Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Immigration Angle For Rand Puts Him Back In His Zone?

  1. #1

    Default Good Immigration Angle For Rand Puts Him Back In His Zone?

    Think this angle could get him on top on both his own issue and immigration?

    I was thinking that he could take the position when asked about immigration that he could say that:


    "Given the position that the current government holds on droning American citizens abroad, I'm worried about the possible collateral damage to U.S. citizens if the government decided to target undesireables that crossed the border onto US soil...."

    Something like that. Drone issue back in. Immigration can kick. No flip flop.

    ?????
    Last edited by The Northbreather; 09-10-2015 at 10:22 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

  5. #4

    Default

    I'm not sure. I think the sentiment right now, is to not let undesirables into the United States, too late, of course). Secure our borders first.

  6. #5

    Default

    They are more concerned with immigration and doing so would make it appear Rand is not taking the issue seriously. His poll numbers would plummet since drones are way down on the list of concerns compared to immigration.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    They are more concerned with immigration and doing so would make it appear Rand is not taking the issue seriously. His poll numbers would plummet since drones are way down on the list of concerns compared to immigration.
    It's basically a no on immigration with an reminder of his concern for Americans.

    He was just on hannity and when asked if he, like Obama, would let 10,000 Syrian refugees in he said:

    "I would be very, very careful" and he mentioned that refugees from Iraq had attacked people in his home town of bowling green.

    He logically acknowledges that it can be dangerous to Americans to let people in from other nations

  8. #7

    Default

    I like it, but it's probably too complicated for the voters, who are generally at the "OG, me want eat. You give food" level of mentation.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I like it, but it's probably too complicated for the voters, who are generally at the "OG, me want eat. You give food" level of mentation.
    I'm not a great writer and even worse at typing.

    If I was speaking this it would be much more fluid. I was just trying to get the idea out

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Northbreather View Post
    It's basically a no on immigration with an reminder of his concern for Americans.

    He was just on hannity and when asked if he, like Obama, would let 10,000 Syrian refugees in he said:

    "I would be very, very careful" and he mentioned that refugees from Iraq had attacked people in his home town of bowling green.

    He logically acknowledges that it can be dangerous to Americans to let people in from other nations
    If he talks like that he's going to remain mired in the low single digits. Nobody wants to hear that you are going to be "careful" about letting the Muslim horde in to the country. They want to hear that you will prevent it. Other candidates (Carson almost surely) will say exactly that, and once again Rand will look soft, weak, and mushy. The Wall Street/Open Borders wing will get the message that Rand isn't with them (not that they'd support him even if he were) and the Conservatives will just hear that Rand is insufficiently firm and likely to fold or sell out. He will appeal to no one unless he finally takes a firm stand and speaks in thunder.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    If he talks like that he's going to remain mired in the low single digits. Nobody wants to hear that you are going to be "careful" about letting the Muslim horde in to the country. They want to hear that you will prevent it. Other candidates (Carson almost surely) will say exactly that, and once again Rand will look soft, weak, and mushy. The Wall Street/Open Borders wing will get the message that Rand isn't with them (not that they'd support him even if he were) and the Conservatives will just hear that Rand is insufficiently firm and likely to fold or sell out. He will appeal to no one unless he finally takes a firm stand and speaks in thunder.
    He also said he is supporting Glen Becks program of helping Christian Syrians emigrate. Sound like he's treating cases individualy

  12. #11

    Default

    I would use my remark as a prelude to explain to voters why we're having these problems in the first place and asign the appropriate blame....much like his father would

  13. #12

    Default

    I think we have seen by now that this is not the election cycle for candidates to make profound points. Just shovel red meat without mimicking Trump.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Northbreather View Post
    I'm not a great writer and even worse at typing.

    If I was speaking this it would be much more fluid. I was just trying to get the idea out
    It's an easy argument to dumb down. Beat I can do is:

    "If we let all these terrorists into the United States, we are going to end up with armed drones in our skies, with all the collateral damage they bring. So we must not allow any terrorists into the U.S. That's a door we can not afford to open."

    It's still to complicated for Joe Sixpack.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I think we have seen by now that this is not the election cycle for candidates to make profound points. Just shovel red meat without mimicking Trump.
    Sad but true...

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    It's an easy argument to dumb down. Beat I can do is:

    "If we let all these terrorists into the United States, we are going to end up with armed drones in our skies, with all the collateral damage they bring. So we must not allow any terrorists into the U.S. That's a door we can not afford to open."

    It's still to complicated for Joe Sixpack.
    Much better

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Northbreather View Post
    Much better
    Much better, but still politically foolish. Letting a bunch of terrorists in to the US is a horrendous idea on its own. Bringing up potential side effects of that horrendous policy makes it sound like you don't get the problem with the direct effect and would feed in to the already prevalent notion that Rand just doesn't get it when it comes to immigration policy.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Northbreather View Post
    Think this angle could get him on top on both his own issue and immigration?

