I agree ! With Obama,we know where he stands. With Romney,everything is speculation.As far as a third candidate goes,that ship has already sailed !!And let me reiterate,If Obama goes,so does Holder and Napolitano!!!!!
Printable View
In the coming weeks and months, Romney will have to clarify once and for all where he stands on illegal immigration. He cannot continue to wiggle himself out of the issue or it'll harm his campaign. If he says what we want to hear, I'll force myself to vote for him, otherwise, see ya later. On the other hand, it sounds to me like some are dead set in voting for him no matter what he says. Heck even declaring support for amnesty would not be enough and that is dangerous because if these people get the sense that they don't have to be strong on illegal immigration then what's the point? Defeating Obama is good and all, but what sort of message are we sending to these fools in the long run?
I agree. There are plenty of reasons to reject amnesty and if he can't do that at least, then I can't vote for him. I need some direct quotes about this whole illegals in the military thing before I reject him on that basis, it sounds like a bogus accusation. But it could cover for the problem of allowing non-citizens into the military, which is enough of a problem and needs to be shut down. His choice of a VP might be another reason I reject him.
That could be said about anyone. That's why it's important to review his previous history as a legislator. While serving as Gov. he vetoed a bill that would have given a tuition break to illegals, halted an attempt at giving illegals a driver's license, and attempted to make it legal for state police to question anyone suspected of being illegal which included asking them for their papers.
But he also passed this a little doozie known as RomneyCARE in which it allowed illegal aliens in the state of Mass. to receive some form of health benefits. If he was strong against illegal aliens he would have refused to sign this into law, never mind the fact that this was a horrendous piece of legislation to begin with.
And then you have him in past interviews giving his support to amnesty at the federal level. Only reason it didn't matter then is because he wasn't President of the United States when he said it right?
You want to look at his history? Well just look at his history as a flip-flopper. It throws everything he's done in the past out the window. That right there should give you pause as to what he truly intends to do once in office.
Just for the sake of facts .......... the Massachusetts health care law didn’t give anything new to illegal immigrants that they didn’t have before Gov. Romney signed the bill into law (no new laws were included in the bill that were specifically designed with illegal immigrants in mind). Furthermore, federal law requires all hospitals to treat illegals that seek emergency care.
Personally, I don't agree with Massachusetts health care law but for the sake of keeping the discussion honest ........ nothing new was included in the law to cover illegals that wasn't already there under the old health care law.
To my knowledge Romney has not flipped his positions on amnesty, tuition for illegals, border security, or driver's licenses for illegals. Also, let's not forget, he supported Arizona's law. Wouldn't it be nice if Obama could say the same?
That was the excuse Romney's campaign used right? That it was already in the old health care law, so Romney couldn't have POSSIBLY done anything about it. Well he could have introduced a provision to deny coverage to illegals. But no, at that time it was not political expediant to do so, he wasn't running for President so why go through the trouble. Federal law requires illegals be attended to in the ER, but it says nothing about providing other health care services such as those provided by clinics.
Regarding Arizona's law, has he finally taken a position on the Supreme Court's decision to strike down three of the provisions in the law he supposedly supported, but that he probably wants to distance himself from now? Instead he makes generic statements about state rights without ever directly addressing Arizona's law.
And here's him back then on comprehensive immigration reform. A man short on principles it seems.
Mitt Romney Supported Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants - YouTube
In conclusion, he's all over the place on illegal immigration and so we cannot exactly find comfort in that if he's elected President he will be strong on the issue.
As I've said, he'll need to address this issue soon, but don't be surprised if he says something you don't want to hear, I know I won't.
And I don't care about Obama. The only good thing he's done was voicing support for gay marriage and even then why did he wait so long? Ah, but of course, because it's politically convenient. He's failed on everything else, so no one here is voting for him. I'm focused on Romney and the Republican party's complete and utter inability to stand on principle.
The lesser of two evils mentality is frankly getting annoying and tiresome and what is driving this country into a ditch.
