Do you hate both sides on most issues?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Trade would be another primarily because for one thing, the type of free trade of the bilateral variety that we had been pursuing lately is hardly real free trade at all certainly in comparison to the multilateral free trade pursued in the aftermath of World War II. I tend to take a more realistic approach to things as opposed to some idealistic one. It is thus that while I think free trade is preferrable, if pursued in isolation from the effects on the ground, such could lead to a counter reaction in the political world that pushes protectionism, which is obviously not the desired outcome.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

While that may be a prevalent opinion on this forum, I would hardly say that the Democratic party wants to remove all immigration restrictions.

Ostenibly yes, but the long term effect of cyclically granting amnesty is to undermine those restrictions in place to the point where they might as well not even exist. Frankly, what is the difference? At least the openly open borders crowd is honest about it.

As a liberal, I actually do support increased border security and enforcement of laws along with giving a path to citizenship to those who are already here (and the DREAM Act). I highly doubt most Democrats secretly support "open borders".

The effect of always taking that approach is precisely such though in effect. Increasing border security from where it is now would be of minimal effect. It could help in some areas but overall, it has little return to be offered from doing such. It is certainly not a magically bullet that absolves the consequences for continually giving amnesty.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

Where does it say that the side has to be mainstream?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Immigration tops my list ironically. On the one side you have those who don't believe in any limits or restrictions at all, and the other wants no immigration at all. Both are misguided and contrary to economic and societal interests.

Not really. Ending all immigration isn't exactly a mainstream view in American politics...

Where does it say that the side has to be mainstream?

I assumed the "both sides" referred to the Republican and Democratic positions. I suppose that was a pretty big assumption, but if "both sides" referrers to the furthest right and furthest left position on each issue, then I think just about everybody would hate "both sides" on quite a few issues.

I didn't start the thread, so I don't there. But there was quite a lot of emphasize on the fact that there were numerous and far more then two positions on an issue. As for this one, I was probably thinking of the divided within the GOP, but that is really just an extension of the divides in society at large though on the issue.