House votes to overturn Obama's Immigration Executive Order

[PhatMack19]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/14/house-votes-to-overturn-obama-immigration-actions-bill-now-goes-to-senate/

[bullets13]

Republicans haven't even settled into their majority yet and are already trying to pass bills that will decrease their chances of regaining the presidency next election. Maybe one day they'll learn.

[LumRaiderFan]

Republicans haven't even settled into their majority yet and are already trying to pass bills that will decrease their chances of regaining the presidency next election. Maybe one day they'll learn.

 

Maybe they realize that if this passes, it will do major damage.

 

Sometimes the right thing to do might hurt you...even though this won't.

 

I think Dems are the ones with the learning problem right now...they want to continue down the same road.

[bullets13]

Maybe they realize that if this passes, it will do major damage.
 
Sometimes the right thing to do might hurt you...even though this won't.
 
I think Dems are the ones with the learning problem right now...they want to continue down the same road.

nah. they just want to prove a point to Obama. and both sides are stupid when it comes to continuing down the same road.

[RETIREDFAN1]

The landslide for republicans this past election shows that the voters want barry sotero's communist BS countered.....the only way that the republicans will lose in 2016 is if they maintain their moderate stances.....if they continue to do things like THIS, the republican candidate will win in a landslide....next up: defunding and repealing obamacare......

[bullets13]

The landslide for republicans this past election shows that the voters want barry sotero's communist BS countered.....the only way that the republicans will lose in 2016 is if they maintain their moderate stances.....if they continue to do things like THIS, the republican candidate will win in a landslide....next up: defunding and repealing obamacare......

you have this completely backwards. They encountered their landslides this past election WITH their moderate stances.  The Right is not going to gain votes by becoming more conservative.  Its funny to me that ultra-conservatives always think this is the answer.   The ultra-conservatives are not going to vote for the democrats because the repubs move to the left a little, but plenty of moderates will be happy to move to the right a little to meet the republicans somewhere in the middle. 

[CraigS]

you have this completely backwards. They encountered their landslides this past election WITH their moderate stances.  The Right is not going to gain votes by becoming more conservative.  Its funny to me that ultra-conservatives always think this is the answer.   The ultra-conservatives are not going to vote for the democrats because the repubs move to the left a little, but plenty of moderates will be happy to move to the right a little to meet the republicans somewhere in the middle. 

Yet an ultra liberal won twice, while all along the pubs sent 2 moderates to challenge him....maybe ultra conservative IS the answer.

[LumRaiderFan]

nah. they just want to prove a point to Obama. and both sides are stupid when it comes to continuing down the same road.

 

This is a little more important than proving a point to this President...we cannot handle millions more added to the taxpayers note.

 

Sad thing is that Obama and the Dems couldn't care less about these folks, they just want to secure the votes.

 

Why so many can't see this is beyond me.

[LumRaiderFan]

you have this completely backwards. They encountered their landslides this past election WITH their moderate stances.  The Right is not going to gain votes by becoming more conservative.  Its funny to me that ultra-conservatives always think this is the answer.   The ultra-conservatives are not going to vote for the democrats because the repubs move to the left a little, but plenty of moderates will be happy to move to the right a little to meet the republicans somewhere in the middle. 

 

The landslides were because of backlash from Obama's policies...most folks don't want amnesty and obamacare.

[RETIREDFAN1]

you have this completely backwards. They encountered their landslides this past election WITH their moderate stances.  The Right is not going to gain votes by becoming more conservative.  Its funny to me that ultra-conservatives always think this is the answer.   The ultra-conservatives are not going to vote for the democrats because the repubs move to the left a little, but plenty of moderates will be happy to move to the right a little to meet the republicans somewhere in the middle.

You are the one backwards.....the republicans LOSE when they put up moderates or when they don't legislate any different than the socialist dims.....the moderates they have put up in the past two elections didn't stand a chance, because CONSERVATIVES voted third party or didn't vote at all for the dim light candidates......when a real conservative is on the ticket, the dims don't stand a chance.....unfortunately, the republican leadership seems to think like you do, which is why they have LOST the past 2 Presidential elections.....and if they want to keep their control of the Congress, they had better dump that moderate/centrist philosophy or we'll go third party or sit at home again....after all, a moderate is no better than a liberal in our book......

[bullets13]

The landslides were because of backlash from Obama's policies...most folks don't want amnesty and obamacare.

most definitely obamacare. and many with amnesty. that being said, these landslides had nothing to do with a majority of America wanting ultraconservative politicians and policies, and the republicans would do well to remember that. If not, it'll be 1994 all over again. Gain a bunch of seats in the house and senate and some governors due to voters being fed up with the president, and use it to force ultra conservative policy that will turn the voters back against them.

