USA Politics

LOL!!! Seriously that is madness! To separate from the Union only because the candidate they wanted didn't win! That's so childish... I can't even believe there are some persons wanting that.
 
Oh, I know! It's amazing what people think. That'd be like someone saying Cali was going to leave the union because W was elected the second time. Just stupid.

In other news, did anyone notice that Puerto Rico voted to be a state? I think it looks like it won't really happen, but how about that?!
 
The hurricane didn't actually hit me much - I was away for unrelated reasons.

But yeah. PR joining the union would be huge for the Obama Coalition - as it would likely vote heavily Democratic to start with. Any changes made in the Hispanic community by the GOP would show there faster than anywhere else, though. Would be an interesting as heck situation.

Don't worry about people talking about secession. Those states couldn't afford it.
 
I agree that no state will secede, but I do wonder what the federal government would do if a state tried. I may be wrong but I don't believe that there is anything in the constitution to prevent a state from seceding. Of course the U. S. constitution supercedes any individual state constitution. It could be interesting watching the process and the inevitable fall out from such an action.
 
LooseCannon said:
The hurricane didn't actually hit me much - I was away for unrelated reasons.

But yeah. PR joining the union would be huge for the Obama Coalition - as it would likely vote heavily Democratic to start with. Any changes made in the Hispanic community by the GOP would show there faster than anywhere else, though. Would be an interesting as heck situation.

Don't worry about people talking about secession. Those states couldn't afford it.
Click to expand...

Well, in either case, glad you're back!

Yeah, PR is going to be interesting. My understanding is that the PR gov't now needs to draft a 'state constitution', but the Gov. of PR that was 'pro state' got voted out, so it is not very likely that anything is going to come of it.

And, I agree, nothing is going to happen.. just people being pissy. I read somewhere that these petitions have floated around after each of the last 3 or 4 elections, at least.
 
Wästed The Great said:
In other news, did anyone notice that Puerto Rico voted to be a state?
Click to expand...

According to the Huffington Post, they really didn't. Only 46% of those voting actually supported statehood:

Headlines last week reported that a majority of Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood for the first time in the country's history. The referendum had two parts. The first part asked whether the voter agreed with Puerto Rico's current status as a U.S. commonwealth, which was described on the ballot as Puerto Rico's "current territorial condition." By a 54 percent to 46 percent margin, the voters rejected Puerto Rico's current territorial condition, stating in effect that they would like to change their current status. The second part was entitled "Non-Territorial Options," and listed three options: (1) Statehood, (2) Sovereign Free Associated State, and (3) Independence. According to news reports, 61 percent of voters supported statehood, 33 percent supported the sovereign commonwealth arrangement, and 6 percent voted for independence.
However, a fair reading of the referendum results shows clearly that the headlines proclaiming that a majority of Puerto Ricans support statehood are misleading and erroneous, and certainly promote considerable cynicism regarding Puerto Rico's political process. Indeed, the votes of nearly half a million voters who did not support statehood were not counted. These voters deliberately left blank the second part of the ballot, in effect stating that they preferred a fourth option to the three options listed on the ballot.
 
A few points



1) Succession --- The petition for Texas to succeed has about 60,000 “signatures” … I question that a bit, because people can sign more than once, etc. But even if it is 60K, there are about 26 million people in Texas, doing some quick math, this is .002% of the population. I would imagine I could get .002% of any population. People get emotionally invested in elections, when they do not go a certain way, some people have irrational responses. After 2004, there was the some kind of talk, probably by about the same percentage of people that some blue states wanted to leave and I recall Canada was supposed to get a big celebrity influx. It makes for a news story at a traditionally slow news time, but there is really nothing to it. Thanksgiving is next week followed shortly by Christmas, people will move their energy there and this thing just goes away.

