Thread: President of the US of A

At this point I'd rather vote "none of the above."

Originally Posted by WW243

Several differences in the 'Immigrant wave,' compared with the others you mentioned. One, the dialogue is more about the illegal immigrant wave and another is: have any of the languages of the other 'waves' of immigrants become the 2nd language of the United States?

The American public doesn't give a rat's behind about the immigrant problem and never did. It's only because politicians are hammering on it and the media reinforces it. if a politician complained too many people were wearing red clothes and the media pushed that story there would be dialogue about people wearing the wrong color.

The illegal wave started in the 1950s and hasn't stopped since and no one cared. Briefly in the 80s during Amnesty some folks cared but then it died down like everything else. So what's the reason it's a dialogue now?

As to the language it is what it is. This country is changing and Spanish Speakers will probably be in the majority. I know many fear that but that's what's happening. With respect to Spanish most Illegals live in small secretive communities and many travel back and forth to and from Mexico. They have no incentive to learn English. Legalize them and they will learn the language when it is in their interests to do it.

Remember even for Naturalization there are waivers from the English requirement.

Also, remember in the early days there was no such thing as illegals. You got on a boat and came here and unless you had a disease or had mental issues you were legal and that's that. Even earlier like the 1800s you just came here no different than illegals do today. The exception was the Chinese who were barred from entry for a time.

So when you talk about Immigration to the U.S and you talk about illegals and waives of immigrants many have no understanding of our history immigration speaking that is.. Had these folks not been able to fit into society I imagine many would never have learned English and in fact most of the older folks never did learn English.

“Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical?”

Why, because they are getting Hilary rammed down their throats. A large majority of the rabid, Sanders supporters are not voting for Bernie, they are voting against Hillary.

If Hillary is the nominee, the convention will be a replay of the 68 Democratic convention, except this time the police have learned their lesson from an anti-police administration and … let it burn…

The republicans will coalesce behind the nominee, and come out in groves on issues, 2nd amendment, Immigration, Anti-Terror Security, The Economy, Religious Conservatives and the Supreme Court.

Both parties have large groups of active, disenfranchised who will throw the bums out… not the year to be an incumbent.

The other good thing to come from this is, it will finally demonstrate the lack of viewership of network news and print media. Next election, I doubt candidates will waste money advertising with them and they will fold even faster than they are now.

Originally Posted by Euclid440

“Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical?”

Why, because they are getting Hilary rammed down their throats. A large majority of the rabid, Sanders supporters are not voting for Bernie, they are voting against Hillary.

I am not so sure. Sanders is representing the liberal left of the party, if it weren't him could be Elizabeth Warren. At the end of a normal political process, which the Democratic primaries seem to be the loosing factions get behind the winner. Just like in 2008 Clinton's supporters got behind Obama.

The big reality show is on the Republican side, where Trump has been in many ways anti the established party orthodoxy itself. This doesn't look at all like Romney winning the nomination and the other factions getting behind it.
And I may be wrong, but I have the impression that these days the republicans are significantly more against compromise than the democrats.

In other words if we're witnessing a major political realignment it appears to be primarily on the republican side. May be this will finally break the two party system.

Always a great thrill to have the politicos back in action. It has been getting so much more exciting as I get older (get off my lawn!) but already it is enough to gag a maggot. Our primary here isn't important, since it isn't held until next week after it's all decided I guess. But the miserable pukes have filled my home answering machine up twice already, braying in very poor grammar about who be da man. It ain't over until November, sadly, but if the two fat rich New Yorkers that are the heirs apparent are the final result, it will be the most embarrassing choice since 1968, and we all know how that ended. Or perhaps we don't, since it wasn't shown last hour on Fox News ..

Enough

"It Takes a Twit to Raise a Tweet"

Went to poll today. When i registered back in 99 in Oklahoma, i registered as an independent because i was quite upset with the Republicans.

Fast forward to today: Went to voting center to vote for my choice republican. I was made to read a oklahoma state statute. Long story short, i could only poll on the democratic ticket.

How is that even legal?

Originally Posted by ScottGoodman

Went to poll today. When i registered back in 99 in Oklahoma, i registered as an independent because i was quite upset with the Republicans.

Fast forward to today: Went to voting center to vote for my choice republican. I was made to read a oklahoma state statute. Long story short, i could only poll on the democratic ticket.

How is that even legal?

I have no idea how that is legal.......

Originally Posted by ScottGoodman

Went to poll today. When i registered back in 99 in Oklahoma, i registered as an independent because i was quite upset with the Republicans.

Fast forward to today: Went to voting center to vote for my choice republican. I was made to read a oklahoma state statute. Long story short, i could only poll on the democratic ticket.

How is that even legal?

What is the problem? It seems quite reasonable to me that the political parties should get to decide how to handle their internal matters and selecting the presidential nominee that the party will back is certainly such a thing.
Last year the Democratic party in Oklahoma decided to allow independents have a say as well, the Republican party is restricting it to those who have registered as republicans only. You are still standing by your 1999 decision to not be part of the Republican party so they have no obligation to let you meddle in their business.
If you now identify as a republican you really should register as such.

Paperwork is done and submitted, back on the Republican train

WTG