Quote: (11-20-2014 02:53 PM)MidWest Wrote:
Quote: (11-20-2014 02:43 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
What the fuck did they do about illegal immigration in all that time? They didn't do jack shit. But now all of a sudden they are the party of fighting illegal immigration.
Politics are a joke.
Funny how politics works. George W. Bush in 2006 actually tried to put forward a bill on immigration reform in response to all the marches. Guess who blocked him then? Democrats, after taking the congress in 06. Democrats did not want to give Bush and the Republican party any leeway with Hispanic voters. This is just a struggle to see who can win the Hispanic vote.
This isn't true. Conservatives stopped Bush's Amnesty in 2006.
The legislation failed to garner even a simple majority.
Only 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and one independent voted to advance the bill, while 15 Democrats joined 37 Republicans and one independent to block it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/2...3820070629
A lot of people outside of the right wing sphere don't seem to understand that for many years starting in the early 80's, culminating in around 1992 when Buchanan took on Bush I in the primaries, there has been a battle in the republican party between the big business/ globalist cheap labor republicans and neoconservatives vs the cultural and populist conservatives(paleoconservatives, alt right, nationalists isolationists, dark enlightenment etc.) For many years, the big business globalist republicans and neoconservatives dominated(hence the reason we had NAFTA, middle east wars, pro immigrant policies.)
However, in recent years due to endless foreign wars, and people experiencing first hand the cultural impact of mass immigration, those republicans have been losing ground. People began to realize that those globalist republicans policies' transnational corporate wealth benefits were coming at the expense of our national interest, heritage and culture. You can see this with the mainstream republican leadership and the problems they have getting their members to go along.
So you cannot say "well republicans had a republican president and congress and they didn't do anything." Indeed, many of them are a different breed of republicans in there now. For those of us who frequent right wing circles, the battle lines have been pretty clearly drawn.
Conservative sites/Magazines which are generally on the side of Big Business/ interventionist/ neoconservative/ pro immigration;
National Review
Weekly Standard
Fox News
RedState
FreeRepublic
Wall Street Journal
Commentary
Front Page Magazine
RushLimbaugh
Glenn Beck
Conservative Sites/Magazines which are generally paleoconservative or alternate right/ libertarian/opposed to interventionism/ globalism/ immigration/ multiculturalism/ big business;
Takimag
The American Conservative
DrudgeReport
Vdare
Unz Review
Chronicles
Conservative Heritage Times
There are some gray areas where some people like Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly may be cultural conservatives and want to restrict immigration but still support military interventionism and vice versa in the case of Rand Paul, but for the most part the above holds true.
In recent years with the rise in popularity of the alt right, many of the mainstream republican media outlets like Fox News and National Review have started co-opting many of the views of people like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, John Derbyshire and others that they once shunned. You can see the subtle differences between older shows on Foxnews like Hannity vs their newer programming like Redeye, which regularly feature alt right figures like Gavin Mcinnes.
Sorry for the epic political nerd post, but I feel as though without getting this out stuff out there we will all be talking past one another. Just as in 1972 the democrats that supported George Mcgovern had little in common with those that supported Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson just 10-12 years earlier, and republicans who supported Goldwater in 64 were much different than those who voted for Eisenhower in 1952, Republicans in 2014 are not quite the same bunch they were when they supported Bush in 2004. if anything, it was Bush's stubborn policies that unintentionally opened the door for the alternate right to emerge.