American Politics | News and Discussions

[Hakan]

MURRIETA RESIDENTS: OBAMA ADMIN FLOODING OUR STREETS TO 'FORCE IMMIGRATION REFORM'

HOUSTON, Texas--Furious protesters in Murrieta, California have made it clear that they oppose the federal government's apparent desire to send busloads of illegal immigrants from South Texas to their area. Many Murrieta residents claim that the town is being targeted unfairly for political reasons--some even assert that the Obama Administration is attempting to dump the immigrants in "small town America" to force immigration reform.
Last week a large group of protesters blocked a bus full of migrants from arriving at a "housing facility." That vehicle turned back, and several more busloads of illegal immigrants was expected to enter the town on Monday. Breitbart Texas broke the news that federal agents planned to bring riot gear and shields to ensure the successful delivery of the immigrants. Those plans, however, were thwarted by protesters yet again.
At this point it is unclear if federal authorities still plan on sending migrants to Murrieta--whatever the case, many of the town's residents remain vehemently opposed to the idea.
John Henry, a Murrieta resident since 1991, has been protesting the illegal immigrants' arrival for the past week. He told Breitbart Texas, "This is a small town--it's mostly conservative--and the federal government knows that. The main reason a lot of us are out here protesting is because we do not want these people being dumped into our small town where we do not have programs or the resources to take care of them properly."
Authorities apparently intend to house the migrants in a Murrieta-based Border Patrol station--Henry claims the facility is not equipped to handle a large number of individuals.
"In the Border Patrol station where they want to take these people, there are only five holding cells," Henry said. "There are no showers, and there's only one toilet in each cell. There's really no place to give them hot food and no beds. There's nothing here for them--we literally don't have any way to take care of these people."
He added, "We additionally don't have any places for these people to go after they are processed."
Subsequent to spending a relatively short amount of time in a processing center--where taxpayer subsidized benefits such as education, recreation vocational training, and legal counsel are administered--most of the illegal immigrants are set free on U.S. soil. They promise to appear in court for an immigration hearing at a later date, but most of them never show up.
Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.
"The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform," Henry said. "These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons."
Jeremy Oliver, a resident of Temecula, California--a town that neighbors Murrieta--said that the local residents are typically very welcoming, but that in this instance they are being taken advantage of.
Oliver told Breitbart Texas, "If this was one busload of refugees, this town would come together and take care of these kids. Even if it was 10 busloads they would do it. But when you ask the government, 'When is it going to end?' they wont tell you. So how do you deal with the problem they wont tell you the extent of it?"
On June 4th Breitbart Texas' Managing Director Brandon Darby broke the news that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be relocating illegal immigrants from Texas to California. Within moments of that story being published, the official Twitter account of the San Diego CBP tweeted at Darby, insisting the report was “erroneous” and asking for it to be removed from the internet.
Days later the San Diego CBP deleted the tweet from their official account. Subsequent reports, outlining plans to fly immigrants to Southern California, proved CBP had indeed planned the relocation all along.

Murrieta Residents: Obama Admin Flooding Our Streets to 'Force Immigration Reform'

@WebMaster @Aeronaut

Sticky please.

 

[Hakan]

Californians May Get to Vote on Dividing State​

Supporters of an initiative to divide California into six states say they submitted 1.3 million signatures in counties across the state Tuesday.

​

The petition needed approximately 808,000 signatures of registered California voters to qualify for the November 2016 statewide ballot. The Secretary of State will determine whether there are enough valid signatures.

“Six Californias gives us an opportunity to reboot and refresh our state government,” said Timothy Draper, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist behind the effort. “We are ready to create six more responsive, representative governments, more sympathetic governments, more modern governments, more service oriented governments.”

Draper believes large segments of the population do not feel they are being represented by the current government, and smaller governments would be better able to meet the needs of the people. He listed declining education rankings, increasing prison population and failing infrastructure as evidence the state has failed.


“Six Californias gives us an opportunity to improve our schools, our roads, our waterways, our business and jobs climate, our prison system and our economy. It gives us the opportunity to live in this glorious state and have great government services too,” Draper said.

Under the proposal, West California would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. South California would include Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino and Imperial counties. Other states would be Jefferson (consisting of the northernmost counties), Silicon Valley, Central California and North California.

The initiative faces major obstacles, including a skeptical public and political questions. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a Field Poll in February found 59 percent of Californians opposed the idea. U.S. Congress would need to approve the new states, and most observers say that is highly unlikely.

Critics have said the division would create extremely wealthy and extremely poor states. Steven Maviglio, a Democratic strategist and the most outspoken critic of the plan, called it a “colossal waste of time, energy and money.”

Californians May Get to Vote on Dividing State | Post-Periodical

 

[Hakan]

omg, this is stupid...the US flag need to be amended!

This political map explains the reason for splitting up the state. Basically the high population liberal areas are forcing their policies on the less populated conservative areas hence the reason some parts of the state want to become their own state.

 

[gambit]

This political map explains the reason for splitting up the state. Basically the high population liberal areas are forcing their policies on the less populated conservative areas hence the reason some parts of the state want to become their own state.

This is a side comment about American politics in general but related to the highlighted...

Many, foreigners and Americans, criticize the odd 'Electoral College' that elects the US President. The critics said it is 'undemocratic' under the umbrella 'one-man one-vote' populist sentiment and that it is time for this institution to go away.

The highlighted part is precisely why the critics are wrong and that the Electoral College should remain as part of the process that elects the US President.

When the US was still a developing country, as in post Revolutionary War, and that the people and the new government were still struggling to define themselves, as in what kind of a people they want to be and how will they govern themselves, the Founders wrestled with the same problems: population density and political differences.