2) Hispanics --- In 2004, George W Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote, they GOP needs to get back to those sort of numbers if they expect to win elections in the future. One advantage they do have is more Hispanics who have won state wide races. Democrats have more in the House by far, but they tend to get elected in heavily Latino districts. The GOP has 2 Hispanic Governors (in NM, and NV) and 2 Cuban Senators (TX, and Rubio in FL). Rubio has to be the early front runner in 2016. Bush did well, because he made an attempt to tackle immigration that was derailed by 9/11.

3) Immigration --- Everyone know what needs to happen here, and both parties are going to need to tick off part of their base to make reform happen. IMO, the crux of the problem is that on one hand, they people should not be here, they are illegal. However, they are here and the vast majority of them are decent people trying to make a better life for their families.

The two extreme options are unrealistic, there cannot be mass deportations and there cannot be mass amnesty. The latter was tried before and we are right back in the same boat. Any solution has to go along the lines of

a) Give those that are here some kind of temporary status, not citizenship off the bat, but a recognition that they are here and can stay.

b) Beef up the borders, by actually putting agents on the border and using technology to detect and deter more people from coming

c) Launch a real e-verify solution, which employers must use to hire people to verify their status and give employers that use the system properly a safe harbor from prosecution if they hire illegals unknowingly (people using non obvious fake IDs, etc)

d) Crack down big time on employers that do hire outside of e-verify, this includes day labor. Beyond breaking immigration law, they are also breaking tax laws. As part of this, end the sanctuary cities.

e) For those that are here, create a pathway to citizenship the same way anyone else can be a citizen, minus the requirement to go back to Mexico (that seems unrealistic).

f) Expand the quote for Mexicans to become citizens (properly by applying in Mexico) and if accepted, allow them in the US on a temporary status

g) Expand and simplify the process for seasonal workers to get work permits. This is big for agriculture and construction.

h) Some form of the DREAM act, it is to the benefit of the US that college educated children stay in the US, also anyone who serves in the military.

i) The Federal government claims jurisdiction over these issues when states pass their own laws, but they really have punted on all these issues and left the states hung out to dry, then bitch when states do something (rightly or wrongly). This is one area where the Feds have a Constitutional obligation to handle, they need to start doing it.
 
The recession has led to a big slowdown in illegal immigration and that makes now the time for the federal government to do something about it. The GOP being a big part of that effort can only help them with Hispanics. The problem is I'm not sure the wing of the party that wants to moderate on that platform area is going to become the dominant wing this time.

I'm concerned for the future of that party, significantly so.
 
I get what you are saying, about the future of that party... but, honestly, I remember a lot of people saying that exact same thing about the Democratic party in 2004; "the dems have lost contact with the nation", "the dem party is in disarray" etc....

I don't disagree with you, but I just think that these parties seem to recover at a pretty quick pace (realitivly).
 
Each party realizes why it lost, and then eventually adjusts. Rubio pretty much said the same thing that Loosey said -- there really is no good reason why Republicans should get slaughtered in voting among Hispanics (I thought the PC term was now Latino, but who can keep track), other than the GOP's harsh immigration stances.
 
2016 will come down to who the candidates are, after 2 pretty crap fields, the GOP has a strong field for 2016 (Jindal, Christie, Rubio, Walker, Martinez, and possibly others) The Dem field looks a bit weaker unless Hillary makes a run at it.
 
He is a good candidate, I would assume he is the front runner if Hillary passes. Biden has hinted he may run, but I'm not seeing him doing well in a general election.
 
I like Biden. He is a good, honest man, and he probably is too good and too honest to make it in a federal race. He'll be a fondly-remembered Vice President. He might even be a Secretary of State in the next administration. But I can't see him being president.
 
He said, after exiting from voting, that he hoped this wasn't the last time that he was going to vote for himself. Hilary says that she is 'out' when it comes to running for POTUS, but everyone keeps thinking she is still going to run. I read someplace (here? MSN?) that the Dems were in a 'holding' pattern for the next election until she made up her mind about it.
 
Well, she's the thousand pound gorilla in the room. Think about how everyone knew Romney was going to win the nomination for the Republicans this time x500. She's Hillary-fucking-Clinton, so until the Dems are sure...

