Thread: Romney Camp Distances Itself from Congressman's Hardline Immigration Views

Originally Posted by MW

Did I hear you right, did you actually say we shouldn't vote? Wow, I can't believe you see both Romney and Obama as equals on the illegal immigration issue ....... just amazing! Well, at least I now know your intentions ..... it's not to vote for someone, it's not to vote at all. I have to assume that's what you mean since you failed to list a candidate or party of choice.

Personally, after following your posts for a few weeks, I think your hate for Romney goes much further than illegal immigration. Actually, I may even go as far as to suggest your dislike for him has a lot to do with his position on other social issues such as his refusal to support gay marriage and the fact that has a strong religious faith, which you self-admittingly don't have. I could be wrong but that is my perception. If I'm wrong, I'll apoligize in advance, but if I'm not, you need to stop hiding behind illegal immigration and admit it's not all that is motivating your constant and consistent attacks on Romney. How about dedicating a little more of that enthusiasm toward Obama ....... after all he is supposedly leading in the polls.

And am I understanding you correctly that even though Romney's campaign is essentially now supporting Obama's deferred action for illegal children, that you WILL vote for him??? So are you here to fight illegal immigration or are you here simply to advocate for the defeat of the other side at all costs even if your candidate were to support full on amnesty. That right there is a greater revelation than anything you've accused me of. I do hope you're alone in this though because this sort of thinking is why we're in the mess we're in right now.

And polls??? Ha. The same polls that showing voter enthusiasm at record lows for both candidates (HINT HINT)? Please don't tell me you're now thinking of switching sides on me here.

It's not that black and white, googler. I hate the current choices we have, but they are all we have.

Sorry, but the alternative from Romney, that is currently squatting in the White House is almost unbearable to most of us. Back in 2008 it was a lot easier to vote for a third party and I was glad to do so once I realized the media had elected him long before November 2008. However, hindsight is 20/20 and Barakula has proven to be every bit as bad if not worse than we thought. In fact, he a total nightmare. Another 4 years and it will no holds barred with that turd. He will have nothing to lose and frankly I do NOT understand why you are not seeing the forest for the trees on this. Don't throw out the good for the perfect. Romney isn't perfect by any means - on the other hand, he doesn't scare the crap out of me like another 4 years of Obama does either. Obama does what Obama wants. We have a better chance of Romney listening to us as opposed to the deaf ear we get from Ass N Ears.

Originally Posted by googler

And am I understanding you correctly that even though Romney's campaign is essentially now supporting Obama's deferred action for illegal children, that you WILL vote for him??? So are you here to fight illegal immigration or are you here simply to advocate for the defeat of the other side at all costs even if your candidate were to support full on amnesty. That right there is a greater revelation than anything you've accused me of. I do hope you're alone in this though because this sort of thinking is why we're in the mess we're in right now.

And polls??? Ha. The same polls that showing voter enthusiasm at record lows for both candidates (HINT HINT)? Please don't tell me you're now thinking of switching sides on me here.

Whoa, hold the bus, please direct me to the location you found were Romney's campaign is supporting Obama's deferred action for illegal alien! Oh, and no, I don't think I'm alone in supporting Romney over Obama. FYI: As you well know, Romney does not support amnesty for illegal aliens. Just because you say it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

It's not that black and white, googler. I hate the current choices we have, but they are all we have.

Sorry, but the alternative from Romney, that is currently squatting in the White House is almost unbearable to most of us. Back in 2008 it was a lot easier to vote for a third party and I was glad to do so once I realized the media had elected him long before November 2008. However, hindsight is 20/20 and Barakula has proven to be every bit as bad if not worse than we thought. In fact, he a total nightmare. Another 4 years and it will no holds barred with that turd. He will have nothing to lose and frankly I do NOT understand why you are not seeing the forest for the trees on this. Don't throw out the good for the perfect. Romney isn't perfect by any means - on the other hand, he doesn't scare the crap out of me like another 4 years of Obama does either. Obama does what Obama wants. We have a better chance of Romney listening to us as opposed to the deaf ear we get from Ass N Ears.

I'm with you SicNTiredinSoCal. The thought of another four years of Obama is totally unbearable to me! Looking at what he has done and attempted to do in four years makes another term unfathomable. Sorry but in mind this is one time we must vote for the 'lesser of two evils.'

Originally Posted by MW

I'm with you SicNTiredinSoCal. The thought of another four years of Obama is totally unbearable to me! Looking at what he has done and attempted to do in four years makes another term unfathomable. Sorry but in mind this is one time we must vote for the 'lesser of two evils.'