Last POTUS election, I held on to voting for "principal" and voted for Chuck Baldwin. If I could have built a perfect constitutional candidate, it would have been him. Yeah, I knew he didn't stand a chance, but I also knew McStain didn't either. It was obvious Barakula would win.
This time it's different. People are PISSED off at Obama, I can't think of one person in my circle of friends and family that approve of anything he's done. Romney has a chance, and I feel WE have a better chance of him listening to us if we scream loud enough. Obama just does what ever he damn well feels like and I really resent that. I will hold my nose and vote for Romney.
Although I don't agree with his positions on immigration, I feel he can and will listen and he's got the experience of a business person to run this county like a business. The economy is a shambles and we need that experience right now.
Gay marriage, abortion, etc...they are all "wedge" issues and truthfully don't matter a tinkers dam to someone who is out of work and/or competing with illegals for scarce jobs!
Barakula. Lol. Had to explain to my friends what I was laughing at. Thanks. I think I'll use that one.
Anyways. Most of the people in my school would have turned their back on Obama had Ron Paul been given the chance to run against him. It is clear they are disappointed in his stance on drugs and the wars overseas which are costing us billions of tax dollars and blood. We on the other hand are tired of his entire presidency and so we have at least one thing in common.
But for the love of god, we cannot go from a socialist president to one that will run this country like a "business". He'll drive it into the ground all in the name of appeasing our foreign creditors in China and Saudi Arabia. We'd go from one extreme to the other and that is not what this country needs. And last time I checked, many businesses hire cheap illegal/legal labor all in the name of cutting costs because that's what running a business is all about. This ends up screwing the American worker. Wouldn't be hard to believe Romney has this in his head somewhere and hence his terrible position on illegal immigration.
Haven't you read anything I've posted to this thread? Where do you get off saying Romney is terrible on illegal immigration? He may not be everything your or I want him to be on the issue but he's far from terrible! I noticed you support gay marriage. Perhaps, deep down, that's why you find Romney so distasteful ...... could it be?
I have, have you? He is terrible on illegal immigration because he cannot clearly state his stance on the Arizona law decision nor what he'd do about Obama's policy change to the American people. The fact that he is being vague on illegal aliens and the military is potentially traitorous. Perhaps he fears alienating the illegal alien bloc? Either he is a complete idiot or the people running his campaign are. At this point I can't tell. As others have stated, at least with Obama we know he stands on the wrong side, Romney looks to me like he considers illegal immigration a low priority. Perhaps it's understandable since he's never had to deal with it personally, so what does he care? If he wasn't running for office, he'd have ignored the fact that the landscaping company he contracted employed illegals. Those at the top don't care all the while we in the middle get screwed over.
Perhaps you noticed I support gay marriage because, I've said a couple times before, that is perhaps the one and only issue Obama and I can agree on (as much as I hate to say it), and even then he's clearly using the issue for political gain to energize his base. If he were to end the wars overseas that would another agreement, but sadly neither of these two persons are bright enough to understand our troops would be better used protecting our borders at home then another country's.
In my over 50 years of life I've been around the block a time or two and consider myself fairly well seasoned where politics are concerned. How about you, have you been voting for over 36 years? If so, you should have some idea of how the game is played by now. While it's important to win over your main voting block, in this case Republican voters, it's also important to appeal to the Independent voters. With that said, a very important rule in politics is to avoid antagonizing your enemy as much as possible because it will only serve to force them to the polls against you. Every Obama voter that stays home on election day is a victory for Romney. Many former Obama voters, mostly Independents, have already had enough of Obama and will switch their vote this time around. As for hardcore liberal voters ........ well, there isn't much you can do with them except hope some of them have lost interest in Obama and decide to stay home on election day. Now there is some real money to be made on the black voting block this time around. I'm feeling that the newness, and Obama's failure to help their situation, will keep many of them home this year. Additionally, many in that voting block are very disturbed at Obama's support of gay marriage and that too will keep many of them home because they will not vote Republican (generalizing). Remember, the black voting block turned out overwhelmingly in favor of Obama last time around. This year I'm thinking that wont be the case (I'm hopeful many will stay home).