That doesn't mean other Democrats won't prepare for the cycle - Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, et al. But it does mean that they can't really do anything, because nobody will want to donate money to Martin O'Malley until they know Hillary is off the table.
 
Need more folks like this elected (I am serious) .... though I somewhat disagree with the last paragraph. That may be true in some cases, but they are there to make $$$.

Lance Gilman, owner of the Mustang Ranch brothel, has won election as a Storey County commissioner, the first such owner to be elected to public office.

RENO, Nev. — Lance Gilman is a thriving businessman with dozens of employees. That those workers include a good many prostitutes didn't faze the people of a rural Nevada county who recently elected him as a Storey County commissioner by a wide margin.
The Mustang Ranch brothel owner is the first such owner to win election to public office in Nevada since prostitution was legalized here in 1971, Nevada historian Guy Rocha said. And he's believed to be the first to do so in the state's 148-year history
"He's in rare company," Rocha said. "Of course, it's going to be rare because the business of selling sex for money is illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States except in rural Nevada."
Some two dozen brothels legally operate in 10 of Nevada's 17 counties. Prostitution is illegal in the counties that include Las Vegas and Reno, the state's population centers.
Gilman, 68, a self-described "dye-in-the-wool Republican who loves American values," said he encountered few objections to his Mustang Ranch ownership during his campaign in the county of 4,000. He won with 62 percent of the vote on Nov. 6.
His claims that his bordello, located along Interstate 80 some 10 miles east of Reno, has contributed more than $5 million to the county's budget over the past decade. It has 44 full-time employees, and 30 to 80 working girls, depending on the season.
"To 99 percent of the voters, they view it as just a business," Gilman told The Associated Press. "It's a prosperous business that's helped the county."
Gilman attributes his victory to his entrepreneurial experience. Mustang Ranch is only a small part of his business empire, which includes business parks, a Harley-Davidson dealership and master planned communities in California and Nevada.
"People want to focus on the brothel issue ... (but) I've had a wonderful 43-year record of business success that I bring to the commission," Gilman said.
Mustang Ranch became the state's first legal brothel — and most infamous — under former owner Joe Conforte. Heavyweight boxer Oscar Bonavena was slain there in 1976.
The cathouse operated until 1999 when the federal government seized it after guilty verdicts against its parent companies and manager in a federal fraud and racketeering trial. Conforte is now a fugitive in Brazil.
Gilman bought the gaudy pink stucco buildings that once housed the bordello in 2003 and moved them a short distance next to his Wild Horse brothel. He assumed ownership of the Mustang Ranch trademark when he bought the buildings from the government.
His current operation, which includes the two houses of prostitution, two restaurants and a nightclub, now operates under the Mustang Ranch name.
"His election speaks to the acceptance of prostitution in rural Nevada, where it's just understood," Rocha said. "It goes back to a longstanding libertarian tradition, and laws reflect that. It's different in urban Nevada, where prostitution is a mixed, controversial bag."
Last year, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., took aim at the world's oldest profession, telling state lawmakers the time has come to have an adult conversation about Nevada's legal sex trade if the state hopes to succeed in the 21st century.
When the nation thinks about Nevada, Reid said, "it should think about the world's newest ideas and newest careers — not about its oldest profession."
Gilman maintains illegal prostitution is rampant across the country, and it makes more sense to legalize and regulate it. He said bordellos pay significant taxes to rural counties and the women are regularly checked by doctors.
"I use the term caregivers for our industry," Gilman said. "The public has no idea, but so many of the men we deal with are damaged or widowed or in need of kindness. The industry is so much more about providing care and human nurturing than anything else."
Click to expand...
 
I see no problem with legal and regulated (and thusly safer) prostitution. Morality shouldn't be legislated.
 
And yet another shooting. Unbelievable.

I simply cannot understand this issue or find any rational thought about it... maybe i'm dumb or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top