Just because the Harris regime decided to change the rules to flood our streets with third world ****holes doesn't make it any less of an illegal migration in the true spirit of hte word. Americans understand that....
2024 Field
- Thread starter Jaw
- Start date
Just because the Harris regime decided to change the rules to flood our streets with third world ****holes doesn't make it any less of an illegal migration in the true spirit of hte word. Americans understand that....
50% approval rating leading up to the 2012 election is "on the downswing?"
Had Trump been able to maintain approval ratings close to that, he would be POTUS right now and we would likely be watching Newsom/RDS debates.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure what you're looking at:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Obama's approval was steadily on the decline from his 2008 victory. When the campaign for 2012 was in full swing Obama was reeling but Romney couldn't land a final blow.
Literally on that link it shows Obama's approval rating on Jan 2 was 46% and steadily rose throughout the year, hitting 50% in September and maintaining a high approval rating through the election.
Obama's only real lull was the final 6 months of 2011. The rest of the time, he maintained solid to great approval ratings throughout his first term.
Yes he was reeling going into the 2012 election cycle and Romney couldn't finish the deal.
WTF are you talking about? Romney didn't win the primary until April of 2012. Obama's approval ratings had already rebounded to 46-48% range by the time Romney got the nomination. Obama was not "reeling" in any sort of way during the 2012 race. The fact that Romney was able to do as well as he did vs a well liked POTUS is evidence that he was a good candidate.
No, it absolutely does by definition. You can make all manner of claims, but calling it illegal migration to be legally allowed into the country is objectively untrue, and using that terminology to refer to legal migrants strikes me as an approach to demonize them in a way that’s more socially acceptable than other terms.
Conservatives have this fun trick they like to play with law and order where they get to decide what the “real” laws are. Just because a President or Congress legally allows something you don’t think should be legal, it doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Legal and illegal are not measures of good and bad. It’s a distinction based on the laws at the time. These are legally authorized migrants and you don’t get to claim otherwise.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think both parties largely took the wrong lessons from the Obama-to-Trump transition. Republicans took it as evidence that more moderate, reasonable candidates are weak in a way they never really were, and Democrats took it as a lesson that they needed to present as more moderate than they needed to economically to compete against him, and focused all their attention on “getting” Trump. In reality, Obama was a historically popular President, especially as a candidate. Trump excited the base after the pain of the housing market crash left people angry and vulnerable, and was up against an awful candidate in Hillary Clinton. Neither side has really come out of this slump after 8 years.
mqt, that is being very naïve. When their temporary status is up and they no longer can claim asylum, do you honestly believe these people will willfully relocate back to their homes countries?
It doesn't matter what they are legally defined as at the moment. It's ploy to navigate around the rules of illegal immigration and import new voters. It's exactly why Dems have been pushing the boundaries on illegal immigrant "rights" for awhile now.
If Dems really cared about the well being of these people, they would be pushing for more intervention/diplomacy in Mexico and the other countries these immigrants come from in order to build better diplomatic relationships and strengthen those natiuons economies. The vast majority of these immigrants travel through Mexico to get here. We see the large caravans talked about on the news. Why won't the Dems push the administration to work with Mexico to dispel these caravans before they get here? Because the truth is that it's more beneficial for Dems and they know it. And of course most of these countries don't really produce anything of value for America, so there is no incentive for politicians to pursue that sort of policy.
For the group that gets very hung up on how we define terms like woman, you seem very willing to twist the definition of the word illegal. It could very well be the case that these migrants will not just return to Haiti if/when they are legally required to. But it’s not naive to call someone a legal resident of this country just because they could, someday in the future, break the law.
You can give any justification you want for why Democrats support more permissive asylum and immigration policies. But it turns out the American people voted for Democrats despite the foreknowledge that they would support such policies. If you don’t like that, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. But you don’t get to define such activity as illegal unless it violates a law.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Lol, no the toughest was likely Vance explaining very clearly his stance on abortion.
And he got a “I grew up in a middle class” jab in there with it.
Leave it to Harris to make that line pure gold
Tapate50
Well-known member
Right - mgt is basically blinded by the forest and can’t see the trees
Most figured the border would not become an open door free for all with near zero vetting of immigrants and criminals.
Its so dumb they couldn’t comprehend such poor policy
chop2chip
Well-known member
What did the moderators do with their abortion question that was “tough”?
Yeah, on this we can wholeheartedly agree. The sheer amount of positions you’re voting for as pretty much yes/no is astoundingly awful. But my point does remain that it is at best intellectually dishonest to call these migrants “illegal” and at worst is intentionally misleading to confuse others into believing they should be deported for breaking the law.
You're not close to being MAGA but you got called that for defending Trump.
I get called a cult member even though I can name 3 people I'd rather have for president than Trump.
It's amazing.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Yup. The Overton window is small in general, but absurdly so within a political party.
I thought last night was a glimpse into what a third party coalition populist party would look like. Walz and JD are both mid-western populists at heart, which is why they spent the majority of the debate agreeing on policy. It was only ever combative when they were attacking Trump or Harris.