I vote. Nothing changes. [SPLIT]

[Kulindahr]

the illegal raping, stealing Mexican

Sadly that's not entirely a fable. Where I live Mexican types make up maybe 5% of the population but commit nearly 30% of the crime.

Although it should be noted that a fair amount of those crimes wouldn't have been crime back in Mexico, if certain social workers are to be believed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ok. point granted. Now explain how such a person functions in this country without being able to speak a word of English.

Easy -- they have friends, or kids, who speak both. Kids function as interpreters a lot here.

 

[Kulindahr]

[Text: Removed]. It's "legal" to hate on "[Text: Removed]," that just makes one a racist.

Mexicans here legally hating those who aren't is racist? When I was in Miami there were Cubans who hated Cubans who got there illegally -- they were proud of having "done it right" and had little respect for those who had managed to sneak in.

 

[Kulindahr]

Speaking English is not a requirement for citizenship anywhere in the country at any time; ask the Germans

The U.S. once came within one or two votes in Congress of making German an official language of the U.S. But the group who argued against any official language carried the day.

 

[Kulindahr]

[Text: Removed]

Actually, no. There is no requirement in law that English be spoken in order to be a citizen. Someone from abroad who marries an American citizen needs to gain proficiency now, but it hasn't always been that way; children of citizens don't have to speak or read English at all. But while there is no language requirement for citizenship, it is a requirement for naturalization at present.

It's tougher now than it was when I was helping Cubans prepare for their naturalization test -- back then the English proficiency required was about the same as a pre-schooler had.

 

[Kulindahr]

You have to speak and read and write English to BECOME a citizen.

In practice, a third-grade ability is sufficient.

 

[Kulindahr]

Deport them. They are not your people. They are not Canadian.

If the Canadians say they are Canadian, they are -- and your opinion is worth less than the label from a bottle of Maple syrup.

 

[frankfrank]

How do people voting for small-party candidates instead of not voting help Trump?

Voting for Biden is a vote for Biden.
Voting for Trump is a vote for Trump.

Voting for either gives "your" candidate a margin of TWO more votes! If you were to change your mind, your former candidate gets one less vote than they would have, and it gives one MORE vote to the candidate you changed your mind to.

Some people in this small town have voted, and somehow it's known how everybody voted. (This won't happen in real life.) So far, it's 43 Trump, 29 Biden. Say you plan to vote for Biden, that will make it 43 Trump, 30 Biden. Difference of 13.

You change your mind in the booth, and you're gonna vote for Trump. Now 44 Trump, 29 Biden. Difference of 15.

No, you change your mind again, and vote for Kennedy. It ends up 43 Trump, 29 Biden. Difference of 14.

So, voting for a third party candidate isn't like voting for "the other guy" (whoever in ones viewpoint that may be), but it is one-half the difference in voting for "your guy" or "the bad one". It decreases by one vote, the margin that your "preferred of two really awful candidates" would have had over the other.

This is another of those simple arithmetic things, probably the most famous and paradoxical one being the "Monty Hall problem," where the solution defies ordinary thought processes.

Why not? Have you ever lived somewhere that had actual diversity? It doesn't take long to realize that "enriched" isn't just a word.

I moved to Chicago BECAUSE of the diversity (and other reasons as well, such as better health care if needed). There's crowded corners I can stand on, in this city, and almost never hear English being spoken. I'm very encouraged and happy to see people of black, Asian, Mexican, etc. heritage coming to the men's events and Scrabble, and it makes me appreciate the events all the more. In these seven years of being around all this diversity I formerly didn't live among, I feel that my mind has stayed at a similar age, if not actually "aged backwards" a year or two, because diversity is one of the things that is a form of calisthenics for the mind.

The U.S. once came within one or two votes in Congress of making German an official language of the U.S. But the group who argued against any official language carried the day.

And that is why English cannot be FORCED on immigrants, though any immigrants that are savvy will soon understand their life will be better if they learn. A nonexistent "Official Language" can't legally be forced on anybody. Of course English is a "de facto" national language, but de facto brings no legal requirements.

A nation with an official language can, of course, CHOOSE whether immigrants must learn it or not, and Canada (which is officially bilingual - and maybe tri-lingual with Inuktikut in the Far North?) has a hands-off policy of not forcing language on people. If they did, would they have to "force" both English and French?

I bet that if one were to randomly stop people on the street and ask if the USA has a national language, at least 90% would say that it does - English. (I think "NO" and "I don't know" when added together, would be less than 10%.)

 

[me203]

. No skeeters which is very nice.

Not surprising. All the blood sucking pests are elsewhere, busy running for office.

 

[me203]

It could if the Democrats had the courage to change the way voting is done in states where they can manage it, switching to proportional ranked voting so House seats would become possible for small parties. That would split the GOP probably three ways in a bunch of states and get the ball rolling.

I unfortunately doubt that Democrats are interested in changing the system--and not due to a lack of courage. The current system serves them too well, where there are "only" two choices, and you have to vote Democrat because it's the lesser evil. Last thing they want is a system that makes it possible that a 3rd party candidate might win.

 

[Alistair]

Voting starts close to home. If you want change you need to start it at the bottom, your local government, and work to the top. Most people skip the off cycle elections at the local level. If you don’t like your choices at the national level it’s because they’re the people you let others vote in at the local levels years ago.

 

[me203]

Voting starts close to home. If you want change you need to start it at the bottom, your local government, and work to the top. Most people skip the off cycle elections at the local level. If you don’t like your choices at the national level it’s because they’re the people you let others vote in at the local levels years ago.

One important point about the local level is that it has the largest direct impact on our lives. This is a reason why I vote consistently.

Although I cynically doubt that someone good at the local level will be a positive force for change if he or she gets elected to Congress. I've seen too many cases of someone promising who sooner or later becomes business as usual in Congress.

 

[rareboy]

And keep in mind that Moms for Liberty and all the nutjobs running to ban books and drag queens aren't doing this at the national level.

This shit is all local.

 

[Latimer]

There is no "voting directly" for president here; there never has been and was never meant to be. The U.S. President is not president of the people but president of the states, which is why the states are the ones doing the voting.

Though that system has been screwed up terribly by a law that totally neutered the intent that the House of Representatives be the "people's House" by freezing the number of House seats (which is why I think the House should be expanded by 10% every House election for the next thirty years until it has 1500 seats). That's really what has made the system "unforgiving".

1500? Just more hot air. More people who otherwise couldn't hold down a steady job wasting your hard-earned money. Air-conditioning, which allowed a full-time legislature, was the beginning of page upon page of either useless or destructive legislation.