Which democrat are you or are you not supporting?

[rubah]

Okay, first of all, I'm not supporting any democrat. I can't freaking stand any of the candidates so far, including Republicans, but especially the Democrats.

Uh, none of them. I support <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/">a republican</a>

I'm with Allie on this one, more or less.

OMG, Ron Paul ?

Gotta admit he has a silver tongue and says stuff that appeals even to me nowadays, but he is bat insane!!! Have you seen his 1990 mailings to his base ? He is more homophobic than Pat Robertson and more racist than David Duke!

Angry White Man

Well, most of the people in the comments believe that that particular article was just some well-timed mudslinging, and paul has responded <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters">on his site</a> about it.

[Kirobaito]

I will probably be voting for Edwards in the primary come March. He's got a lot of good ideas, he just doesn't talk about them enough because he wants to get that feeling of "us against the world" and stuff. He needs to stop saying the same thing over and over again and start talking about his politics, which I tend to agree with.

When Obama wins the nomination, I will be voting for him, because he inspires in that same JFK-type mold. Edwards will almost assuredly be his running mate.

The Republicans are entertaining merely to see Paul as the lone voice of reason amongst a bunch of old crotchety white guys. But libertarianism is as impractical and against human nature as communism, but people don't seem to realize this. Paul is entertaining because he speaks out for issues that real candidates are afraid to, but he's nothing more than that. And yeah, tends to be bat insane.

[Miriel]

I heard that Ron Paul is a big hit with Libertarians and internet folk.

I think he's fairly popular among the pothead demographic.

He wants to end birthright citizenship which imho just makes him an ass. A big big ass. He has plenty of other really stupid ideas. So many of the GOP candidates are INSANE! Except McCain. I may not agree with McCain about certain things but he seems the most sane out of all of 'em. Plus he's cute old grandpa and I want to give him a hug.

[Yamaneko]

His contention with jus soli from what I understand is that it creates a phenomenon which he terms "anchor babies", meaning INS is reluctant to deport illegals because they don't want to break up families. I have to agree with him. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) wasn't ratified in light of the welfare state and the level of immigration we see today. It makes sense to rethink the idea of birthright citizenship. In fact, most other Western nations have a modified version of jus soli requiring either outright citizenship on behalf of the parent or at the very least the ability to claim residency for "x" number of years ("x" being the figure as determined by legislation).

As far as Libertarianism being against human nature, it's no more true than a Republic being for human nature. We have to be careful what we term "human nature". Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[Vivisteiner]

I really don't see Edwards winning for the democrats. Its either gonna be Hillary or Obama. So, while I would have seriously considered supporting Edwards, I think it would be a waste. Ill be really annoyed if Hillary wins because people voted for Edwards instead of Obama.

If Edwards were to drop out, I think that would give a significant boost to Obama's chances, since from what I know most Edwards supporters support Obama second.


Oh, and who the hell edited my title?

[Renmiri]

paul has responded <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters">on his site</a> about it.

Well... dunno. If someone publishes this kind of shiite under my name for years and I don't notice or stop it... Does Paul really have the attention span and competence to be president ? We all know full well what happens when presidents don't read and let their subordinates run amok. We've been living it the last 8 years. :rolleyes2

[Miriel]

His contention with jus soli from what I understand is that it creates a phenomenon which he terms "anchor babies", meaning INS is reluctant to deport illegals because they don't want to break up families. I have to agree with him. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) wasn't ratified in light of the welfare state and the level of immigration we see today. It makes sense to rethink the idea of birthright citizenship. In fact, most other Western nations have a modified version of jus soli requiring either outright citizenship on behalf of the parent or at the very least the ability to claim residency for "x" number of years ("x" being the figure as determined by legislation).

As far as Libertarianism being against human nature, it's no more true than a Republic being for human nature. We have to be careful what we term "human nature". Just saying it doesn't make it so.

I don't see anything wrong with anchor babies. Nothing at all. My cousin was an anchor baby. Her mom spent a good chunk of her savings and a year of her time in order to come to America, without the rest of her family or husband, and live here long enough to give birth to my cousin so that she would be an American citizen. She wanted her daughter to have a better life than she had in Korea. There's nothing wrong with that.

I have a different view on immigration than a lot of people.

Also, a wall will do NOTHING to stop the tide of immigration. Idiots.

[Kirobaito]

As far as Libertarianism being against human nature, it's no more true than a Republic being for human nature. We have to be careful what we term "human nature". Just saying it doesn't make it so.

