Thread: How to vote when both parties support amnesty

moosetracks,
RE:I don't see where voting against all Republicans, solves anything,

I didn't say vote against all republicans, I said IF AMNESTY PASSES vote against all republicans in an attempt to cost them the majority and show them that there is a price to be paid. A stand must be taken!! If you support the problem you provide no incentive for change.

If amnesty passes I will vote against every R on the ballot.

OK, dxd, if I understand your latest post, you would want to vote against the Republicans to show them they blew it!? Blew it if amnesty passes. What about the Democrats, you'd give them a pass? And you'd vote for a third party? Seems all that did when Perot ran was give Clinton the presidency and Clinton (a Democrat) didn't stop the illegals, either. Seems more practical to me (and please don't accuse me again of trying to tell you what to do or how to do it) that working within the Republican party is the surest way to end illegal immigration. Remember, the Republican House voted for bill 4437.

KickEmOut,


RE:Remember, the Republican House voted for bill 4437.

So what. They all know how to play in the Broadway Show. The point they want you to overlook is:If Bush refuses to enforce existing laws, what makes you think he will enforce new and unneceaasry laws??
NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

So the HR 4437 scam is nothing more than a potential vehicle for amnesty. If HR 4437 passes as is Bush won't enforce it anyway. If it passes with amnesty bush will administer the amnesty and do no enforcement.
And if nothing passes at all some will say just what you did.
"Remember, the Republican House voted for bill 4437."

Dxd, I'm still confused about your proposal. Dump all Republicans and not the Democrats? Or dump just Bush?

I do agree with you on one point: they don't enforce the laws already on the books. And that is precisely why I want no amnesty and no guest worker plan. I want the illegals OUT OF HERE. And I don't want any more from anywhere to get in. But I really don't think a third party will be elected in any significant numbers and I don't think giving the Democrats back the House, Senate and Presidency will improve things. In fact, I think things would be even worse, not only with illegal immigration but many, many other things as well.

PS House Bill 4437 has no clause for amnesty as far as I know. But I admit I haven't read the whole bill.

RE: I don't think giving the Democrats back the House, Senate and Presidency will improve things.

??????
I am talking about 2006. The White House will stay R.

??

No easy answers, but I think dump Bush and any Republican Senators or Representatives that support his way of thinking. Also, I see no harm in supporting any Democratic Senator or Rep. that truly votes for tough immigration laws. I am not against a third party, but that will for sure take votes away from the Republicans...not the Democrats.

It is really hard to impeach a President, but it is possible that Bush's support numbers can get so low that he cannot effectively govern. My opinion, He abandoned the American people so he deserves to be abandoned by them.

AMNESTY would not be a good idea

First, I agree...the party in the majority needs to pay the price for this if Amnesty is granted.

As for the one poster who states the Democrats want to push through ugly legislation, I'm curious what they think the Republicans have been doing to America and the middle class.

1. We are in a WRONG WAR, and at this point, we have to stay the course, but that does not change the FACT that Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and others lied to us in putting our troops in harms way.

2. It is Bush and the Republicans that want to STEAL AWAY our Social Security. I'm fifty years old, and the Republican fix for Social Security would see me lose over 40 percent of what I am supposed to be promised when I reach the age of retirement.

3. BEEN TO THE PUMP LATELY? I paid 3.39 a gallon today for gas, over $34.00 to fill up a 10.5 gallon gas tank.

4. Have we all forgotten the NSA spy scandal, and a President who has broken our laws to WRONGFULLY SPY on us? What about the FBI now keeping tabs on those of us who show up at protest, while illegal aliens can protest with impunity.

5. Middle class wages are DOWN under the Republican administration, we are NOT BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE.

I could go on, but how much longer can we leave a party in power who cares FAR MORE for the RICH AND ELITE than they do for average hard working Americans? Rich people can still declare bankrupcy with no effects on their rights, but the supposed bankrupcy reforms only made it harder on those in the lower and middle class, those without major medical coverage has grown under Bush by over 7 million.

Sorry, but Amnesty or not, it is TIME FOR A CHANGE in Washington, DC.