[bullets13]

Yet an ultra liberal won twice, while all along the pubs sent 2 moderates to challenge him....maybe ultra conservative IS the answer.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not stupid. we often don't agree on here, but I don't believe you if you're trying to suggest that Obama won because he was an ultra liberal.

That being said, elections are not won and lost by the extremists on each side. But if the swing voters chose to go far left over moderate right the last two elections, I don't see how bringing in a candidate that's much farther right is going to help bridge that gap.

[LumRaiderFan]

most definitely obamacare. and many with amnesty. that being said, this has nothing to do with people wanting ultraconservative politicians and policies.

 

I don't consider smaller gov and lower taxes ultraconservative...I call it logical.  What policies are you referring to?

 

I will agree that a problem with that is lower taxes and smaller gov impacts too many folks in a negative way nowadays...sad.

[bullets13]

I don't consider smaller gov and lower taxes ultraconservative...I call it logical.  What policies are you referring to?
 
I will agree that a problem with that is lower taxes and smaller gov impacts too many folks in a negative way nowadays...sad.

I'm referring to more of the social issues. I actually agree with you, at least to some extent, on lower taxes and smaller government impacts, and moderate republicans would too. but what many on this site want (and many in most ultra-conservative areas) is someone who's going to come out very outspoken against homosexuality, abortion, and be supportive of Christianity to the point where they'd violate the constitution to spread it if they could. There's no doubt there are some states where a person like that would take a majority of the votes, but a moderate republican would also take the same states over a democrat. Take Texas, for example. Our state would vote for Smitty if he ran for office. There are plenty of people in this state who feel that the more conservative a candidate, the better. That being said, it wasn't like Romney or McCain were in danger of losing Texas because they weren't conservative enough. The republicans could run out a monkey in a 3-piece suit and Texas would vote for him as long as he followed the red agenda. And consequently, there are many states that go the same way for Democrats. But I can guarantee you that ultra-conservatives who put a lot of stock in their conservative views of the social issues that I listed above will struggle in the battleground states in todays society of acceptance.

[CraigS]

I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not stupid. we often don't agree on here, but I don't believe you if you're trying to suggest that Obama won because he was an ultra liberal.

That being said, elections are not won and lost by the extremists on each side. But if the swing voters chose to go far left over moderate right the last two elections, I don't see how bringing in a candidate that's much farther right is going to help bridge that gap.

fair enough, he won because of the ultra racist...but there was still an "ultra" involved. That and people were FED UP.....With that said, I truly don't think the "ultra" conservative would lose...mainly because people are FED UP ----- AGAIN! and the racist part - well to some extent I believe enough have learned that their savior .....well...didn't "save" them...if anything hurt them more...and to some extent will vote the opposite....or just stay home....from here....follow the post that suggest the pubs lost due to moderate candidates and the ultra conservative vote stayed home.

[CraigS]

I'm referring to more of the social issues. I actually agree with you, at least to some extent, on lower taxes and smaller government impacts, and moderate republicans would too. but what many on this site want (and many in most ultra-conservative areas) is someone who's going to come out very outspoken against homosexuality, abortion, and be supportive of Christianity to the point where they'd violate the constitution to spread it if they could. There's no doubt there are some states where a person like that would take a majority of the votes, but a moderate republican would also take the same states over a democrat. Take Texas, for example. Our state would vote for Smitty if he ran for office. There are plenty of people in this state who feel that the more conservative a candidate, the better. That being said, it wasn't like Romney or McCain were in danger of losing Texas because they weren't conservative enough. The republicans could run out a monkey in a 3-piece suit and Texas would vote for him as long as he followed the red agenda. And consequently, there are many states that go the same way for Democrats. But I can guarantee you that ultra-conservatives who put a lot of stock in their conservative views of the social issues that I listed above will struggle in the battleground states in todays society of acceptance.

Well now that you defined "ultra" I can probably agree a little more with your take on this.

 

First - abortion is here to stay, like it or not!

 

Second - Homo's have always been around, don't back them up, as far as the "progress" they've made - just don't assist in more progress.

 

Third -Christianity may not can be THE religion....but we "ultra conservatives" can not only stop the growth of Islam, but back it up....free to worship...but knowing the current affairs in the world today we will monitor and profile for the sake of security of our citizens.

 

and then I'll add - Immigration - we've ALWAYS had illegals...ALWAYS will......however, I think we make a stronger stance against it...get rid of the ones that JUST came here, for sure....then go from there.

