How strong is the future of the Democratic Party?

[Munky]

The true delusion is thinking "your" party is going to fix anything. It doesn't matter who you vote for, politicians will always do the right thing after they have exhausted every other option. You want "change", you're not gonna get it from party politics.

 

[Demo24]

I would throw in the 16th, 17th, and 26th amendment needing be repealed and the 14th needed to be clarified..

While I'm not going to argue the others, why 26? Since 18 is when you are legally defined as an adult it makes sense to me. What would you change it to otherwise?

 

[Anarchist420]

While I'm not going to argue the others, why 26? Since 18 is when you are legally defined as an adult it makes sense to me. What would you change it to otherwise?

It was up to the states to legally define when you are an adult.

 

[Lithium381]

The true delusion is thinking "your" party is going to fix anything. It doesn't matter who you vote for, politicians will always do the right thing after they have exhausted every other option. You want "change", you're not gonna get it from party politics.

i keep hoping that more people wake up to this realization . . . but few will

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are owned by the Big Two. People will complain about it but on the whole they'll pick who say they don't like to keep someone out they like less. It's a perfect system to prevent any real alternative and it works.

 

[zinfamous]

The Democratic Party is now the right-center-right party, as The Teabaggers have dragged the Republican party off to ultra-nationalized, super right crazy land.

There really is no left in the US, anymore. (basically, all politicians are owned by the same handful of people).

 

[Siddhartha]

From Patrick J Buchanan:

"When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP."
Someone replied:
"Yep. The man is right. An America where 40% of whites, 66% of Latinos and Asians, and 90% of blacks vote Democratic is an America in which Republicans steadily lose power for the foreseeable future."

I had never thought of that and therefore hadn't realized how strong the Democratic Party's future is.

Am I the only one who thinks that the 14th-27th Amendments need to be repealed?

They turned the country into a national centralized democracy. Before that it was a federal republic. Before it was a federal republic, the country was a confederal union.

Romney could finish the GOP and traditional (i.e., John Randolph of Roanoke-style) conservatism off in a single blow.

National democracy is not good. Confederalism is good and we need it and we need it now as humanity depends on it.

Are you saying you want white men to be the dominant power in the US?

 

[Patranus]

While I'm not going to argue the others, why 26? Since 18 is when you are legally defined as an adult it makes sense to me. What would you change it to otherwise?

Just look at Obamacare. An 'adult' according to Obamacare is 26.
You have more and more 'adults' living off their parents as they continue year after year of school.

It is quite clear that those under 21 really don't understand who the world works.

 

[Infohawk]

Are the latinos much different? ...

However, this fear mongering that our country will be destroyed by people coming in and joining us is ridiculous. These people don't come here because they want to supplant our world with theirs; they come here because they want to be in our world.

The cultures coming in today are much more different than they have been in the past. Do you really think there's no difference between immigration from other developed countries and immigration from Central America? Europe and the US have pretty much always been at the same level of development. Sure there was more opportunity here (mostly just more land and resources), but it doesn't really change the fact that the origins and destinations were culturally European. Don't overstate the importance of Spanish influence on Central American culture. Most central American migrants are indigenous Chicanos. The rich white Mexicans are not coming across the border illegally.

The context of immigration has also changed. There is less pressure to assimilate these days. Even on this board you see people scoff at the idea that immigrants should have to learn English or adopt majority American culture. Economically, 19th century migrants had few handouts. Today, pushing out a baby on US soil is going to get you thousands of dollars in government spending for your child.

So yes, this is different. Is it bad? It's up to you. America will have a lot more in common with Mexico in 50 years. It's not a developed country. It's been backwards for its entire existence with no prospects for improvement on the horizon.

In any case, despite what you or I think, the change is pretty much irreversible at this point. The history books will be completely rewritten to applaud the migration and changes to American society.

 

[fskimospy]

Just look at Obamacare. An 'adult' according to Obamacare is 26.
You have more and more 'adults' living off their parents as they continue year after year of school.

It is quite clear that those under 21 really don't understand who the world works.

So what's your excuse?

 

[Anarchist420]

Are you saying you want white men to be the dominant power in the US?

I want small, free, and independent states.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is quite clear that those under 21 really don't understand who the world works.

So what's your excuse?

 

[Phokus]

Texas is ground zero. When it falls the heart of this country goes with. Conservatives need Texas, without it we will not have enough power in Congress or electoral votes for the Presidency. I'll leave to your imagination for what happens when a government does not represent half its people, and when a foreign population holds majority control of multiple states.

This is like porn to me.

 

[peonyu]

Are the latinos much different? They're Catholic (as were the Irish and Italians), meaning that their religious holidays aren't much different than ours. Mexican culture (as seen in the fact that they are Catholic) is overwhelmingly dominated by their Spanish colonization. It's not as if the Italians or Eastern Europeans spoke English, and people made the same "they don't want to integrate" comments back then. The Jews were very different in their cultural expectations, and those differences have added to, not subtracted from, American culture as we know it. What happened in the end is that they did eventually mix in with the country, but the country picked up a lot of their culture as well. Think of the number of Yiddish words you use on a regular basis.

Now that said, I'm in favor of enforcing immigration laws, if for no other reason than those are the quotas we have agreed upon as a nation and decriminalizing illegal immigration is just a way for politicians to save face over a difficult and contentious issue and rewards those who are willing to break our laws to get here.

However, this fear mongering that our country will be destroyed by people coming in and joining us is ridiculous. These people don't come here because they want to supplant our world with theirs; they come here because they want to be in our world.

Its just racism. If Mexicans were not mostly Native-American in ancestry [which they are, and that is why they are brown] people would be more accepting of them. Cubans in the US on the whole have little troubles at all since most of them look like your typical white American. Yet Cubans are also Hispanic and many also speak little English. The difference is most US Cubans are White hispanic and you would never know they were Hispanic unless they told you, and most Mexicans are Native-American Hispanic who stick out. IE - racism.

 

[woolfe9999]

The cultures coming in today are much more different than they have been in the past. Do you really think there's no difference between immigration from other developed countries and immigration from Central America? Europe and the US have pretty much always been at the same level of development. Sure there was more opportunity here (mostly just more land and resources), but it doesn't really change the fact that the origins and destinations were culturally European. Don't overstate the importance of Spanish influence on Central American culture. Most central American migrants are indigenous Chicanos. The rich white Mexicans are not coming across the border illegally.

The context of immigration has also changed. There is less pressure to assimilate these days. Even on this board you see people scoff at the idea that immigrants should have to learn English or adopt majority American culture. Economically, 19th century migrants had few handouts. Today, pushing out a baby on US soil is going to get you thousands of dollars in government spending for your child.

So yes, this is different. Is it bad? It's up to you. America will have a lot more in common with Mexico in 50 years. It's not a developed country. It's been backwards for its entire existence with no prospects for improvement on the horizon.

In any case, despite what you or I think, the change is pretty much irreversible at this point. The history books will be completely rewritten to applaud the migration and changes to American society.

What makes you think that European immigrants say 100 years ago assimilated faster than central American immigrants today? Many immigrants in those days lived in de facto segregated communities/neighborhoods/ghettos and many kept to those communities. Why do you think we have historically Italian/German/Jewish/Chinese/Japanese neighborhoods, particularly in our larger cities? Sure, their children assimilated largely because of the public school system. But did those first generation immigrants learn the culture and language faster than the current crop? Not so sure. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think you need something more than just assertions to make your case.

- wolf

 

[fskimospy]

The cultures coming in today are much more different than they have been in the past. Do you really think there's no difference between immigration from other developed countries and immigration from Central America? Europe and the US have pretty much always been at the same level of development. Sure there was more opportunity here (mostly just more land and resources), but it doesn't really change the fact that the origins and destinations were culturally European. Don't overstate the importance of Spanish influence on Central American culture. Most central American migrants are indigenous Chicanos. The rich white Mexicans are not coming across the border illegally.