I would say that with the absence of government intervention, you have situations in which worker's rights would be basically trampled over because the government wouldn't do anything about it. You get into arguments at what rights the government should and shouldn't be protecting. Worker's rights aren't guaranteed in the Constitution, but I believe that they're mighty important.

In a situation with economic disparity, a system like libertarianism would exacerbate the problem. Whether you feel that the economic disparity in the US is a problem, I suppose, is up for the individual to decide. People do not all strive for the common good, and I feel that, in order to make a nation as efficient and economically sound, you have to have government intervention to prevent certain things.

I wouldn't say that Republics are *for* human nature, by any stretch, but the checks and balances in place are at least intended to help prevent the corruption that unchecked individuals in the world feel entitled to.

[Rye]

I like Obama's policies on immigration. He thinks that there should be enforcements on laws against illegal immigrants, but at the same time, many more people should be able to qualify to come to the US as legal immigrants, which is something I really agree with. The reason there's so many illegal immigrants is because it's such a difficult process to come over as a legal immigrant.

[Yamaneko]

I don't see anything wrong with anchor babies. Nothing at all. My cousin was an anchor baby. Her mom spent a good chunk of her savings and a year of her time in order to come to America, without the rest of her family or husband, and live here long enough to give birth to my cousin so that she would be an American citizen. She wanted her daughter to have a better life than she had in Korea. There's nothing wrong with that.

I have a different view on immigration than a lot of people.

Also, a wall will do NOTHING to stop the tide of immigration. Idiots.

The problem isn't with residents giving birth and the state automatically granting citizenship to the child. Illegal immigrants who bypass the laws of this country to get in give birth in this country and then the state will rethink its position on immigration because of the new reality. I'm a first generation American. My parents had already been in this country for almost fifteen years before my mother gave birth to me. They had an investment here, so it makes sense that their children be bestowed citizenship upon birth. I have a huge problem with illegal immigrants breaking laws and then thinking that giving birth in this country is their ticket in. Something has to change.

Better border security as enforced by the states who occupy said borders will help. We can't be complacent. Everyone shouldn't be welcome.

As far as workers' rights and unions go. I don't trust the government anymore than I trust corporations.

[Miriel]

Birthright citizenship is not the major issue with immigration policies. And I admit that I don't understand the full story regarding birthright citizenship and immigration policies regarding those families with mixed legal status. But from reading and watching various case studies, there have been PLENTY of cases where families with children who have legal citizenship are still forced out of the country. So children with legal status does not automatically guarantee any sort of "safe" legal status for the parents. To fixate on birthright citizenship as a major factor in illegal immigration is stupid and doesn't make any sense.

If we're gonna build a fence or wall or whatever along the Mexican/US border, than we should do the same for Canada. I don't have my notes with me on this computer, but I do have statistics that show that illegal immigration from Canada into the US is significant as well. But people just don't care about illegal Canadian immigrants. Why? Who knows. Race, background, social class, whatever.

Also, if we want to curb illegal immigration, maybe US businesses should stop SENDING OUT recruiters into Mexico and Latin America who actively seek out workers for jobs that most Americans refuse to do such as work on chicken slaughterhouses and other such difficult and dirty work. People assume that people from Mexico or Guadalajara just happen to wander over one day and decide to stay. No. One of the reasons they come is because people from the US come into their country and tell them that they can get good work in the US.

No, I don't think everyone should be allowed to come over freely. But it seems to me that people who talk about building a wall really have no clear understanding about the reasons behind immigration and the fact that it's both a pull and a push. Americans invite immigrants (regardless of legal status) into the country for their labor and then try to push to push 'em out again once they start building families here. Do people really think that a wall is going to keep a husband from finding his way to America where his wife is working as a domestic house worker? Or parents from making their way over cause their children aren't getting enough food in their country of origin? Pfft.

[Shlup]

Boooo democrats.

[Quindiana Jones]

You sicken me.

[Madame Adequate]

Everyone shouldn't be welcome.

But you're not actually keeping out anyone unwelcome with the current system. Far better to have an easier, cheaper, more accepting legal system so that the people who you don't want have a much harder time blending in.

Then again, the idea that immigration can legitimately be illegal is alien to me.

[rubah]

why shouldn't everyone be welcome? I think I have to agree with MILF about the concept of illegal immigration. It's just weird.