Here is a sample of the American population density through US history...

Maps of United States - Demographics

If the US President is elected solely by popular votes, as demanded by populist democracy, urbanites will control the US and their ideological bias will dominate the government in all three branches. The candidates for this office will campaign only in high population density areas, ignoring the rest of the country.

The Electoral College was created as a check against this potentiality. Essentially, each state is allocated a group of electors based upon the state's population. Not population density/demographics inside that state, but on state's population. The intent is to have the state's electors representing the population of that state, and it is the college that will cast the votes to select the US President. This forces the US Presidential contender, or at least his agents, to physically travel to a state to represent the contender's ideas and petition for support, effectively making all states, regardless of population size and density, equals in a US Presidential campaign. This way, highly populated and industrialized New York cannot easily impose its political bias, no matter what it is, on sparse agrarian Kansas.

The keyword here is 'easily'. The Founders were suspicious of government to start. This spread to the problem of centralized authority so they created the three equal branches of government with distinct authority and responsibilities to keep each other in check. Since the US President will be unique in that this office is both head of state and chief executive, compare to other countries where the head of state is a monarch and the head of government is a prime minister or something similar, the Founders wanted to make vying for this office as difficult as politically possible. There is always the possibility of one ideological bias represented by one party dominating all three branches of government and the Founders never denied this possibility. They just want to make the probability of that possibility as low as possible and one way of that is to make all states, no matter how many there might be, equals in any Presidential election campaign. The EC is one part of that difficult process. It is not perfect and the Founders never said it was. They just believed it was an appropriate tool among many tools available to a people. The EC serves as a check both against ideological domination and populist democracy.

If there is a time to do away with the Electoral College, it is not now. Today, we still have the same red/blue states distinctiveness as the American Founders faced their versions yesterday. If someone wants to be US President, he has to labor for support among all Americans.

 

[gambit]

Here is an oddity about American politics...

The US Presidency is probably the only high political office where the contenders should -- not must -- be unemployed before running his/her campaign. John McCain remained a US Senator while running for President, but it hindered the execution of his duties as a Senator.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

This will most likely end the same way as when Republican states threatened to secede if Obama got elected again. Anyways the idiots voted for him Twice, so the crap is on them.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Some American Political Party History​

The majority of the Founding Fathers were against the formation of Political factions (Political party) specifically Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. George Washington never joined a political party throughout his presidency and in his Farewell Address he hope they would not be formed for fear conflict and stagnation.

However, after George Washington left office Alexander Hamilton and James Madison created the first 2-Party system, the very thing they were against. Although the political parties change, the 2-party system has remained the same, creating a divisive conflict ridden Government.

Popular vote outcomes, wikipedia.​

Thus the United States of America has gradually became a Political Constitution Democracy, when it was intended to be a Constitution Republic with No Political affiliations.

This is the cause of problems we have today, citizens voting based off affiliation rather than what they as an individual really want, and may eventually be its undoing or lead to another Revolution.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

@Hiptullha

For a guy who wanted more votes, his opinion is rather radical for both conservative and liberal America, isn't it?

There are far more radicals in the Republican party than you may think, more than Ron Paul is. Which either makes his opinions a lie or he's just greedy and needs attention.

 

[Hiptullha]

@Hiptullha



There are far more radicals in the Republican party than you may think, more than Ron Paul is. Which either makes his opinions a lie or he's just greedy and needs attention.

Well, I'm not an expert on American politics, so not sure if he's a traitor or greedy. I like his views though.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Well, I'm not an expert on American politics, so not sure if he's a traitor or greedy. I like his views though.

I used to like his views too, even the Libertarians too but that was before I new a lot about American history.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

This is the cause of problems we have today, citizens voting based off affiliation rather than what they as an individual really want, and may eventually be its undoing or lead to another Revolution.

That's not true.
You don't have to vote for the party you are registered in. Proof right here:

Nixon won by a landslide. McGovern (a Democrat) was perceived as weak.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

That's not true.
You don't have to vote for the party you are registered in. Proof right here:

Nixon won by a landslide. McGovern (a Democrat) was perceived as weak.

Like I said, they vote based off of affiliation. Why didn't he run as unaffiliated, because he new the masses would vote Republican because of the Democrats torn over Vietnam.

In election Primaries you have to vote for whatever you're registered as.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Like I said, they vote based off of affiliation. Why didn't he run as unaffiliated, because he new the masses would vote Republican because of the Democrats torn over Vietnam.

In election Primaries you have to vote for whatever you're registered as.

That's just the Primary. That isn't the general election. The Primaries are just a way for a party to judge which person would have a better chance of winning the general election so they don't fragment the vote. There is no reason all of the people running in their primaries couldn't register in the general election too. It is just a bad strategy.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

The Primaries are just a way for a party to judge which person would have a better chance of winning the general election so they don't fragment the vote.

The Primaries are to prevent two candidates from the same party to run against each other during the general election, protecting the party from division and Ideology failure.

It is just a bad strategy.

It is only a bad strategy if your intentions are to keep people voting by affiliation and ideology instead of what the candidates intend to do.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The Primaries are to prevent two candidates from the same party to run against each other during the general election, protecting the party from division and Ideology failure.

Way more than two usually. The more candidates there are the more chance of the vote being fragmented. So the last thing you'd want is 8 of your party running in the general election. Your chance of losing skyrockets. Better to have just one. So that's why there is a Primary.

It is only a bad strategy if your intentions are to keep people voting by affiliation and ideology instead of what the candidates intend to do.

It doesn't stop Independents from running. You can still lose.
But the general election is half the battle. Once in office you'll need people with similar agendas if you want any legislation passed.