    I was thinking that he could take the position when asked about immigration that he could say that:

    "Given the position that the current government holds on droning American citizens abroad, I'm worried about the possible collateral damage to U.S. citizens if the government decided to target undesireables that crossed the border onto US soil...."

    Something like that. Drone issue back in. Immigration can kick. No flip flop.

    ?????
    If I recall correctly, Rand has said that he doesn't really have a problem with the idea of using drones on US citizens on American soil in certain situations - such as against armed robbers in flagrante delicto.

    So if my memory of that is correct - and depending on what, exactly, one means by "undesireables" (especially if we assume they are of the non-citizen variety) - I am not 100% confident that Rand would necessarily oppose the use of drones in this context. (And the potential for "collateral damage" is not likely to be any less in the "armed robbers" scenario than it is in the "undesireables" scenario.)

    In any case, it would be rather tricky for Rand to reconcile a position against using drones on "undesireables" who are presumably not citizens with a position in support of (or at lest permissive of) using drones on armed robbers who presumably are citizens. At the very least, any such reconciliation would have to be more than just a little "nuanced" ...

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulMall View Post
    If he talks like that he's going to remain mired in the low single digits. Nobody wants to hear that you are going to be "careful" about letting the Muslim horde in to the country. They want to hear that you will prevent it. Other candidates (Carson almost surely) will say exactly that, and once again Rand will look soft, weak, and mushy. The Wall Street/Open Borders wing will get the message that Rand isn't with them (not that they'd support him even if he were) and the Conservatives will just hear that Rand is insufficiently firm and likely to fold or sell out. He will appeal to no one unless he finally takes a firm stand and speaks in thunder.
    Lol, but yet Trump just came out and said that we should just let them all in, and I doubt if his numbers go down. It's only Rand who's numbers get hurt for not being hardcore enough on issues like this, apparently.

  20. #19

    Default

    Deporting illegal immigrants and bringing jobs back to America is what conservatives want.

    Anyone who wants to get the GOP nomination needs to get on those topics and hammer them hard and plain.

    There's a lot of people on here who will argue that that's not what *they* want, and that's all well and good. But if Rand wants to be the nominee, the way has been made clear.

    If he's not willing to push those issues, he's wasting his time.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BGfree View Post
    Deporting illegal immigrants and bringing jobs back to America is what conservatives want.

    Anyone who wants to get the GOP nomination needs to get on those topics and hammer them hard and plain.

    There's a lot of people on here who will argue that that's not what *they* want, and that's all well and good. But if Rand wants to be the nominee, the way has been made clear.

    If he's not willing to push those issues, he's wasting his time.
    I do not see that happening since he is on record too many times saying he does not want to deport illegals but rather give them all work visas after securing the border.


  22. #21

    Default

    I'm so incredibly sick of hearing about immigration. It's like that's the only issue in this campaign, when in reality there are issues that are far more important than that one. If the only way to win the GOP nomination is to only talk about immigration and then take a position of breaking into people's homes at 3 AM in the morning, terrorizing them, and sending them to concentration camps, I would rather not win the nomination anyway. The GOP is just a dying party at this point, a party of older white men.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    The GOP is just a dying party at this point, a party of older white men.
    ^Now that is closer to an actual statement of racism and ageism in these forums rather than the false accusations we normally see displayed here.

    Yet in this case those same members always running around using the race card remain silent.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    ^Now that is closer to an actual statement of racism and ageism in these forums rather than the false accusations we normally see displayed here.

    Yet in this case those same members always running around using the race card remain silent.
    Well I'm white, so apparently I'm racist against my own race.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    Well I'm white, so apparently I'm racist against my own race.
    Sounds like you have white guilt for whatever reason and believe in age discrimination. What do you have against old white people? Ron Paul is old and white and you will be to some day.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kahless View Post
    Sounds like you have white guilt for whatever reason and believe in age discrimination. What do you have against old white people? Ron Paul is old and white and you will be to some day.
    I don't have anything against them. But Rand is trying to make the party more diverse by getting blacks, Hispanics, and others to join the party, and that's what has to be done. Otherwise the Republican Party will literally just start dying off.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I don't have anything against them. But Rand is trying to make the party more diverse by getting blacks, Hispanics, and others to join the party, and that's what has to be done. Otherwise the Republican Party will literally just start dying off.
    Secret, there is no republican party. McConnell and Boehner are Obama's co Vice President's. They ram everything through Congress, that Obama wants and strong arm those Congressmen who don't do their bidding.

    So, Rand is trying to make something more diverse, which is good. But who the hell would ever support the republicrat party, I will never know.






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •