Approval of Obama's Handling of Immigration Falls to 31%

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Master_Live (15117 posts) -

Americans' approval falls eight percentage points since August

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nah, let them all in I say.

#2 Posted by TruthTellers (3397 posts) -

Pretty sure half of the 31% polled who approved responded by saying "Si!"

#3 Posted by jasean79 (2375 posts) -

I'm surprised it's even that high.

#4 Posted by Nuck81 (5865 posts) -

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

#5 Posted by TruthTellers (3397 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

haha, that's so stupid. Don't post while drunk dude.

#6 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@TruthTellers said:

Pretty sure half of the 31% polled who approved responded by saying "Si!"

or in the best denzel washington imitation "mah nigg"

@TruthTellers said:

@Nuck81 said:

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

haha, that's so stupid. Don't post while drunk dude.

best time to post

#7 Posted by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@Nuck81 said:

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

lol I gotta admit that rendition of the song works quite well.

As for the topic I have to say that Obama is about the only guy in Washington pushing for any sort of reform on the issue. Yeah he hasn't gotten much done on the issue, but I'd like to see the approval ratings of Congress on the issue of immigration to go along side those graphs.

#8 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@Nuck81 said:

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

lol I gotta admit that rendition of the song works quite well.

As for the topic I have to say that Obama is about the only guy in Washington pushing for any sort of reform on the issue. Yeah he hasn't gotten much done on the issue, but I'd like to see the approval ratings of Congress on the issue of immigration to go along side those graphs.

but not all reforms are the same and the reason he is alone is because many do not want to go in that direction.

i am for open immigration..... as soon as there is no welfare state, cant have both.

#9 Posted by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@Nuck81 said:

This Land is your Land, This Land is my Land.

Except for the Gay Man, Black Man, and Mexican.

So vote Republican.

They'll keep this land for just you and me

lol I gotta admit that rendition of the song works quite well.

As for the topic I have to say that Obama is about the only guy in Washington pushing for any sort of reform on the issue. Yeah he hasn't gotten much done on the issue, but I'd like to see the approval ratings of Congress on the issue of immigration to go along side those graphs.

but not all reforms are the same and the reason he is alone is because many do not want to go in that direction.

i am for open immigration..... as soon as there is no welfare state, cant have both.

It's a terrible way to govern that we can't do one thing until something else we want gets done first. It's that sort of mentality that helps lead to the sort of do nothing congress we currently have running things.

I've seen the same reasoning to deny equality to gay people, "We can't legalize gay marriage while we're at war, it would just cause too much division among the people."

People need to do things while they can when they are in office rather than leaving saying that they did not get things done for the people because politicians wouldn't compromise with them on other things first.

#10 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

well, when one thing makes another problem worse, it might not be the best action to take before, at least before mitigating the worse thing.... just saying.

also i am all for repealing the marriage licensing act allowing anyone to do anything within life contracts. 5 wives and 5 husbands all too you, cool.


also compromise is a two way street, if he will not budge he is being just as obstructionist as those who will not bend to his will.

#11 Edited by Master_Live (15117 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@TruthTellers said:

Pretty sure half of the 31% polled who approved responded by saying "Si!"

or in the best denzel washington imitation "mah nigg"

#12 Edited by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

well, when one thing makes another problem worse, it might not be the best action to take before, at least before mitigating the worse thing.... just saying.

also i am all for repealing the marriage licensing act allowing anyone to do anything within life contracts. 5 wives and 5 husbands all too you, cool.

also compromise is a two way street, if he will not budge he is being just as obstructionist as those who will not bend to his will.

Well if one thing in the country isn't bad enough for the government or the people to take action against it we usually just ignore and let it fester until it is so bad that we are no longer able to ignore it. Putting off doing the right thing so that we can pretend to fix a problem that, in reality we are ignoring, is simply trying to apply two wrongs to make a right. If doing the right thing for immigrants actually moves us towards getting to the point where we absolutely must solve the problem you are concerned about wouldn't you sorta want to do exactly that considering that otherwise it could be decades before we get around to welfare?

#13 Posted by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

Or would you rather wait because "the right team" might get the credit for immigration reform?

#14 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

well, when one thing makes another problem worse, it might not be the best action to take before, at least before mitigating the worse thing.... just saying.

also i am all for repealing the marriage licensing act allowing anyone to do anything within life contracts. 5 wives and 5 husbands all too you, cool.

also compromise is a two way street, if he will not budge he is being just as obstructionist as those who will not bend to his will.

Well if one thing in the country isn't bad enough for the government or the people to take action against it we usually just ignore and let it fester until it is so bad that we are no longer able to ignore it. Putting off doing the right thing so that we can pretend to fix a problem that, in reality we are ignoring, is simply trying to apply two wrongs to make a right. If doing the right thing for immigrants actually moves us towards getting to the point where we absolutely must solve the problem you are concerned about wouldn't you sorta want to do exactly that considering that otherwise it could be decades before we get around to welfare?

if you allow open immigration with current welfare policies it would be thousands of times worse than it already is, to do that for decades is an impossibility in my mind, if you waited that long on welfare the immigration problem would solve its self, because people would be leaving.

@Serraph105 said:

Or would you rather wait because "the right team" might get the credit for immigration reform?

team, yes what team would that be?



and as long as you are on the team trip, how bipartisan was that ACA thing that impacts 20 or so percent of the GDP?

come on dude, you know i hate the GOP just like the DNC, but ignoring the partisan actions and then saying the other guys will not play ball is dishonest. obama set the standards for partisanship when he had a super majority, to see the minority act like dicks after being raped is to be expected.

i personally think the DC gridlock is the only thing this country has in its favor ATM, because both sides are only working for their party, i dont want to see anyone win. but at least i can honestly see the progression of events without a party bias.

colored bush has done what white obama never could do, and that is rally the other ignorant base.

#15 Edited by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

well, when one thing makes another problem worse, it might not be the best action to take before, at least before mitigating the worse thing.... just saying.

also i am all for repealing the marriage licensing act allowing anyone to do anything within life contracts. 5 wives and 5 husbands all too you, cool.

also compromise is a two way street, if he will not budge he is being just as obstructionist as those who will not bend to his will.

Well if one thing in the country isn't bad enough for the government or the people to take action against it we usually just ignore and let it fester until it is so bad that we are no longer able to ignore it. Putting off doing the right thing so that we can pretend to fix a problem that, in reality we are ignoring, is simply trying to apply two wrongs to make a right. If doing the right thing for immigrants actually moves us towards getting to the point where we absolutely must solve the problem you are concerned about wouldn't you sorta want to do exactly that considering that otherwise it could be decades before we get around to welfare?

if you allow open immigration with current welfare policies it would be thousands of times worse than it already is, to do that for decades is an impossibility in my mind, if you waited that long on welfare the immigration problem would solve its self, because people would be leaving.

@Serraph105 said:

Or would you rather wait because "the right team" might get the credit for immigration reform?

team, yes what team would that be?

and as long as you are on the team trip, how bipartisan was that ACA thing that impacts 20 or so percent of the GDP?

come on dude, you know i hate the GOP just like the DNC, but ignoring the partisan actions and then saying the other guys will not play ball is dishonest. obama set the standards for partisanship when he had a super majority, to see the minority act like dicks after being raped is to be expected.

i personally think the DC gridlock is the only thing this country has in its favor ATM, because both sides are only working for their party, i dont want to see anyone win. but at least i can honestly see the progression of events without a party bias.

colored bush has done what white obama never could do, and that is rally the other ignorant base.

The ACA was fairly bipartisan in my view believe it or not because, votes aside, republicans (one's who are still in Congress) came up with it in the 90's, a Republican signed it into law in Massachusetts, and Democrats adopted it for the country as a whole. If that's not an admission from the other side that something is working I don't know what is tbh. Not to mention on the voter side of things the ACA is working out quite well in deep red Kentucky.

Back to immigration, I actually meant that waiting a few decades (though maybe closer to 1.5-2 decades would be more accurate) for reform would mean that they could ignore the issue of welfare for a greater period of time. Ignoring problems until it becomes a bigger problem is also something congress has also shown bipartisan support in doing over the decades. My point was that if you really think immigration reform would exacerbate the issue of welfare then you should probably support it since exacerbation to the point of not having the option of ignoring it might be the only way to get Congress to work on welfare.

#16 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

well, when one thing makes another problem worse, it might not be the best action to take before, at least before mitigating the worse thing.... just saying.

also i am all for repealing the marriage licensing act allowing anyone to do anything within life contracts. 5 wives and 5 husbands all too you, cool.

also compromise is a two way street, if he will not budge he is being just as obstructionist as those who will not bend to his will.

Well if one thing in the country isn't bad enough for the government or the people to take action against it we usually just ignore and let it fester until it is so bad that we are no longer able to ignore it. Putting off doing the right thing so that we can pretend to fix a problem that, in reality we are ignoring, is simply trying to apply two wrongs to make a right. If doing the right thing for immigrants actually moves us towards getting to the point where we absolutely must solve the problem you are concerned about wouldn't you sorta want to do exactly that considering that otherwise it could be decades before we get around to welfare?

if you allow open immigration with current welfare policies it would be thousands of times worse than it already is, to do that for decades is an impossibility in my mind, if you waited that long on welfare the immigration problem would solve its self, because people would be leaving.

@Serraph105 said:

Or would you rather wait because "the right team" might get the credit for immigration reform?

team, yes what team would that be?

and as long as you are on the team trip, how bipartisan was that ACA thing that impacts 20 or so percent of the GDP?

come on dude, you know i hate the GOP just like the DNC, but ignoring the partisan actions and then saying the other guys will not play ball is dishonest. obama set the standards for partisanship when he had a super majority, to see the minority act like dicks after being raped is to be expected.

i personally think the DC gridlock is the only thing this country has in its favor ATM, because both sides are only working for their party, i dont want to see anyone win. but at least i can honestly see the progression of events without a party bias.

colored bush has done what white obama never could do, and that is rally the other ignorant base.

The ACA was fairly bipartisan in my view believe it or not because, votes aside, republicans (one's who are still in Congress) came up with it in the 90's, a Republican signed it into law in Massachusetts, and Democrats adopted it for the country as a whole. If that's not an admission from the other side that something is working I don't know what is tbh. Not to mention on the voter side of things the ACA is working out quite well in deep red Kentucky.

Back to immigration, I actually meant that waiting a few decades (though maybe closer to 1.5-2 decades would be more accurate) would for reform would mean that they could ignore the issue of welfare for a greater period of time. Ignoring problems until it becomes a bigger problem is also something congress has also shown bipartisan support in doing over the decades. My point was that if you really think immigration reform would exacerbate the issue of welfare then you should probably support it since exacerbation to the point of not having the option of ignoring it might be the only way to get Congress to work on welfare.

sir, votes matter, shifting blame without evidence of said support is subject to any number of fallacies. i hope one day, as a somewhat thinking person, you can step out of the partisan party lines, been hoping that for at least as long as i have been on OT, but as i have been here and as the political situation has become more radicalized you have picked party over reality.

you cant blame republicans who did not support something for supporting that thing they did not support.

political mental gymnastics is always impressive, and depressing.

again, i am independent, republican shaming does not hold weight.

#17 Posted by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

The ACA was fairly bipartisan in my view believe it or not because, votes aside, republicans (one's who are still in Congress) came up with it in the 90's, a Republican signed it into law in Massachusetts, and Democrats adopted it for the country as a whole. If that's not an admission from the other side that something is working I don't know what is tbh. Not to mention on the voter side of things the ACA is working out quite well in deep red Kentucky.

Back to immigration, I actually meant that waiting a few decades (though maybe closer to 1.5-2 decades would be more accurate) would for reform would mean that they could ignore the issue of welfare for a greater period of time. Ignoring problems until it becomes a bigger problem is also something congress has also shown bipartisan support in doing over the decades. My point was that if you really think immigration reform would exacerbate the issue of welfare then you should probably support it since exacerbation to the point of not having the option of ignoring it might be the only way to get Congress to work on welfare.

sir, votes matter, shifting blame without evidence of said support is subject to any number of fallacies. i hope one day, as a somewhat thinking person, you can step out of the partisan party lines, been hoping that for at least as long as i have been on OT, but as i have been here and as the political situation has become more radicalized you have picked party over reality.

you cant blame republicans who did not support something for supporting that thing they did not support.

political mental gymnastics is always impressive, and depressing.

I'm not attempting political gymnastics with this, I'm simply looking at the history of the ACA. It has roots in both parties, and while it's absolutely true that not a single republican voted for it, it's hard to ignore the fact that republicans both came up with and implemented early versions of it. Hell they even added 200 plus amendments to the bill before the final vote. They voted against it, but they are a huge part of the reason it currently works the way it does.

And again, no one in the party officially supported it, but they knew it was going to pass when it came time to vote, and they worked to shape the final product before it was enacted.

#18 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

The ACA was fairly bipartisan in my view believe it or not because, votes aside, republicans (one's who are still in Congress) came up with it in the 90's, a Republican signed it into law in Massachusetts, and Democrats adopted it for the country as a whole. If that's not an admission from the other side that something is working I don't know what is tbh. Not to mention on the voter side of things the ACA is working out quite well in deep red Kentucky.

Back to immigration, I actually meant that waiting a few decades (though maybe closer to 1.5-2 decades would be more accurate) would for reform would mean that they could ignore the issue of welfare for a greater period of time. Ignoring problems until it becomes a bigger problem is also something congress has also shown bipartisan support in doing over the decades. My point was that if you really think immigration reform would exacerbate the issue of welfare then you should probably support it since exacerbation to the point of not having the option of ignoring it might be the only way to get Congress to work on welfare.

sir, votes matter, shifting blame without evidence of said support is subject to any number of fallacies. i hope one day, as a somewhat thinking person, you can step out of the partisan party lines, been hoping that for at least as long as i have been on OT, but as i have been here and as the political situation has become more radicalized you have picked party over reality.

you cant blame republicans who did not support something for supporting that thing they did not support.

political mental gymnastics is always impressive, and depressing.

I'm not attempting political gymnastics with this, I'm simply looking at the history of the ACA. It has roots in both parties, and while it's absolutely true that not a single republican voted for it, it's hard to ignore the fact that republicans both came up with and implemented early versions of it. Hell they even added 200 plus amendments to the bill before the final vote. They voted against it, but they are a huge part of the reason it currently works the way it does.

And again, no one in the party officially supported it, but they knew it was going to pass when it came time to vote, and they worked to shape the final product before it was enacted.

the variation of ideas is infinite, right? i mean there are creationist chemist, astronomers, physicists , ect. you are intermingling and strawmanning ideas to the extreme. the world is not as simple as the media would make it seem and the diversity of thought is a good thing, just because someone somewhere who might have been a republican endorsed ACA like plan does not make it a republican plan., especially since not a single republican rep endorsed it.

it works the way it does only because it was signed into law in a partisan fashion, the ACA is what it is because it was voted and signed as is. no other reason. that is not what makes it bad, what makes it bad is what it is, now is that why republicans were against it? i dont know, i am not those people, but it is as bad as it is because of the people who passed the bill and signed it into law.



i can wish for a flying unicorn all day, that is fine, but if i signed such a thing into law without considering this animal would need to be created from nothing and because of that it would cost literally a godly amount of funding to create, i could not blame that godly cost on the people who did not vote for my insanity.

you can only blame the people who signed on the dotted line.

#19 Posted by Serraph105 (28287 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

The ACA was fairly bipartisan in my view believe it or not because, votes aside, republicans (one's who are still in Congress) came up with it in the 90's, a Republican signed it into law in Massachusetts, and Democrats adopted it for the country as a whole. If that's not an admission from the other side that something is working I don't know what is tbh. Not to mention on the voter side of things the ACA is working out quite well in deep red Kentucky.

Back to immigration, I actually meant that waiting a few decades (though maybe closer to 1.5-2 decades would be more accurate) would for reform would mean that they could ignore the issue of welfare for a greater period of time. Ignoring problems until it becomes a bigger problem is also something congress has also shown bipartisan support in doing over the decades. My point was that if you really think immigration reform would exacerbate the issue of welfare then you should probably support it since exacerbation to the point of not having the option of ignoring it might be the only way to get Congress to work on welfare.

sir, votes matter, shifting blame without evidence of said support is subject to any number of fallacies. i hope one day, as a somewhat thinking person, you can step out of the partisan party lines, been hoping that for at least as long as i have been on OT, but as i have been here and as the political situation has become more radicalized you have picked party over reality.

you cant blame republicans who did not support something for supporting that thing they did not support.

political mental gymnastics is always impressive, and depressing.

I'm not attempting political gymnastics with this, I'm simply looking at the history of the ACA. It has roots in both parties, and while it's absolutely true that not a single republican voted for it, it's hard to ignore the fact that republicans both came up with and implemented early versions of it. Hell they even added 200 plus amendments to the bill before the final vote. They voted against it, but they are a huge part of the reason it currently works the way it does.

And again, no one in the party officially supported it, but they knew it was going to pass when it came time to vote, and they worked to shape the final product before it was enacted.

the variation of ideas is infinite, right? i mean there are creationist chemist, astronomers, physicists , ect. you are intermingling and strawmanning ideas to the extreme. the world is not as simple as the media would make it seem and the diversity of thought is a good thing, just because someone somewhere who might have been a republican endorsed ACA like plan does not make it a republican plan., especially since not a single republican rep endorsed it.

it works the way it does only because it was signed into law in a partisan fashion, the ACA is what it is because it was voted and signed as is. no other reason. that is not what makes it bad, what makes it bad is what it is, now is that why republicans were against it? i dont know, i am not those people, but it is as bad as it is because of the people who passed the bill and signed it into law.

i can wish for a flying unicorn all day, that is fine, but if i signed such a thing into law without considering this animal would need to be created from nothing and because of that it would cost literally a godly amount of funding to create, i could not blame that godly cost on the people who did not vote for my insanity.

you can only blame the people who signed on the dotted line.

I actually think that only looking at the names on the dotted line is the most minimal way to look at something. Going about it that way ignores how the bill came into being, and why it currently looks the way it does. One way or another Republicans managed to change the bill in quite a few ways, and though it's politically convenient to vote no on something that you know is going to pass anyways there really is no getting around the fact that republicans left their mark on the bill.

Do you honestly think that admitting multiple parties having a hand in crafting the ACA is me being politically biased?

#20 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

i am only liable for what i put my name on, what i sign off on, why does that change with politics?

when how and why do you assign guilt to parties who do not support what you are assigning to them?

and yes, a completely partisan bill signed into law in a completely partisan way must be assigned to that partisan faction who did that.


is the republican party trash? yes,. can they be blamed for the ACA? no, it was a partisan bill and the republicans were not the partisan actors who passed it.

#21 Posted by junglist101 (5462 posts) -

I used to care but fuck it. In about 20 years this place will look like mexico no matter what anyone tries to do. It's a lost battle.

#22 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@junglist101 said:

I used to care but fuck it. In about 20 years this place will look like mexico no matter what anyone tries to do. It's a lost battle.

yea man, 20 might be a little far ahead if immigration reform OB style passes without welfare reform in the apposite direction, increasing the burden on the state that already cant cover its current burdens is an all around losing proposition

#23 Posted by comp_atkins (31608 posts) -

@junglist101 said:

I used to care but fuck it. In about 20 years this place will look like mexico no matter what anyone tries to do. It's a lost battle.

nope, in 20 years the next wave will have started and all the hispanic americans will be complaining about how all the asians are coming into the country and ruining it.