The context of immigration has also changed. There is less pressure to assimilate these days. Even on this board you see people scoff at the idea that immigrants should have to learn English or adopt majority American culture. Economically, 19th century migrants had few handouts. Today, pushing out a baby on US soil is going to get you thousands of dollars in government spending for your child.

So yes, this is different. Is it bad? It's up to you. America will have a lot more in common with Mexico in 50 years. It's not a developed country. It's been backwards for its entire existence with no prospects for improvement on the horizon.

In any case, despite what you or I think, the change is pretty much irreversible at this point. The history books will be completely rewritten to applaud the migration and changes to American society.

You should talk to Ben Franklin about the dangers of immigration:

Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious.

and...

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

The nativism you're displaying is nothing new, every generation of Americans has had a different immigrant group that they were terrified of. I just wish we would learn our lesson one of these times.

 

[peonyu]

You should talk to Ben Franklin about the dangers of immigration:



and...



The nativism you're displaying is nothing new, every generation of Americans has had a different immigrant group that they were terrified of. I just wish we would learn our lesson one of these times.

To be fair, things are different now. Back then [the 1600's up until 1965] when the Irish and Italians were immigrating to here it was US law that only Europeans could move to the US. And it was that way because there was a fear that non Europeans would not adapt to the US lifestyle. The Government already viewed Black people as a separate culture, and hey, if black people are not adapting then what says the Chinese will, or the Muslims from the Middle East would. Under that law anyone who was not European was shut out and prevented from immigrating to the US [this is why almost all Muslims/Asians and Hispanics in the US today are first generation immigrants or the children of immigrants].


That law was repealed in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

""By changing long-held immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations which changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[5] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[2] The most dramatic effect was to shift immigration from Europe to Asia and Central and South America.""


Ted Kennedy was the man behind changing that law, and he went on record to say this before he changed the law:


""Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)""



Clearly immigration today is different from the founding of the USA up until 1965. Limiting immigration to only "same type" people such as other Europeans had hardly any risk. Its like a Egyptian Muslim moving to Saudi Arabia, sure its different but he will assimilate to Saudi culture far easier than a White Christian German would.

So its not right to say that it is "nativism" to be concerned about immigration just because the Irish assimilated. We DONT know if Muslims [or other groups including hispanics] will adapt to US culture.
All that we do know, is that the White "American" population is dropping like a rock and that population plunge is only getting worse. So hopefully [keyword- hope] the new immigrants will adapt to the US and act like Americans and not revert to the their lifestyle they had in their old countries. If they dont adapt then the US is fucked since they are our future majority.

Also I would like to point that T.Kennedy is a dead liar who only remained in Politics by having the last name Kennedy. Anyone can tell that this country is taking in 1 million + immigrants a year and has been since the 1980's, and that the Ethnic makeup of the US has been changed almost completely. ALSO [I know i know], the US has been flooded by one place in particular from immigrants - Mexico. Both legal and Illegal. Mexico is our #1 source of legal immigrants and #1 source of illegal migrants. And it shows [most of the border states are either majority Mexican now or will be so in 10 years].

 

[fskimospy]

The quotes from Franklin show the exact opposite sentiment as to what you claim. They were clearly worried about the Germans not adapting to US lifestyle.

As for the Ted Kennedy stuff, I don't know what bearing that has.

 

[peonyu]

The quotes from Franklin show the exact opposite sentiment as to what you claim. They were clearly worried about the Germans not adapting to US lifestyle.

As for the Ted Kennedy stuff, I don't know what bearing that has.

It has plenty of bearing in context. Immigration from the past cant be compared to today. At all. Its like saying its amazing that a Muslim moving to another Muslim country and that he assimilated is a amazing accomplishment [its not]. The Irish and Italians in the past assimilated to the European dominated culture that the US had...Big deal. Both of them are European ethnic groups. Compared to today, we have people from completely alien cultures moving to the US.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Rainsford]

People who take current political data points and extrapolate them far into the future with no changes obviously slept through history class. Does anyone really think the voting patterns among states and racial groups in 50 years will look very much like they are today? How did people vote in 1960?