You don't antagonize a dog because he will bite you, nor do you reveal your hand in the middle of a game. I honestly don't think Romney's strategy is a bad one. I say keep the opposition guessing just long enough to get in the White House and than reveal your hand on immigration. All the signs of where Romney stands on the issue are there for anyone that cares to look. Remember, strategy is all about gaining a position of advantage over your adversary. If being vague on certain details helps to keep the enemy calm and docile ....... so be it. For some reason you seem to think his vagueness is an attempt at keeping something from us when in reality it is probably to keep his plans from the opposition ...... smart play.
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The State Model for the Affordable Care Act Is Working and Broadly Popular
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ass_onpage.jpg
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Timothy Murphy in 2006 after signing into law a landmark bill designed to guarantee virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance
Download this brief (pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._myth_fact.pdf
Read in your web browser on Scribd
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The Affordable Care Act was signed into law one year ago. It is modeled in large part on the landmark Massachusetts health reform law enacted four years earlier in 2006. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act often attack it by distorting the facts about the Massachusetts experience. They selectively alternate between snapshots of and trends in Massachusetts and comparisons between Massachusetts and the United States.
The most appropriate way to assess the impact of the Massachusetts law is to compare changes over time in things like health coverage and premium costs in Massachusetts to changes over time in the United States as a whole. We use that approach below to debunk many of the myths opponents propagate regarding Massachusetts’s experience with health care reform.
Massachusetts increased health coverage while coverage declined in the rest of the country.
Myth
The Massachusetts law failed to significantly reduce the ranks of the uninsured in the state.
Fact
The Massachusetts health reform law dramatically increased the insurance rate in the state over a period when the national health coverage rate declined. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of the state’s residents were insured compared to 87.5 percent in 2006 when the law was enacted. Almost all children in the state were insured in 2010 (99.8 percent). In comparison, at the national level the health insurance rate dropped from 85.2 percent in 2006 to 84.6 percent in 2010.
Employers continued the same level of health coverage in Massachusetts while dropping people in the rest of the country.
Myth
The Massachusetts health reform law is eroding employer-sponsored health insurance.
Fact
The number of people in Massachusetts with employer-sponsored health insurance has not dipped below 2006 levels since passage of the health reform law. Approximately 4.3 million people in Massachusetts obtained health insurance through their employer in 2006. This figure increased to 4.5 million in 2008 before returning to 2006 levels in 2010. In comparison, the number of nonelderly people in the United States with employer-sponsored health coverage declined from 161.7 million in 2006 to 156.1 million in 2009.
Since passage of Massachusetts’s health reform law, a larger share of the state’s employers have offered health insurance to their workers when compared to the United States as a whole. At the national level only 60 percent of employers offered health coverage to their employees in 2005. This is significantly lower than Massachusetts’s rate of 70 percent at that time. The Massachusetts rate increased to 76 percent in 2009, which is 7 percentage points higher than the national figure for 2010.
People buying insurance on their own in Massachusetts are paying lower premiums. Premiums in the nongroup market have increased in the rest of the country.
Myth
Massachusetts residents are paying higher premiums in the nongroup market as a result of the health reform law.
Fact
Nongroup health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have fallen by as much as 40 percent since 2006 because health reform brought healthy people into the insurance market. In contrast, at the national level nongroup premiums have risen 14 percent over that period of time.
More than 98 percent of Bay Staters met the law’s individual insurance requirement.
Myth
A significant portion of Massachusetts residents are ignoring the mandate and only purchasing health insurance when they need care.
Fact
The size of Massachusetts’s individual market more than doubled after passage of the health reform law. This boost and the accompanying drop in the average cost of individual premiums were due in part to more healthy—and previously uninsured—individuals entering the market. Only 1.3 percent of the state’s 4 million tax filers who were required to and did report their coverage status were assessed a penalty for lacking coverage in 2008, the last year for which complete data are available. About 26,000 of these 56,000 people were actually in compliance for part of the year.
