally posted by Irvine511
would there be that much of an issue if there were all these Norwegians streaming across the border?

Just don't go retroactively on this.

[AngelofHarlem01]

Originally posted by U2democrat
Ooooooooh wow Gravel's done it again.

Now why isn't he higher in the polls?

That's awesome. I miss Gravel at the Democratic debates.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally posted by 2861U2
Because an incredible majority of people here illegally came via the south. If hypothetically millions of people enter here illegally via the east, then the problem is equally as serious, and 9/11 was a testament to this.

So should we build fences around the entire U.S.?

Not to mention, even if we did put a fence between Mexico and the U.S., it wouldn't work for the simple fact that we have these bodies of water called the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf Of Mexico on either side. So if people wanted to come to the U.S., they can just go to the coasts, grab a boat, and sail over. And besides, I just don't think a fence is the way to solve things anyway. Kinda defeats the purpose of America being seen as a welcoming, open country. The immigration problems need to start being resolved from within, we need to get to the root of things and figure out why people come over illegally to begin with.

As for the soldiers thing...*Sigh*. People are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they want, irrational as I think they may be. But when they want to try and put beliefs that promote discrimination into law...sorry, that's where I draw the line. After listening to the absolute gall that was the stuff Hunter and Romney spewed last night in response to that soldier, I just cannot understand how anybody could, would, want to support them. It was cruel, it was heartless, it made them look like true jerks. I just can't trust these people on anything-equal rights, safer borders, foreign policy decisions...anything.

Angela

[phillyfan26]

Was Huckabee calling homosexuality "attitudes" and "views?"

[Dreadsox]

Huck will be the nominee I think.

[deep]

I still think Giuliani has the best shot with the early primaries on Feb 5.

I think Huckabee will do better than Thompson. and Romney will make some decent showings in some primaries, but will not be able to capture the nomination

it is possible we could go in to the GOP convention with no candidate having the delegates to cinch the nomination






_______________________________
if I had a sig - this might be it

[phillyfan26]

Giuliani and Huckabee are the frontrunners now, with Romney and Paul a good distance back, and the other guys with no chance.

[deep]

Originally posted by Michelle Malkin
Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers ....
Jay Tea was one of several to complain, writing at the blog Wizbang: "Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy."

CNN's Feist said, conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.

During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise "like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office." A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his "baby" -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.

Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"?

McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.

It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing "Borat Hussein Obama" -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school.

So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by deep
So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?

Bingo.

And that women Malkin (sp?) misses the point. A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.

[BVS]

It was rigged, it was rigged






Conservatives = :crybaby: with this one.

[2861U2]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

[martha]

Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

Because he's no longer president?

I thought it was bullshit then, and I think it's bullshit now.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I wasn't as into politics then (or I was a bit young to really pay attention, depending on when it was), but I don't agree with that, either. My guess is Clinton was trying to cater to the Republicans with that, to help placate them so they wouldn't get as upset whenever he did something that would cater to the Democrats. I personally would've just said, "Screw it, I'm not getting involved in this", but I'm not president, so...*Shrugs*.

But yeah, if you do anything that shows discrimination towards gays, I think it's stupid no matter who you are.

Originally posted by phillyfan26
A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.

Exactly. I don't care what party you belong to, if you can't give a good response to a question, then that's your issue to deal with, and it makes me wonder why you're even in politics in the first place. I've had to listen to people complain for years that the media isn't getting tough on the candidates, that they're not asking the important questions, and yet when they finally do get tough, people complain about that. Same thing is happening with the Democrats. If they back down from a debate, they're called spineless, if they fight back, people complain that they're being bullies. What do you want, people?

the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good;

Psst...Michelle Malkin...the Republicans have done that, too. Both sides are guilty of this. And I think it's wrong either way, but politics is dirty and that sort of thing is going to happen.

Angela

[martha]

As far as I remember, the Don't Ask thing was a modernization of the policy of actively looking for and routing gays out of the service. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It was nearly a decade ago. We were all younger then. : old: