Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, I'm allergic to fresh fruit and many fresh vegetables, so I'm not the person to ask.

jfrazell wrote:I am not saying that. I am saying those who are in the US have similar rights. Thats why the terrorists are kept in Cuba, not here.

I really hope, for the reputation of the United States, that the practice of placing prisoners on foriegn soil ends with the current adminsitration and the people of Gitmo are brought to American soil to face fair trials and those who are judged to be guilty of having committed crimes (and in combat deaths, while sad, are not crimes) are then subjected to the full punishment accord by US military law as per the United States Military Code of Conduct (or Amercian Criminal law if they are unlawful combatants).

I hope to see whoever takes office quit hopscotching around the issue and try them using existing laws, without hiding evidence behind walls of legal fictions. If the villians from WWII could be tried (German and Japanese) so can these. Many probably do deserve to quite rightly hang, but get it done and done in the light of day.


Edit: While I'm throwing out my wishlist, I'd like to see a return to America's economic prosperity during the Clinton years. Our economy depends on the American economy.

And a resoultion to the blinking border troubles, American's needing passports to get back into the states is playing heck with our tourism business, even before it's law.

Military acquisitions fall under a whole different heading, plus being under arrest changes the status of things as well. I agree that some of the legal loopholes that have jumped through to keep Guantanamo prisoners for years without a trial is bad and reflects poorly on us.

I also am not saying we shouldn't treat other people as if they have the same protections as citizens, but legally there is a difference and it is applied differently.

As to the elections I am curious what kind of policy shifts will actually be made and passed after the election from any of the candidates. Election promises and hopes aren't worth a damn. Just look at all the promises the Democrats made in the general election, got the majority, albeit slim, and really nothing has substantially changed.

To my ears, Hillary has not been any more straightforward then Obama. As for secret Service, they all have them to a degree. I would bet the Hillary and Obama are getting the lions share of death threats so they have more.

Bush could never have started the deficit snowball moving this way if he hadn't had a functional majority in the House. The Dems have had trouble getting crap done in part because they barely have a majority (only counting a couple of independents), and they need a 2/3 majority to override a Bush veto. Hard to make real changes to the guy's policies when he can just say "No."

There's a committee (consisting of the Homeland Security secretary, the speaker of the House and the minority leader, the majority and minority leader of the Senate, and a fifth member selected at large) that decides whether a candidate gets a secret service detail. The guideline is just supposed to be that they're considered a "major candidate", which they base on poll results and fundraising. The candidate has to ask, too. Hillary had one already as a former First Lady. Obama got his last May.

I understand why they have not been able to move around as much as they would like. What I am talking about is that promises are made knowing that there may be no way to keep them. Political winds shift. We could get Obama or Hillary and a Republican majority in Congress. Yay for change. Or some other event could make it happen that we can't even begin to predict.

Its true. They do tend to overpromise. Still, a step in the right direction is better than a leap in the wrong one.

"Keeping the terrorists in cuba"
Suspected terrorists, surely? That's the most disturbing thing to me.

Thanks for the links relating to the american political system by the way. Interesting stuff.

If you're caught on the battlefield in Afghanistan shooting at US soldiers I'd say terrorists. Else they're spies (not in uniform) so no problem capping them.

Everything you said has a right AND wrong (disagree and agree, etc) answer.
I'll do my best to answer.

efarrer wrote:I often find myself wondering if the illegal's situation (and the degree to which they are despised) is a trowback to the slavery era. Obviously they are second class citizens with limited rights, who occuppy the same economic niche as the slaves did (doing the work full citizens will not do at prices that fall well below minimum standards). Are they effectively untouchables for the uppercaste to look down on as a problem- but not actually repair the situation.

It's not a throwback to slavery. You're right about the second class citizen part, but they don't occupy the same niche, really. Although not as much as an "American" would want, they get paid far better. A slave (usually) got fed and housed and nothing more... except beaten and abused. Your parenthetical comment on it was accurate, though too general, IMO. As far as being untouchable, etc... It really depends on who you ask. This is an issue that crosses socio-economic boundaries. People from all walks of life are on both sides of the fence on this one (no pun intended). There are rich & poor in support and against it, etc. The people who don't want to repair the situation are typically the people who are snowed into believing that there would be disastrous price increases needed on all sorts of daily necessities & companies benefitting from the cheap labor (more on this later).

efarrer wrote:I have to ask are the citizens of the US prepared to deal with severe rises in the cost of food, and other goods, if the illegal immigrants are removed? Since I get much of my fresh fruit and vegtables through thier work, I find it hypocritical not to wonder how much of a vested intrest I have in the maintence of the status quo.

Yes... and No.
*I* am, as are many people I know (and know OF). Some, however, will absolutely freak out at the price increase. Myself, i'd HATE is (because I think it unnecessary), but I'd deal with it over supporting illegal immigration.
The problem isn't in the price increase, alone. It's in the weak dollar. We'd shirk FAR less at the price increase if the dollar didn't buy so precious little right now. THAT is the main factor keeping people from being TOO gung-ho about getting motivated, IMO... Of course, that would lead to an entirely different topic tangent.

efarrer wrote:And if you want to deal with the problem, why is the focus on the immigrants rather than the people who are willing to pay them? Slap some big fines on thier employers and you'll see the problem grinnd to a halt in short order. Basically, no jobs=no immigrants.

You're right and wrong again. Everything you said was pretty accurate, until you got to the part where you said that the companies would grind the jobs to a halt. They'd just pass the fines along to the consumer as a price increase, then get sneakier about it... I honestly don't believe they'd stop.
I don't think we should focus on the employers. I think we should have 2 departments... one focuses on the illegal immigrants & the other focuses on their employers. I think it needs to be a 2 pronged attack to be successful.

efarrer wrote:Or is the problem that there really is no desire to actually deal with the problem? That the ultra cheap labour for some big industries (and lets not kid ourselves farming is labour intensive still and a huge employer of the illegal immigrants) is an addiction which makes them willing to discourage senators and congressmen from actually doing something.

There is no desire for those who knowingly employ illegal labor to deal with it. Every hour an illegal employee works for them is that much more profit in their corporate pocket (I'll elaborate momentarily). It's the average citizen who isn't afraid to pay a bit more that has the problem with it.

efarrer wrote:Allowing a faster greencard recognition might alleviate the problem, in particular if it were located at the border, and worked in a much simpler fashion then the process for permanent immigration.

There's no such thing reasonably possible.
An illegal immigrant who wants in today will just "run for the border." he's not going to wait the month(s?) it would take to get him approved in a secure manner. The tragedy of 9/11 taught us the lesson we shouldn't have needed to learn. People want us hurt and dead because of the basic freedom's and liberties we enjoy. They will try to get into our country and injure us from within. We need effective screenings to keep these ne'er-do-well's at bay. A streamlined process, while a GREAT idea on paper, would not be beneficial to our security needs.

As far as what I referred to earlier (more profit in the employers pocket):

It is my firm and unswayable belief that a move from illegal labor to legal labor -100% across the entirety of all sectors currently employing illegal labor- would not have to include any price increases (or minimal increases). I believe that the profit margin these companies currently realize, due to illegal labor, is substantial. I feel that removing the illegal labor and introducing LEGAL labor would lower their profit margins to a level they would not like (in comparison to their current level), but not to a level where they would NEED to increase prices (not much, if at all, anyway). The companies would still enjoy a healthy bottom line, just not one so bloated as the current ones.
I don't feel that their corporate earnings statements are typically accurate, as these companies give excessive millions away to corporate big-wigs in unrealistic salaries, bonuses, gifts, expense accounts, ad nauseum.

Hey, you! Yeah, you! The guy in the corporate office who makes more a YEAR than many of us will make in a lifetime... How about reducing your salary by 25% (and still make MILLIONS a year) and help the company's bottom line?


Eric

People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

Da Boss is right. Although isn't that why the English attacked the colonies back in 1700whatever? The colonies were to free(from taxes). Or am I just bad at history?

Da Boss wrote:People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

jfrazell wrote:

Da Boss wrote:People don't want to hurt you because of the basic freedoms you enjoy. That's rubbish.
They want to hurt you because you're part of the global economic and military superpower, that has negatively impacted them in some way, whether it be physically or idealogically, by interfering in "their" affairs.

Not saying that they are right for wanting to hurt you, just that you may need to take a closer look at their reasons for wanting to hurt you. Because it's never just as simple as "By Allah, those americans are pretty free. Man that pisses me off. Think I'll explode myself at them, to register my dissent!"

So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

Precisely... and, if you DO believe that the radical Muslim's only reason for wanting ME dead is because of my government, you've fallen for their "spin."

They want my wife & daughters dead because they wear pants & don't cover their faces in public. They want me dead for my earrings & tattoos. We drink alcohol & eat pork. Those are the things they hate about everyone. Americans are just their most "popular" target. Of course, the policies of our government don't help. They want us dead because their religion, in the "strictest," most radical extreme, preaches that anyone who is not Islamic should be dead.

Of course, the policies of our government don't help.

Yes, I'm generalizing.
Yes, I know that not ALL Muslims... or even MOST Muslims are like that.

I'm simply referring to the radical point of view that uses their religion and the RAW of their Koran to find a way to want everyone else dead.

LOL, I worked a gaming term into my view on religion & foreign relations.
That means I need a break.


...probably from foreign relations. LOL
DEFINITELY not gaming.


I know Americans take a lot of heat on the world stage... and we deserve some of it, due to some of our governemntal policies/actions. I wonder, though... without qualification of WHY you feel that way (a simple yes or no will suffice), do the Non-Americans (USA, that is) on the boards feel like the world would be better off if we kept our noses out of the world's politics & business, except where it directly involved (not influenced) us? I won't be offended, I'm just curious.

Thanks!

Eric

jfrazell wrote:
So why are "they" hurting Hindus in India, killing buddhist priests and teachers in southern Thailand?

You can be a target for doing nothing, just being.

The Hindus in India have given as good as they've gotten. If not better. The crappy job the English did in creating Pakistan and India is a pretty good reason historically, for the Hindu Muslim conflict in India.

I don't know enough to speak on the situation in Thialand but my memory says there's racial stuff as well as religous stuff at play there.

So in answer to your question, In India, the wieght of history (something we as North Americans have very little of), and in Thialand it appears to be racial. Unfortunatley I can't find legitmate sources regarding the Thialand conflict to confirm this.

In all fairness they did kill Hindu's and Buddhist pretty much for just not being Muslim, but that was long before there was a nation state of India, let alone a breakaway called Pakistan. Just went in and burned the temples with the priests in them.

Of course before then the Sufi muslims and Hindu religious leaders and mystics had some grand conversations about the nature of God/Allah/Brahman. Of course most of the Sufi brotherhoods were killed of or driven out by the Shia or Sunni so take that as you will.

I think it is great we were generally able to stay on the elections for 5 pages before the wheels really came off and became a free for all American politics ranting thread.

Returning to the election a little, Michigan's primary is today.

Personally, I think Michigan deserves kudos for having the balls to stand up to the national party organizations and schedule their primary early enough that it gets tons of attention and all the (Republican) candidates promising to do stuff for Michigan's economy once elected.

Likewise, this gives me a positive feeling about Hillary. The fact that she was willing to stand up for Michigan against the Democratic apparatus gives me a lot of confidence that she won't just be a mouth-piece for Soros/MoveOn when she's in the Oval Office.

I live close enough to Detroit that I get their radio stations and TV. I think it's pretty clear that Michigan is hurting because its needs have been largely ignored in the drive towards free trade. Meanwhile Iowa has been high on ethanol subsidies for decades. I can certainly understand their point and wanting to get into the pandering action. It also points to the need to reform the current system and possible move towards a national primary day. If there's a national primary day and a majority of the electoral college passes popular vote laws than a lot of the distortions and market failures caused by the current system would go away.

In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

Which primarys have already happened? Just NH and Ia?

snorkle wrote:Which primarys have already happened? Just NH and Ia?

Wyoming took place after Iowa, and Michigan today.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Fred Thompson.

While I could see myself voting for a democrat like Zell Miller, or Joe Leiberman, I refuse to even consider supporting a democratic candidate who panders to the radical left like all the current ones do.

Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidate (really, only candidate Democratic or Republican period) that I believe actually cares about "serving" this nation. The rest seem more interested in "running" this nation. And thats why he has my support.

Fred Thompson has a shot in South Carolina. He's basically ignoring the other primaries to focus on that one.

He's definitely a long shot. I could see a McCain/Thompson ticket being very strong though (Thompson would appeal to conservatives and McCain would bring in moderates).

I agree with you that I wish Joe Lieberman was running this time.

Today's Democratic Party scares me. It honestly does. I have one fear for this country that I've sworn to defend with my life, and it's that people like John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton will run it. Not when they climbed to power through people who wish for the death of US Soldiers. Who honestly believe that our government caused September 11th. Who would sooner help an illegal alien sneak into this country, then open a door for a wounded Veteran.

Whether or not I agree with their politics (which I don't), they refuse to disavow these people. They take their money, and they take their support. And anyone who will do that, honestly doesn't care about doing anything good for this country. They care about gaining power, and nothing else.

Asmodai wrote:
In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

I didn't understand this bit. What did you mean about it being irrelevant because there are no delegates at stake? And why would Democrats be voting in a republican primary?

Da Boss wrote:

Asmodai wrote:
In terms of predictions, I expect Hillary to dominate over Gravel and Kucinich on the Democratic side (which is irrelevant since no delegates are at stake).

I expect McCain to get a narrow victory over Romney for the Republicans, but mostly since Democrats and Independents will be voting in the Republican primary. This will probably result in both sides claiming victory.

I didn't understand this bit. What did you mean about it being irrelevant because there are no delegates at stake? And why would Democrats be voting in a republican primary?

The national Democratic Party stripped Michigan of all its delegates because they scheduled their primary before February 5th without special permission. As a result Obama and Edwards requested that their names be removed from the ballot in Michigan - leaving Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel on the ballot. That undermines the influence of Michigan (and Florida which is in the same situation) on the Democratic process and removes it from its role in a brokered convention, if there is one.

Whether the party will stick to its position is up for debate given that both Michigan and Florida are swing states and alienating the voters there could be fatal in the general election.

The Republicans in contrast only stripped them of half their delegates and Republican candidates are actively campaigning there.

Michigan has an 'open' primary meaning that anyone can vote in either primary - you just can't vote in both. (As a contrast, California has a closed primary and only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.) As a result since the Democratic Primary isn't competitive or interesting many independents and even some Democrats will be voting in the Republican primary. McCain is perceived as the most moderate of the Republican field and is likely to get the majority of cross-over votes. Thus, McCain is likely to win a plurality of the votes, but Romney will win among registered Republicans. McCain's line will be that he won the state, Romney's line will be that he won among Republicans.

It's a confusing process, hopefully this post clears things up rather than adding to the fog.

Thanks for that. Man, US elections are complicated!
It's wierd that they can strip the delegates from a state like that.

Some things I have learned in my short time on Earth.

Every Presidential election is the most important one in in recent history. I hear this every election.

If you are right leaning or a Republican then the Democrats or left hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

If you are left leaning or a Democrat then the Republicans or right hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

You know djones for a country that you say you've sworn to defend with your life you seem to have no faith in it whatsoever. Even if Hillary wins it won't be the end of the country. In 4 years she'll have to reapply. In the meantime there are also congressional elections to help balance it out. Even if she does get elected twice she can't get elected again. There are people that dislike George Bush and think he is destroying the country but his time is almost up. That is how it works. If you love the country you have to accept you aren't always going to get every election or law passed. Buck up, support who you like, and don't base your loyalty on the outcome. It is the system that is important. That is why even if Hillary wins GW will be right there at the inauguration to shake her hand, and maybe give here a little pinch on the rear. Just kidding, no one wants to do that.

Good points Ahtman. The most important thing for a functional democracy is the ability of the losing side to accept the loss. This is what keeps the US and UK so relatively stable (not withstanding some of the sour grapes in recent close elections). There was grumbling when Gore lost, but there wasn't a civil war as would happen many places in Africa or Asia.

You can contrast that to places like Kenya or Pakistan where the party that loses turns to violence rather than waiting in opposition. That can permanently undermine the process.

The elections are important, but I don't think any of the major candidates would or could actually destroy it. Some might cause lasting harm (e.g. Ron Paul's economic ideas), but there's a pretty solid foundation there.

The ties of some Democratic candidates to the fringe left is concerning to me, at least as much as the ties of some Republicans to the fundamentalist right. Overall though, whoever gets elected is going to need to adopt a moderate and pragmatic approach in order to govern. Anything too extreme will get blocked by Congress or the courts.

Ahtman wrote:Some things I have learned in my short time on Earth.

Every Presidential election is the most important one in in recent history. I hear this every election.

If you are right leaning or a Republican then the Democrats or left hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

If you are left leaning or a Democrat then the Republicans or right hate America and want to destroy it. If their candidate wins it will be a killing blow for the country.

You know djones for a country that you say you've sworn to defend with your life you seem to have no faith in it whatsoever. Even if Hillary wins it won't be the end of the country. In 4 years she'll have to reapply. In the meantime there are also congressional elections to help balance it out. Even if she does get elected twice she can't get elected again. There are people that dislike George Bush and think he is destroying the country but his time is almost up. That is how it works. If you love the country you have to accept you aren't always going to get every election or law passed. Buck up, support who you like, and don't base your loyalty on the outcome. It is the system that is important. That is why even if Hillary wins GW will be right there at the inauguration to shake her hand, and maybe give here a little pinch on the rear. Just kidding, no one wants to do that.

No, it won't be the end of the world, but the damage dealt would be severe, and it will take a long time to repair. Progressivism will be allowed to grow, and it will cause simple idea's like "Personal Responsibility" to be something to be ignored. Why worry about the consequences of your actions when the government will bail you out?

Whatever people may think about President Bush, he has not made this country into a Nanny state. And that is the way todays Democratic party is trying to take it. They want to make the government provide for you. That is not what this country was founded apon. No where in our Constitution does it say that our Government will provide you with Healthcare, and a monthly welfare check.

So whether or not a Democrat wins this next election, I will still wear this uniform. I will still follow their orders. I will still defend America. But that doesn't change that they will "change" America. A change that I whole heartedly believe is for the worst.

@djones
Democrats have so far strengthened the military far more than republicans have. So if your problem with dems is that they aren't militaristic I don't get it.
But yeah I don't like Hillary or EDwards very much. Edwards is a pretty boy lawyer. Like DC isn't complicated enuff.
And I just don't like Hillary's main points. In Iowa all she talked about was breast cancer. We have more pressing issues in the USA right now

Your hitting all the conservative press keywords (Progressive, Nanny State) like it came straight from Limbaugh himself and I love it

It's not going to be severe. 9/11 made a severe change. They aren't neutron bombs after all. Now if the Democrats take a much greater majority in Congress and a far left Democrat gets the Presidency we might have something to worry about. Just getting a Democrat into the Presidency isn't enough, but that is the way it is supposed to be.

Ahtman wrote:Your hitting all the conservative press keywords (Progressive, Nanny State) like it came straight from Limbaugh himself and I love it

It's not going to be severe. 9/11 made a severe change. They aren't neutron bombs after all. Now if the Democrats take a much greater majority in Congress and a far left Democrat gets the Presidency we might have something to worry about. Just getting a Democrat into the Presidency isn't enough, but that is the way it is supposed to be.

Have you ever bothered to look at what the front line candidates actual policies are? I'm not talking about what they spout at the podium. I'm talking about what they have tried to push while in Congress, behind close door, when most people aren't looking.

These people are far left. Their not Kucinich types, thankfully, but they are still socialist democrats. And whether or not I'm using those keywords *rolls eyes* they are still true. Moderate Democrats are people like Joseph Leiberman. And we saw what the DNC had to say about him.

djones520, I find your point of veiw interesting, but I think it'll only drag this thread off topic if I ask you about it here, so I'm gonna start another thread.