Thread: How to vote when both parties support amnesty

Easy answer.

You will have to vote on a case by case basis and not based on Party affiliation or Party appeal.

Our ALIPAC national voter guide will help you with that when complete.

W

nn

I don't know who you are referring to when you say we.
But me and my associates have plenty of energy and we use our time strategically. We do the spectrum of activism from demos and protests, to attending meetings and political events to getting on the air and getting the message out, to handing out printed material. etc.etc. We have yet to find a pro illegal alien elected official that is "happy" when he holds a press conference or other event and we show up with his picture in a toilet seat.

We can get out whatever message we want because we are out there anyway and the message right now is the price of amnesty is to VOTE against every R on the ballot on election day if amnesty becomes law and that message is being well received. Call it what you will.

OK, Dxd, you and I are always going to disagree on this.

I personally think that our voting, t hinking, supporting, in terms of a party is what got us in the fix we find ourselves.

If we had excercised our votes based on the best person and not a party, the two parties would not have a strangehold on the political process in this country. We might then have a real choice.

But I grasp you are angry with the Republicans - as I am.

What I can't grasp is that you believe giving all the power to the Democrats will help in this situation. They had the power for 8 years and did nothing - so why should they suddenly be 'rewarded'?

Personally, I don't want either party in the majority -I would like to see a third party or some other alternative.

But let's look at the people on a case by case basis - not once again pull the lever for a straight party vote - that is suicidal.

I don't have a really good answer - but party politics as usual just doesn't seem to be it - we've tried that in this country fo decades. They keep getting stronger and the country and its people keep getting weaker.

ALIPAC,
RE:You will have to vote on a case by case basis and not based on Party affiliation or Party appeal

That makes good sense on the surface and seems fair and I agree that sometimes that is deinitely the way to proceed. But not this time and here is why. (Hint:Remember how bush got 245i through the House in 2002)
I am not going to go into the 2000 redistricting strategy or how many seats in the house are actually in play for now. That will be brought into the equation later. For now I just want to prove my point at the simplest level.

We know that Bush wants amnesty and the house is considered to be the biggest obstacle. We also know the bush and the republicans want to keep their majority. So if we are to vote on a case by case basis, how can bush get amnesty without losing seats?? Simple, use mostly democrats. He needs 218 votes. Lets say he gets 150D and 68R.
Employing the strategy of voting on a case by case basis, bush just tricked the voters into voting against 150D, and only 68R. Not only will he have duped the voters into accepting amnesty without losing R seats he may GAIN R seats........big big dupe So we need a move strong enough to counter this as to make amnesty expensive for the R party and cost them the majority instead of preserving or adding to the R majority.


This we can entertain at a later time if necessary:
There is more to it of course, like how many seats out of the 435 are actually in play.(and which ones) Depending who you talk to the numbers range from 20-40. Easily enough to change the majority. There is of course the possibility of a ground swell similar to 1994. With the R redistricting strategy of 2000, base turnout voting R is CRITICAL to their success. In 2000 the dems employed a poor re-districting strategy making safe seats safer where as the R gambled a bit and went for close wins based on reliable conservatibe base turnout voting R. Without that base turnout voting R, the R's are in trouble. A small percentage of projected base withdrawn can be decisive.

So everyone, in the closely divided electorate that we are in EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

It is inappropriate for a multi-issuer to ask others to get involved because how do you know they will not sell out this issue for other issues??

Who said anything about selling out anything? The question was what to do if there are NO candidates who would fight illegal immigration. How is that selling out? We have to be realistic about this and plan ahead in the event that the people who ultimately get the nod aren't the people we would personally choose.

You can't vote for people who aren't on the ballot and I will NEVER give up my right to make a choice.

Obviously the people who are on this board are very concerned about illegal immigration and open borders.

So what are you going to do, DXD, if there is a ticket presented to you where ALL the candidates want open borders and are pro-amnesty?

JuniusJnr,
RE:So what are you going to do, DXD, if there is a ticket presented to you where ALL the candidates want open borders and are pro-amnesty?


An excellent question Junius. Thank you for asking it.

The answer is:
If amnesty becomes law I will vote against the candidates that are in the majority party since amnesty could not pass if the majority did not want it to pass. In other words if amnesty passes I will vote against every R.

If amnesty does not pass I will re-evaluate. But that is ONLY after amnesty is off the table.

We have to stick to the agenda here and not get side-tracked. We need to vote against anyone that supports amnesty. There are both democrats and republicans that want amnesty. My vote is being cast for those that do not support amnesty and want to secure our borders. I don't care what party they represent.

fair enough, DXD.

If amnesty passes, I will probably go into apoplectic shock and I won't be capable of voting if I'm alive after I have a stroke! But if amnesty passes, I will definitely start looking at who voted which way and make sure that I vote against the ones who wanted it.

See, I have one fence sitting Senator in the race and a Democratic Congressman running basically unopposed. What then? The other senator wants amnesty but pretends he doesn't because that makes the voters mad. He won't be on the ballot until 2008, though.

If the incumbent senator falls off the fence onto the American side, is she worthy of my vote after she did nothing for all this time? I'm not so sure. Not only has she ignored the border, ignored the illegal aliens, and ignored the voters who put her there, part of the time she chickened out and didn't vote at all because she is too afraid people will get mad at her. Our sherriff is the most awesome guy of them all when it comes to blocking the progress of the illegals and I would vote for him no matter what.

I agree that with the Reps, every vote counts. I'm not so sure about the senators. I think some of those seats are bought and paid for. i.e. Ted Kennedy.

But thanks for spelling out what you intend to do.

sawdust,

That makes good sense on the surface and seems fair and I agree that sometimes that is deinitely the way to proceed. But not this time and here is why. (Hint:Remember how bush got 245i through the House in 2002)
I am not going to go into the 2000 redistricting strategy or how many seats in the house are actually in play for now. That will be brought into the equation later. For now I just want to prove my point at the simplest level.

We know that Bush wants amnesty and the house is considered to be the biggest obstacle. We also know the bush and the republicans want to keep their majority. So if we are to vote on a case by case basis, how can bush get amnesty without losing seats?? Simple, use mostly democrats. He needs 218 votes. Lets say he gets 150D and 68R.
Employing the strategy of voting on a case by case basis, bush just tricked the voters into voting against 150D, and only 68R. Not only will he have duped the voters into accepting amnesty without losing R seats he may GAIN R seats........big big dupe So we need a move strong enough to counter this as to make amnesty expensive for the R party and cost them the majority instead of preserving or adding to the R majority.

Junius.
RE:If amnesty passes, I will probably go into apoplectic shock

Na don't do that. If amnesty passes we can look to federal court to see if amnesty is Constitutional. I have already spoke with people at Judicial Watch about a Constitutional challenge if amnesty passes. They said they would have to read the actual law that passed, but the point is that any law can be challenged for Constitutionality. So this might end up in the Supreme Court. So if amnesty passes we payback R on election day and shift our efforts to the Judicial Branch to see if amnesty is Constitutional.