Pinto Bean

dxd I realize you're talking about 2006. And this is why I suggest looking at the big picture. Why punish the House Republicans (who passed a tough bill on illegal immigration, albeit unnecessary if our current laws would be enforced) when it is the Senate who won't deal with the problem?
And only 1/3 of the whole Senate will come up for election this year. So basically the Senate won't change anyhow, no matter how many Republicans may lose and no matter how many 3rd party candidates might be elected. (Although I still doubt any really significant number of 3rd party candidates would be elected anyhow). And the way to change the White House thinking (in my opinion, again not trying to tell you what to do, etc) is by sending a message to the President == and the quickest message is via emails, letters, phone calls, protests, demanding he abide by his oath of office to defend our country from enemies within and outside our borders.

I guess the bottom line is: I don't think your plan will work. It is so very hard to change the status quo. That's why I think working with what we've got is the most direct and efficient way to effect change.

But I do admire your emotional enthusiasm.

KickEmOut and DXD, I intend to to look at all the candidates and go down the list of things most important to me. If all are pro-illegal, then I will go down MY list and vote for the one who agrees with MORE of the things that are important to me.

Our governors in 2006 aren't talking about the border and this is the state with the biggest border of them all with Mexico. Needless to say, I think they are all purposely being deceptive to get the votes! We have three rogues instead of two the way I see it but the newest of the 3 seems to be willing to listen to the voters and that may be our only hope. The guy in there is a Republican and the Independent running against him seems to think she can fix the education system yet she ignores the border issue and the border is a major part of the problem with our education system. The guy who looks like a kook may be our only hope! And that is very sad.

I agree with KickEmOut that the Democrats have done a whole lot of damage over the years and every time they get in office they tax us off the map but don't tell us where they spent our money. But the Republicans have done more damage in the last five years than the Democrats have done in my entire lifetime and I'm a baby boomer! So there aren't many Republicans that I'll be voting for. My congressman is a democrat running unopposed but for a guy who is virtually unknown and that guy has said he thinks this city is just fine and dandy even though 51% of the population of this country is deemed to be illegal aliens! He has a screw or two loose, too!

Federally, I don't want EITHER major party in the drivers' seat, ever again. I will vote for as many third party and independent people as seem reasonable to me. Obviously, I'm not going to vote for a communist or someone I know is a KKK or La Raza member because I dont' want any of those people running this country--even though some have already slipped into positions of power calling themselves D or R and have been in power for many years.

But I'm not going to get talked out of voting for decent 3rd party candidates or independents. I believe that was the way this country was originally meant to be run-- by decent people whose aim was for the good of the country. There has been only ONE president within my lifetime who took the job out of patriotism when the country needed a leader. The rest have all been power-mongers with their own agenda, to a man.

The important thing is that NONE of us sit back on election day and refuse to vote. Refusing to vote this time and in 2008 is going to be a bigger disaster than it was in 2004 the way I see it. "I can't do anything about it," and "My vote doesn't mean anything" are pretty stupid excuses to sit home on election day if you ask me.

In 2004, only 51% of the eligible voters in this country voted at all and that was UP from the number of eligible voters voting in 2000. That knowledge terrifies me!

You mentioned Perot. I think that if Perot had not been threatened, and I believe he was, he would have gone on to win the Presidency the second time he ran. BOTH major parties were afraid of him knowing that he was very popular among the people. Once again, I was stupid and let the propaganda makers talk me out of voting for him when he got back into the race and they made him look like some kind of a paranoid freak. I wasn't the only one who was swayed, naively thinking our government wouldn't lie to us.

Democrats or Republicans? Who did it? We will never know for sure but I have my suspicions. I think the globalist agenda was the reason for their plot against Perot. I will never sit back and be swayed from what I believe is right again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Yes, I'm furious with the Republicans. And yes, I was furious with the Democrats long before -- probably 20 years before-- I became furious with the Republicans. But you are right-- there are other issues to consider if both candidates are pro-illegal and that is where it is going to come down to one person against the other based on merits. Smear campaigns (from BOTH sides) like the last two shouldn't be allowed to cut it again. voters should insist on straight answers and keep our eyes on the tally.