I hate to admit it - but you are right about the lesser of two evils thing. I really HATE how we are put in this position every FOUR years. However I'm old enough to understand that the "perfect candidate" may come along, but TPTB will never allow that person to be elected. Plus there will never be a perfect candidate that would please everyone all the time. That's a fantasy and we need to keep a cool head to stay in reality. Our survival depends on it.

Originally Posted by MW

Whoa, hold the bus, please direct me to the location you found were Romney's campaign is supporting Obama's deferred action for illegal alien! Oh, and no, I don't think I'm alone in supporting Romney over Obama. FYI: As you well know, Romney does not support amnesty for illegal aliens. Just because you say it repeatedly doesn't make it so.

Yes hold the bus and lets dissect these comments made by an adviser of Romney's campaign for everyone to see:

When it comes to immigration, Governor Romney has been clear that he will work with leaders of both parties to reach a long-term solution for the broken immigration system that has failed so many – from the children of illegal immigrants who are here through no fault of their own to those patiently waiting in line to come to America legally.

As with any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, Governor Romney does not agree with everyone on every issue (referring to Steve King's stance on illegal immigration)

Surprisingly these are the same exact words (the bolded) that Romney used in an interview back when he was asked about Obama's deferred action. As you can see he is lumping the children in with those who come to America the right way. So if we're to parse these statements carefully, Romney will work with BOTH Democrats, who we know will not agree to anything short of rewarding illegals, and Republicans, who we know have no backbone, to come up with a "civil" solution for both these groups. It was implied Romney does not agree with Steve King's stance on what to do with illegal children. So I ask you, how am I reading these statements by Romney's campaign incorrectly?

Originally Posted by googler

Yes hold the bus and lets dissect these comments made by an adviser of Romney's campaign for everyone to see:





Surprisingly these are the same exact words (the bolded) that Romney used in an interview back when he was asked about Obama's deferred action. As you can see he is lumping the children in with those who come to America the right way. So if we're to parse these statements carefully, Romney will work with BOTH Democrats, who we know will not agree to anything short of rewarding illegals, and Republicans, who we know have no backbone, to come up with a "civil" solution for both these groups. It was implied Romney does not agree with Steve King's stance on what to do with illegal children. So I ask you, how am I reading these statements by Romney's campaign incorrectly?

You interpret that as Romney will support amnesty for illegal aliens? Wow, I'm going to give up trying to figure you out. Nowhere does any of the information you provided, bolded or not, supports your speculation that Romney will support amnesty for illegal aliens. As for any implication that Romney doesn't support King on what to do with illegal children - none was implied. Can you provide a link where Romney directly said he doesn't support King on that specific issue .... or any issue for that matter? Very few people agree with each other 100% of the time and in this specific case nothing was mentioned about King's position on illegal immigrant children.

I'm not going to comment on whether you are reading the statements correctly because I don't want to give the pretense that I'm knowledgeable regarding your comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by MW

You interpret that as Romney will support amnesty for illegal aliens? Wow, I'm going to give up trying to figure you out. Nowhere does any of the information you provided, bolded or not, supports your speculation that Romney will support amnesty for illegal aliens. As for any implication that Romney doesn't support King on what to do with illegal children - none was implied. Can you provide a link where Romney directly said he doesn't support King on that specific issue .... or any issue for that matter? Very few people agree with each other 100% of the time and in this specific case nothing was mentioned about King's position on illegal immigrant children.

I'm not going to comment on whether you are reading the statements correctly because I don't want to give the pretense that I'm knowledgeable regarding your comprehension skills.

Did you not read the very first couple of sentences in the article? Are you being purposely obtuse or what? Here, the article helps you out in the very first sentence.

"The Romney campaign attempted to put distance on Wednesday between the Republican presidential candidate’s approach to immigration and that of Rep. Steve King"

"As with any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, Governor Romney does not agree with everyone on every issue,” said a campaign statement, attributed to Sharon J. Castillo, advisor for the Romney campaign. The statement noted that “As president, Mitt Romney will deal with this issue in a civil and resolute manner.”

Governor Romney does not agree with everyone on every issue
Gee what issue could he possibly be referring to in this context I wonder??? OH I don't know, immigration perhaps? The entire article is about immigration and Romney's stance on it.

Now, add to the mix an implied endorsement by past-Pres. of Mexico, Vincente Fox. Wow, that comes close to saying that he likes him like he likes GWB.

I still favor non-partisan elections, at least for congress. It makes elections more of a local issue determined by local voters without implied party leanings or Party pressure.

Numbers USA is quite reliable on the candidates with regard to immigration.

Romney's at a B- right now, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Barky's at a predictable F- and that joke Gary Johnson is an abysmal F.

Tell me who is the best running candidate on immigration as things stand right now.

Romney scores an "excellent" on oppose amnesty/legalization, secure the border, mandating e-verify and supporting local law enforcement.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/a...n-stances.html