D. Armenta
PlagmanTopic of Immigration at Democratic Debate: Candidates Contradict their own Past Views
Sunday’s debate featured the Democratic presidential candidates arguing about the most important issue of our time. But gay marriage wasn’t the only controversial subject the people wanted to hear about. Despite specific instructions given to them by the Democratic Party, the debate’s moderators brought up controversial topics that required each candidate to take a stance. Not having been prepped on such matters, and without any experience in choosing their own viewpoints, several of the candidates were completely lost, unable to recall where they had stood in the past on given issues. The one that got most of them into trouble was the topic most likely to upset legal US citizens: immigration.
Politics, according to Wikipedia, is the art of placating to 100% of a given population. By taking a side on a given matter, one would inevitably upset those in opposition, thus making it impossible to allocate the necessary 100% of the votes.
A politician’s viewpoint is also tricky business, as it is entirely dependent on public opinion, the opponent’s viewpoint at the time, party pressures, and whether or not they plan on running for another term.
When immigration reform came up during the debate, the candidates entered what psychologists refer to as a schizophrenic state; a divergent mindset was created in order to cope with the stress of having to choose an opinion. Often, as in the case of this past Sunday, the candidate’s divergent personality will contradict what they may have said or done in the past.
Governor Bill Richardson was one of those affected Sunday night. Initially, Bill had said he was in support of the bipartisan Senate compromise; now, however, he says he is against it. When asked during the debate why a proposed “earned legalization” isn’t the equivalent of amnesty, he replied that under the new plan, which he opposes, illegals seeking permanent residency would be required to return home temporarily in what is being referred to as a “touchback,” which is exactly why Bill voted to move kickoffs in the NFL to the 30-yard line instead of the 35. “I was tired of seeing kickers boot it into the endzone,” said Bill, “you just get back from commercial, the guy takes a knee, and then you’re right back to commercial. Come on, kickoff returns are exciting. What? I can’t be the only one! Whatever, you’ll see next fall.”
Senator Hillary Clinton was another. In February of 2003, she spoke to WABC radio in New York, re-assuring the listeners that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Hillary, husband of former president Bill Clinton, now says that she favors giving illegals a path to legalization. Ruben Navarrette, Jr. of CNN posed the question, “if you’re adamantly against something, why support a measure that excuses it and even, if you believe the critics, encourages more of the same in the years to come?” Sen. Clinton replied, “This is a simple misunderstanding. I meant that I was opposed to immigrants who commit illegal acts, and I still am. And you know what, I don’t care if it does make me a weaker candidate, I’ll proudly admit that I’m against most, if not almost all illegal acts, unlike my opponents who all voted for illegal acts back in 2004 at that meeting in the place.”
Senator Barack Obama, well-known for his position against minorities in general, voted last year to build 750 miles of fencing along the US-Mexican border. Now, however, he supports legislation that would give illegals a path to earn legalization. Again, Navarrette wonders, “what a confusing message that sends to those who are considering entering the US illegally: ‘we don’t want you here, and we’re going to try to fence you out. But, if you get in, we’ll give you the chance to stay permanently.’” (Yeah, that’s what she said)
Obama later defended his position, saying, “of course I supported a fence along the border; Mexico deserve their privacy, and I don’t feel that Americans should have the right to traipse back and forth across the border, or even migrate over there and steal Mexican jobs from Mexicans who were unsuccessful in sneaking into the US and thus need jobs in Mexico. Sorry if I choose to disagree with my opponents who are pro-Mexican job stealing.”
Senator Joe Biden was the fourth senator to trip over his own feet. During the debate, he admitted that a wall wouldn’t keep out illegal immigrants, despite last year voting for that very same wall that he admits won’t work. This begs the question, why on earth would you vote for something you know isn’t going to work? Has there been a development since then in the field of walls? Biden claims that his intent in voting for the wall was to keep out illegal drugs, not illegal immigrants, who are crafty little devils and can go over, around, or under the chain-link fence they got for $.99 per yard at Ace Hardware. Drug smugglers, on the other hand, are not only amateurs at smuggling, but they lack basic fence-hopping abilities. “It’s simple genetics,” explained Biden. “I mean, let’s be real; even if they figure out how to get past the fence, what’re they going to do, throw the drugs over? Come on, never gonna happen.”
But the expected inability to make a decision may have longer reaching consequences than initially thought. “If one of these candidates wins,” explained Lou Dobbs on his news show, “it’s going to become common practice to be in support of both sides of an issue. The days of politicians choosing sides based on polls will be over, they’ll just be on everyone’s side. Which is smart; if you agree with everyone, then no one will disagree with you.”
“That’s not what I’m doing at all,” said Clinton, “if I feel strongly enough why can’t I be pro-life and pro-choice? Women have a right to choose, and babies have a right to life. Tell me how that doesn’t make perfect sense.”
Fortunately for the candidates, they have some of the best illusionists in the business working on their responses to question, and the very best hackers in the world attempting to acquire the questions before the debate. “I got my grade in Intro to Government changed from a D to an A,” said Clinton, “I think I can handle getting my hands on a couple of question forms. By the way, does anyone know if the moderator is married? How’s this outfit, revealing enough?”
In yesterday’s election, candidates attempted to look both tough and compassionate, but instead came off as tools. They did, however, manage to convince the American public that even though they’re afraid to take a stance against illegal immigrants in this country, they’re not afraid to stand up to the threat of terrorism, but they do support the terrorists’ rights to express their religious beliefs.
