Thread: Mitt Romney Responds To Obama's New Immigration Policy

Romney's pragmatic view of illegal immigration comes from years of working to stop illegal immigration..

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

Romney's pragmatic view of illegal immigration comes from years of working to stop illegal immigration..

What do you mean by "pragmatic" are you suggesting that Romney supporting the Rubio plan is pragmatic? You are being very vague and your use of the word pragmatic sounds like our opposition's language. Do you contend that our enforcement only approach to illegal immigration is somehow not pragmatic and that Rubio and Romneys amnesty approach is pragmatic?

Clarify please.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

You are being very vague and your use of the word pragmatic sounds like our opposition's language.



W

Original post using the words pragmatic and pragmatism

Originally Posted by googler

Ah pragmatism. Leads to compromise. Was Reagan being pragmatic when he passed Amnesty? So if Romney were to, say, accept Obama's policy change, he's simply being pragmatic right? Of course, pragmatism also means the politician expects to get something in return or to strike some sort of balance that will make his side somewhat happy.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Clarify please.

I didn't know what that word meant, so I looked it up in the Dictionary, and that is how it was used in a sentence.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

What do you mean by "pragmatic" are you suggesting that Romney supporting the Rubio plan is pragmatic? You are being very vague and your use of the word pragmatic sounds like our opposition's language. Do you contend that our enforcement only approach to illegal immigration is somehow not pragmatic and that Rubio and Romneys amnesty approach is pragmatic?

Clarify please.

W

Personally, I haven't seen a Romney amnesty plan or heard of one. Furthermore, Rubio hasn't actually presented a plan yet, has he? All I've heard to date is talk from Rubio ...... not a plan in writing or in legislative form. It is possible I've missed it, but all I heard Romney say is that he would consider Rubio's plan. Has Romney actually said he is in 100% support of Rubio's Dream Act plan?

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

What do you mean by "pragmatic" are you suggesting that Romney supporting the Rubio plan is pragmatic? You are being very vague and your use of the word pragmatic sounds like our opposition's language. Do you contend that our enforcement only approach to illegal immigration is somehow not pragmatic and that Rubio and Romneys amnesty approach is pragmatic?

Clarify please.

W

Clarify what? He said a simple sentence and he used the word pragmatic. He used it because Googler used it first and he wanted to thro it in his face. I dont see any vagueness, and I thought the bitch slap you gave him about sounding like our oppositions language was wrong. Again, Googler said that word three times, and it didnt bother you when he did. Roofer spent a lot of time making us a pragmatic (practical) contact list and I dont think he should be treated like an idiot. Thats all.

Originally Posted by googler

Hope this will finally convince Romney supporters that he is no different from Obama and just as much a liar.


Romney's response:


“I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive order of course is just a short-term matter,” Romney said,echoing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).


“It could be reversed by subsequent presidents,” Romney said. “I would like to see legislation that deals with this issue. And I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he will consider this issue. He said this is an important matter. We have to find a long-term solution. But the president’s action makes reaching a long-term solution more difficult. If I’m president, we’ll do our very best to have that kind of long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of an act of their parents. Thank you.”

It convinces me of no such thing. Remember, this is an election year. Do you really expect a politician to come out and say what he's really thinking? While Romney doesn't need all the Hispanic votes, he certainly needs to be careful with his words so as not to dig himself into a hole he can't climb out of. I'm not denying that Romney is a politician, however, I'm convinced that he will be better on the immigration issue than Obama has been and will be. Look at Obama and Romney's past history on the issue and you too will see the importance of choosing the lesser of two evils. Would I like someone stronger on the issue ..... sure I would but it is what it is. Personally, I much rather take a chance on Romney than to keep heading down the same road with Obama.

Originally Posted by MW

It convinces me of no such thing. Remember, this is an election year. Do you really expect a politician to come out and say what he's really thinking? While Romney doesn't need all the Hispanic votes, he certainly needs to be careful with his words so as not to dig himself into a hole he can't climb out of. I'm not denying that Romney is a politician, however, I'm convinced that he will be better on the immigration issue than Obama has been and will be. Look at Obama and Romney's past history on the issue and you too will see the importance of choosing the lesser of two evils. Would I like someone stronger on the issue ..... sure I would but it is what it is. Personally, I much rather take a chance on Romney than to keep heading down the same road with Obama.

And here comes that old famous quote "lesser of two evils." I'm sorry MW, but I have to point out that that is fully, completely, and definitely what is wrong with the American voter. Willing to settle for less, then complaining about it when they get it. So, let's arise now and call for someone who is honest, says what they mean, and does what they promise when elected.


Political parties depend upon our accepting less, when they know that we want and desrve more. The framers showed great wisdom creating the Constitution, making government the responsibility of the American voter. It was attitudes like "lesser of two evils" that brought us to where we are today! Another was the attitude that my vote will not make a difference, so why vote.




Apathy of the voter like the two examples above is why we are in this mess. The voter has the resonsibility in a democracy. Responsibility to know who is running for office, the truth about what they represent, and carry the responsibility of the resulting action of the elected! It is known as American democracy, and for the last several decades the voter (myself and many others) have not shouldered that responbility responsibly! If you are willing to accpt the lesser of two evils, I will vote responsibly and not vote for either, because I'd rather vote for someone that I see as responsible in consideration of his duties than accept "lesser evil."

Elections are always about voting for the lesser of two evils. Human beings, i.e. voters and candidates, have differing opinions on things. It's the nature of human beings that no candidate will be anyone's perfect candidate. Politics requires pragmatism. Go ahead and vote for someone who has no chance of beating Nobama. That's exactly what Nobama wants.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Elections are always about voting for the lesser of two evils. Human beings, i.e. voters and candidates, have differing opinions on things. It's the nature of human beings that no candidate will be anyone's perfect candidate. Politics requires pragmatism. Go ahead and vote for someone who has no chance of beating Nobama. That's exactly what Nobama wants.

Well stated.