The cost of health care in Massachusetts is in line with expectations.
Myth
The Massachusetts law is bankrupting the state.
Fact
The fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, or MTF, finds that under reform, “State spending is in line with what [the organization] expected.” An MTF report released in 2009 found that state spending on health reform increased from $1.041 billion in fiscal year 2006 to a projected $1.748 billion in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $707 million over the four-year period, half of which is covered by the federal government.
Higher-than-expected enrollment in Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized health insurance program, initially raised fears that policymakers had dramatically underestimated the number of low-income uninsured in Massachusetts. These concerns, however, were unfounded. Commonwealth Care enrollment peaked in mid-2008 with 176,000 members. The MTF attributes the initial rapid growth in Commonwealth Care enrollment to the state’s early success in getting residents signed up for the program.
The majority of people in Massachusetts like the health reform law, and it has gotten more popular over time.
Myth
The Massachusetts health reform law is highly unpopular among members of the public, the business community, and policymakers.
Fact
Support for the law is strong among members of the public. Sixty-one percent of the Massachusetts nonelderly population approved of the law when it passed in 2006. Two years later, 69 percent of nonelderly adults viewed the law favorably. In a survey of employers conducted in 2007—shortly after passage of the health reform law—a majority of Massachusetts firms surveyed agreed that “all employers bear some responsibility for providing health benefits to their workers.”20 A survey of employers conducted a year later—after the individual and employer mandates were implemented— found that a majority of firms believed the law was “good for Massachusetts.”
The Massachusetts health reform law was also a bipartisan achievement, drawing support from both sides of the aisle throughout the process. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature with support from its Republican members and then signed by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.
Massachusetts is building on its 2006 reforms to promote better quality care at lower costs.
Myth
Current Gov. Deval Patrick is proposing to ration health care in Massachusetts.
Fact
Gov. Patrick’s proposal would make Massachusetts a leader in nationwide efforts to reform health care delivery and bring down costs. The governor has proposed new tools for achieving integrated care—by holding providers accountable for working with each other and their patients to coordinate and delivery higher-quality care at a lower cost.
These innovative tools encourage providers to deliver better care—replacing the current payment system’s set of incentives that provide more care regardless of value. Indeed, more care can sometimes be harmful to patients. Hospital-acquired infections and medical errors are among the most common causes of preventable deaths and injuries in U.S. hospitals. Medical errors accounted for 238,000 preventable deaths in Medicare and cost the program $8.8 billion from 2004 to 2006. A recent study found that sepsis and pneumonia caused by hospital-acquired infections resulted in 48,000 deaths in 2006 and cost the program $8.1 billion.
Conclusion
The Massachusetts health reform law is a success story from every perspective. The state has expanded health coverage to almost all of its residents, maintained a strong market for employer-sponsored health insurance, gained the support of the business community and the public, and is moving forward in containing costs. We can look forward to a similar positive experience across the nation as we implement the Affordable Care Act modeled in large part on the Massachusetts law. Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst at the Center.
Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst, and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst for American Progress.
Download this brief (pdf)
Read in your web browser on Scribd
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org
Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org
Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org
Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org
TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org
Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
Here is more on MA healthcare law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massac...th_care_reform
Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
Share on linkedin Share on email More Sharing Services
Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later
In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' comprehensive health reform designed to provide near-universal health insurance coverage for state residents. Building on a long history of health reform efforts, the state embarked on an ambitious plan to promote shared individual, employer, and government responsibility.
This brief examines Massachusetts' experience with coverage and access to care over the last six years, as well as the state's ongoing efforts to deal with persistent high health-care costs. The brief also compares Massachusetts health reform with the national reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
Reports, Studies and Toplines Icon Issue Brief (.pdf)
Information provided by State Health Care Reform Initiative
Publication Number: 8311
Publish Date: 2012-05-21
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8311.cfm
Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz20uKfsDVc
And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....
Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!
Hey it's my right I am a transplanted "Bostonian" born and bred LOL
Ah a smart play indeed. A smart play to disappoint those on our side that are tired of waiting for a candidate that will finally take a stand and put his/her foot down on illegal immigration. He rather concern himself with not pissing off a population that is not supposed to be in this country than those of us (the majority of the country I may add) that want illegal immigration addressed after decades of neglect? Really??? You're right, there are plenty of youtube videos of him supporting amnesty, so it's all our there for you to see. I'm only 24 years old and so I'm surprised that someone such as yourself who has lived far longer than me is still tolerating this crap. Jeez, wake up already man.
By the way, so where was this so called smart play when he opposed Obamacare? Did he not supposedly now antagonize the other side? Why can he take a stand on issues such as supporting Israel, opposing gay marriage, obamacare etc. but not illegal immigration? Why not remain vague on everything and say, "Elect me and find out where I stand on all the following issues! It'll be a surprise!". What's so special about illegal immigration over other issues that it warrants this marvelous strategy of vagueness?
First off I want to say that I am against illegal immigration and have been fighting this battle hard for years. I have watched here in California as Liberal Democrats and Anchor Babies have taken over our State Government. We are outnumbered and no longer have any say whatsoever. I have watched as our state government has abandoned the pretense of representing all Californians. Now I am watching our Federal Government following in the sameway.
I have been watching everyone fighting over who to vote for. How hard is Romney on illegal immigration being vague on Amnesty, CIR, etc. I know in a perfect world we would have William running for President. Only then could we all agree, but unfortunetly we have Obama or Romney.
I have been giving a lot of thought as to how and when was California lost and how to save the rest of the country. I have given up on American's getting fed up and taking to the streets in protest. So what do we do? How do we stop it?
We are constantly on the offense. We want every politican as angry as we are, right there next to us ready to fight, and we will except nothing less. Our fighting amongst ourselves only hurts us and I question whether our all or nothing attitude will eventually bite us in the butt.
Here is my question to everyone. I agree with completely fighting against Amnesty or CIR, but are we going to be prepared with a plan B if Amnesty or CIR becomes inevitable? Are we just going to rely on our calls to Congress or are we going to be represented in the planning of say a CIR? We know LaRaza, the Hispanic Caucus and other open border groups are going to be right there with their input and demands, but what about us? How do we get to the table?
I've tried my level best to give you a clue of what's going on but you refuse to listen. He has taken a stand on illegal immigration, you're just not paying attention because everything isn't as specific as you and some other would like. Well, I've already explained the possible reasoning behind that. He has said repeatedly that he does not support amnesty. Furthermore, his words and actions prove he doesn't support the Dream Act and driver's licenses for illegals. Oh, and he has also said he fully supports attrition through enforcement. For goodness sakes, he even said the Arizona law should be a model for the country. By the way, there aren't a number of youtube videos of him supporting illegal alien amnesty. Actually, he has said over and over again that he does not support amnesty.
Just for the record, any conservative voter knows it would be a kiss of death for a Republican running for President not to openly oppose gay marriage and Obamacare.
No, he has never said he supports amnesty. Have you seen this video: Romney in 2007 on Immigration and Amnesty - YouTube or this one: Romney clarifies immigration position - YouTube ? By saying illegals shouldn't be getting a special right or deal basically means they should go home and apply in the correct manner. Is this the contrary view you're seeking? Romney never said he endorsed any amnesty plan put forth by McCain or Bush.
Oh I'm listening, but you're trying hard to explain away his recent actions as some sort of "smart" strategy to not infuriate the other side. If there is a strategy, it is to remain vague on the issues so he can then pick whatever side he thinks will help him later on! Both Obama and Romney are similar in that regard. He'll say he's against outright amnesty, but then he'll also want to give concessions to the other side. There everyone is happy! Now vote for me. There's your so called "smart" strategy.