Right now minority groups vote Democratic because Republicans are the party of white, Christian men (or at least appear that way). As minority groups grow larger, the makeup of BOTH parties is likely to change. Republicans might win over a lot of minority groups on socially conservative issues, while Democrats might win over more majority groups in states that are now Republican. The whole civil rights debate basically swapped Democratic support for Republican support in huge portions of the country, does anybody think that kind of thing couldn't happen again?

And what we're really ignoring how quickly "minorities" become just more of "us". Back in the day, various European immigrants battled each other even more than the battles we have today. Now, it hardly matters which random European country your ancestors were from. I can't imagine that's not going to happen with the current population sooner or later. It hasn't been that long since we stopped supporting "separate but equal"...give it some time.

 

[Rainsford]

It has plenty of bearing in context. Immigration from the past cant be compared to today. At all. Its like saying its amazing that a Muslim moving to another Muslim country and that he assimilated is a amazing accomplishment [its not]. The Irish and Italians in the past assimilated to the European dominated culture that the US had...Big deal. Both of them are European ethnic groups. Compared to today, we have people from completely alien cultures moving to the US.

Apples and oranges.

History has a lot of incidents of Americans reacting VERY negatively to immigrants from "alien" European countries. They only appear similar today because the cultures ended up integrated after a long period of time. But trust me, Americans felt just as anti-Irish back in the day as they feel anti-Muslim today...maybe even more so.

 

[peonyu]

History has a lot of incidents of Americans reacting VERY negatively to immigrants from "alien" European countries. They only appear similar today because the cultures ended up integrated after a long period of time. But trust me, Americans felt just as anti-Irish back in the day as they feel anti-Muslim today...maybe even more so.

Irish are Catholic. The US had Catholics since day 1. The Irish are Caucasian, they are also European. They also [most of them] spoke English. They also were not barred from moving here. They come in large numbers and were not liked because of that, true. But they were allowed to move here. That says alot in itself and they had almost everything in common with the exception of religion to the majority.

Muslims, Asians, Hispanics [the non white ones] were denied entry. Full stop. That says alot right there when the supposedly "hated" group is allowed to move here and the "others" are told to "go away we dont even want to see you step foot in this country"

 

[Rainsford]

Irish are Catholic. The US had Catholics since day 1. The Irish are Caucasian, they are also European. They also [most of them] spoke English. They also were not barred from moving here. They come in large numbers and were not liked because of that, true. But they were allowed to move here. That says alot in itself and they had almost everything in common with the exception of religion to the majority.

That doesn't mean they were welcomed with open arms. Again, you're looking at this through a modern perspective, where all Christians and all white people are equally good. I promise you that our ancestors didn't see it quite the same way.

Muslims, Asians, Hispanics [the non white ones] were denied entry. Full stop. That says alot right there when the supposedly "hated" group is allowed to move here and the "others" are told to "go away we dont even want to see you step foot in this country"

And Muslims, Asians, and Hispanics are allowed to move here now, so what's your point? Yeah, they WERE more hated than other immigrant groups in the past, but those "other immigrant groups" aren't hated at all now. Everyone's moved up a notch. Irish folks might as well be Americans, and brown people are the modern day Irish.

 

[fskimospy]

It has plenty of bearing in context. Immigration from the past cant be compared to today. At all. Its like saying its amazing that a Muslim moving to another Muslim country and that he assimilated is a amazing accomplishment [its not]. The Irish and Italians in the past assimilated to the European dominated culture that the US had...Big deal. Both of them are European ethnic groups. Compared to today, we have people from completely alien cultures moving to the US.

Apples and oranges.

This is simply inaccurate, I don't know what to tell you. Ironically it once again parrots the nativist claims that always surface. Specifically that 'this time it is different'.

 

[Rainsford]

This is simply inaccurate, I don't know what to tell you. Ironically it once again parrots the nativist claims that always surface. Specifically that 'this time it is different'.

I don't think it's just nativism. Every comparison to events of the past is always dismissed as "this time it's different" or some rearrangement of that idea. History rarely ends up that way though, it usually just ends up looking like the same thing happening over and over, with only the names changing.