[LumRaiderFan]

I'm referring to more of the social issues. I actually agree with you, at least to some extent, on lower taxes and smaller government impacts, and moderate republicans would too. but what many on this site want (and many in most ultra-conservative areas) is someone who's going to come out very outspoken against homosexuality, abortion, and be supportive of Christianity to the point where they'd violate the constitution to spread it if they could. There's no doubt there are some states where a person like that would take a majority of the votes, but a moderate republican would also take the same states over a democrat. Take Texas, for example. Our state would vote for Smitty if he ran for office. There are plenty of people in this state who feel that the more conservative a candidate, the better. That being said, it wasn't like Romney or McCain were in danger of losing Texas because they weren't conservative enough. The republicans could run out a monkey in a 3-piece suit and Texas would vote for him as long as he followed the red agenda. And consequently, there are many states that go the same way for Democrats. But I can guarantee you that ultra-conservatives who put a lot of stock in their conservative views of the social issues that I listed above will struggle in the battleground states in todays society of acceptance.

 

Simple fix...leave all these up to the states.

 

Let every state decide if it wants to allow abortion (murder is a state issue anyway) gay marriage and any other social issue NOT in the Constitution.

 

Problem is liberals do not want a straight up vote in the states on these...they would rather have this legislated from the bench.

[tvc184]

Republicans haven't even settled into their majority yet and are already trying to pass bills that will decrease their chances of regaining the presidency next election. Maybe one day they'll learn.

 

I know that you probably missed it but the mid-terms were back in November. I can post the results if you need. 

 

Wow! The Republicans are against illegal immigration. I am sure that most people are as shocked as I am. 

 

The Republicans will gain no support if they sit back and do nothing. I don't see any significant percentage of Hispanic voters swinging over to the Republicans if they simply allow the (illegal) executive order to stand. I can envision much more grass roots supports for candidates that back the conservative Republicans or in other words, the ones that have stayed away from the polls under such statements as, "They are all the same anyway". 

 

Winning the majority in a big way in the last election will mean nothing if the party simply takes that huge lead and then acts by doing nothing, which is coincidentally what we got from the Democrats for the last 6 years. 

[PN-G bamatex]

Republicans haven't even settled into their majority yet and are already trying to pass bills that will decrease their chances of regaining the presidency next election. Maybe one day they'll learn.

 

While I agree that it's in the party's best interest to start courting Hispanics, I don't think this will hurt that much. It doesn't really change anything. It's not like anybody didn't expect them to do this.

 

Now if they were smart, they'd pair it with an immigration reform proposal of their own. That turns a bill that doesn't gain or lose them anything into a bill that gains them something. The Democrats want to run with this narrative that the Republicans are anti-immigration and implicitly anti-Hispanic, and they want to use bills like this to support it. If the Republicans had paired a bill killing the amnesty order with legislation to streamline the immigration process, Obama's left with a hard choice. He either signs the legislation and gets the Republican version of immigration reform, or he vetoes it and the Republicans get to point it out from now until 2016 - "Who was really against reform in the end?" counters the Democrat narrative pretty effectively. Either way, it's a win-win. But this is what's so unfortunately typical of the party leadership. Shoot first, think about it later.

[stevenash]

fair enough, he won because of the ultra racist...but there was still an "ultra" involved. That and people were FED UP.....With that said, I truly don't think the "ultra" conservative would lose...mainly because people are FED UP ----- AGAIN! and the racist part - well to some extent I believe enough have learned that their savior .....well...didn't "save" them...if anything hurt them more...and to some extent will vote the opposite....or just stay home....from here....follow the post that suggest the pubs lost due to moderate candidates and the ultra conservative vote stayed home.

When the pendulum swings a certain distance in one direction, it is most likely going to  swing a similar distance in the other direction.

[bullets13]

While I agree that it's in the party's best interest to start courting Hispanics, I don't think this will hurt that much. It doesn't really change anything. It's not like anybody didn't expect them to do this.
 
Now if they were smart, they'd pair it with an immigration reform proposal of their own. That turns a bill that doesn't gain or lose them anything into a bill that gains them something. The Democrats want to run with this narrative that the Republicans are anti-immigration and implicitly anti-Hispanic, and they want to use bills like this to support it. If the Republicans had paired a bill killing the amnesty order with legislation to streamline the immigration process, Obama's left with a hard choice. He either signs the legislation and gets the Republican version of immigration reform, or he vetoes it and the Republicans get to point it out from now until 2016 - "Who was really against reform in the end?" counters the Democrat narrative pretty effectively. Either way, it's a win-win. But this is what's so unfortunately typical of the party leadership. Shoot first, think about it later.

I agree. but that being said, I don't see how acting out the stereotype that Dems have placed on them doesn't count as a loss. You're absolutely right that the GOP better start courting Hispanics.

[LumRaiderFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/19/state-union-obama-proposals-show-president-on-offense-despite-gop-wave/