When he goes to speak to Americans one on one, funny how he simply states his supposed opposition to amnesty, but stops short of going into the "but" of his position. There's always some sort of catch to these fools' positions. When he did an interview with a newspaper, he stated, in a rather confusing way, his position. The reason so many people are unsure of where he stands on the issue is because of statements like these.
"I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country. "
So those that haven't been convicted of crime are differentiated from those who have? What's the difference when we're speaking about people unlawfully here no matter what their behavior was during their stay in the country. And register them? For what? If you're going to seek a policy of getting them out of this country, why are you going to register them for? Fast forward to present day, and we get more generalities and confusing statements from him on Arizona's law decision by the SC and on Obama's policy change. It's clear he is doing this to leave wiggle room for himself, so that in the coming months he can announce, say, a pathway for children of illegals without being lambasted for flipping sides.
And Illegal immigration is as much a conservative issue as those other issues, yet Romney chooses to put it in the back seat. You can ask him now what he thinks of gay marriage or abortion and he'll give you a straight answer, but ask him about what to do with the children of illegals and he won't give you straight up honest answer. He's working the details out with his campaign how to best reward them all the while apparently saying he's against amnesty.
Here are the transcripts for those videos,
For the first,
And here is the second,Quote:
....
They said THE ISSUE is illegal immigration and it's an important issue. clearly we want to welcome people into our country legally but we do not want to say to twelve million people who come here illegally that they all get to stay. That's simply not fair, its not the right course, and that's why I oppose amnesty in any form and will fight to make sure that we respect the law, we keep legal immigration alive and well but we stop illegal immigration.
....
Now in the second video, he somewhat carelessly poses amnesty as being an accepted platform in the Republican Party. He also poses illegals as being in some "line" to become permanent residents or citizens. This is clearly careless and really needs further clarification, especially compared to the previous video from 2007. I guess the second video was sometime this year, 2012.Quote:
....
Romney: I've said that people who come to the country illegally should not have a special pathway that is preferable to those that stand in line in their home countries to be able to come to this country. They should not have a special preference with regards to becoming a permanent residence or citizen.
Q: Governer, do you draw a distinction between somebody who has been here twenty five years, and as speaker Gingrich said last night, a member of their church, a tax paying member of the community? Do you draw a distinction between those individuals and people who have come more recently?
Romney: You know there is going to be great interest in finding how far we can apply amnesty and I just think we make a mistake as a Republican Party to try and describe which people who have come here illegally should be given amnesty ... to be able to jump ahead of the line of the people who have been waiting in line. My view is that those people who have waited in line patiently to come to this country legally should be ahead in line and those people who come here illegally should not be given a special deal or a special accelerated right to become a permanent resident or citizen.
...
I can't find anything to suggest that Romney thinks Amnesty should be "an accepted platform for the Republican Party." Please be specific in providing the information. I believe the "line" he's talking about for illegals begins in their own country. It amazes me how some folks will attempt to pick apart anything they consider questionable but seem to completely ignore the positive things he has said repeatedly and the actions he has taken as a Governnor to fight illegal immigration.
http://2012.republican-candidates.or...mmigration.php
Being a Californian and retired from the High-Tech Industry this is a little observation to Googler and MW. Having watched and read Googler's blogs he reminds me so much of the young engineers that I have worked with over the years. The same reason that attorney's don't like High-Tech people, especially engineers on a jury. They have a tendency to see things as black or white, there is no grey area.
I think Googler wants to see facts for himself as to the truth of Romney's feelings towards illegal immigration. Vagueness or the grey area does not solve the issue and Googler becomes fustrated. Unfortunately we are dealing with people and politics which can be more complex then machines.
You're right. I attribute googler's naive attitude toward politics to his youth. Right or wrong, that's my personal observation. Honestly, I was more like him than I care to admit in my youth ...... that is where politics is concerned. However, I am now much older, and I'd like to think wiser, these days.