Politics, according to Wikipedia, is the art of placating to 100% of a given population. By taking a side on a given matter, one would inevitably upset those in opposition, thus making it impossible to allocate the necessary 100% of the votes.
A politician’s viewpoint is also tricky business, as it is entirely dependent on public opinion, the opponent’s viewpoint at the time, party pressures, and whether or not they plan on running for another term.
When immigration reform came up during the debate, the candidates entered what psychologists refer to as a schizophrenic state; a divergent mindset was created in order to cope with the stress of having to choose an opinion. Often, as in the case of this past Sunday, the candidate’s divergent personality will contradict what they may have said or done in the past.
Governor Bill Richardson was one of those affected Sunday night. Initially, Bill had said he was in support of the bipartisan Senate compromise; now, however, he says he is against it. When asked during the debate why a proposed “earned legalization” isn’t the equivalent of amnesty, he replied that under the new plan, which he opposes, illegals seeking permanent residency would be required to return home temporarily in what is being referred to as a “touchback,” which is exactly why Bill voted to move kickoffs in the NFL to the 30-yard line instead of the 35. “I was tired of seeing kickers boot it into the endzone,” said Bill, “you just get back from commercial, the guy takes a knee, and then you’re right back to commercial. Come on, kickoff returns are exciting. What? I can’t be the only one! Whatever, you’ll see next fall.”
Senator Hillary Clinton was another. In February of 2003, she spoke to WABC radio in New York, re-assuring the listeners that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Hillary, husband of former president Bill Clinton, now says that she favors giving illegals a path to legalization. Ruben Navarrette, Jr. of CNN posed the question, “if you’re adamantly against something, why support a measure that excuses it and even, if you believe the critics, encourages more of the same in the years to come?” Sen. Clinton replied, “This is a simple misunderstanding. I meant that I was opposed to immigrants who commit illegal acts, and I still am. And you know what, I don’t care if it does make me a weaker candidate, I’ll proudly admit that I’m against most, if not almost all illegal acts, unlike my opponents who all voted for illegal acts back in 2004 at that meeting in the place.”
Senator Barack Obama, well-known for his position against minorities in general, voted last year to build 750 miles of fencing along the US-Mexican border. Now, however, he supports legislation that would give illegals a path to earn legalization. Again, Navarrette wonders, “what a confusing message that sends to those who are considering entering the US illegally: ‘we don’t want you here, and we’re going to try to fence you out. But, if you get in, we’ll give you the chance to stay permanently.’” (Yeah, that’s what she said)
Obama later defended his position, saying, “of course I supported a fence along the border; Mexico deserve their privacy, and I don’t feel that Americans should have the right to traipse back and forth across the border, or even migrate over there and steal Mexican jobs from Mexicans who were unsuccessful in sneaking into the US and thus need jobs in Mexico. Sorry if I choose to disagree with my opponents who are pro-Mexican job stealing.”
Senator Joe Biden was the fourth senator to trip over his own feet. During the debate, he admitted that a wall wouldn’t keep out illegal immigrants, despite last year voting for that very same wall that he admits won’t work. This begs the question, why on earth would you vote for something you know isn’t going to work? Has there been a development since then in the field of walls? Biden claims that his intent in voting for the wall was to keep out illegal drugs, not illegal immigrants, who are crafty little devils and can go over, around, or under the chain-link fence they got for $.99 per yard at Ace Hardware. Drug smugglers, on the other hand, are not only amateurs at smuggling, but they lack basic fence-hopping abilities. “It’s simple genetics,” explained Biden. “I mean, let’s be real; even if they figure out how to get past the fence, what’re they going to do, throw the drugs over? Come on, never gonna happen.”
But the expected inability to make a decision may have longer reaching consequences than initially thought. “If one of these candidates wins,” explained Lou Dobbs on his news show, “it’s going to become common practice to be in support of both sides of an issue. The days of politicians choosing sides based on polls will be over, they’ll just be on everyone’s side. Which is smart; if you agree with everyone, then no one will disagree with you.”
“That’s not what I’m doing at all,” said Clinton, “if I feel strongly enough why can’t I be pro-life and pro-choice? Women have a right to choose, and babies have a right to life. Tell me how that doesn’t make perfect sense.”
Fortunately for the candidates, they have some of the best illusionists in the business working on their responses to question, and the very best hackers in the world attempting to acquire the questions before the debate. “I got my grade in Intro to Government changed from a D to an A,” said Clinton, “I think I can handle getting my hands on a couple of question forms. By the way, does anyone know if the moderator is married? How’s this outfit, revealing enough?”
In yesterday’s election, candidates attempted to look both tough and compassionate, but instead came off as tools. They did, however, manage to convince the American public that even though they’re afraid to take a stance against illegal immigrants in this country, they’re not afraid to stand up to the threat of terrorism, but they do support the terrorists’ rights to express their religious beliefs.
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
"..I’ll proudly admit that I’m against most, if not almost all illegal acts, unlike my opponents who all voted for illegal acts back in 2004 at that meeting in the place..”
“..if I feel strongly enough why can’t I be pro-life and pro-choice? Women have a right to choose, and babies have a right to life. Tell me how that doesn’t make perfect sense..”
This stuff is TOO GOOD to go unappreciated!! We've got to find the right niche.
This is sarcasm at its funniest..