BF2S Forums New Mexico gov Richardson runs for president... thoughts?

ATG wrote:

Anybody but Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards or Condalezza Rice.

If elected, he would be the first Hispanic president, and I think that may well seal the lid on Americas coffin, just because less would be done at the border than the next to nothing we do now.
Other than that, he seems like the best guy the Dems got.

I disagree, I think it would only serve to force the issue. He'd have to take a stand, and he'd have to act on it.

I'd be interested to see polls of likely Latino voters to see exactly where they stand on the issue.

That said, this whole "porous border" thing is a wedge-issue red-herring to the tenth degree. There are a dozen issues with more impact on the national bottom line. But it's been a convenient red-state rally call: you have a good scapegoat (foreigners), and you can justify anti-foreigner sentiment through vague claims on the supposedly negative economic impact.

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

ATG wrote:

Anybody but Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards or Condalezza Rice.

If elected, he would be the first Hispanic president, and I think that may well seal the lid on Americas coffin, just because less would be done at the border than the next to nothing we do now.
Other than that, he seems like the best guy the Dems got.

I disagree, I think it would only serve to force the issue. He'd have to take a stand, and he'd have to act on it.

I'd be interested to see polls of likely Latino voters to see exactly where they stand on the issue.

That said, this whole "porous border" thing is a wedge-issue red-herring to the tenth degree. There are a dozen issues with more impact on the national bottom line. But it's been a convenient red-state rally call: you have a good scapegoat (foreigners), and you can justify anti-foreigner sentiment through vague claims on the supposedly negative economic impact.

You might be right about the use/misuse of it as a scapegoat issue; but it is not that one-dimensional. It is also a National Security issue - how can you call a border secure - with what is going on? How can America assimilate and tax the foreign-influx properly when it is an utterly uncontrolled event?

jonsimon wrote:

topal63 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

I disagree, I think it would only serve to force the issue. He'd have to take a stand, and he'd have to act on it.

I'd be interested to see polls of likely Latino voters to see exactly where they stand on the issue.

That said, this whole "porous border" thing is a wedge-issue red-herring to the tenth degree. There are a dozen issues with more impact on the national bottom line. But it's been a convenient red-state rally call: you have a good scapegoat (foreigners), and you can justify anti-foreigner sentiment through vague claims on the supposedly negative economic impact.

You might be right about the use/misuse of it as a scapegoat issue; but it is not that one-dimensional. It is also a National Security issue - how can you call a border secure - with what is going on? How can America assimilate and tax the foreign-influx properly when it is an utterly uncontrolled event?

Want to know how to control the border? Remove immigration quotas. Then every immigrant will be legal and they will all have documentation. No security issues. The government is CHOOSING not to control immigration responsibly. It's as easy as that.

No it is not... 15K is not 150K; and 150K is not 1.5 million which is also not 15 million. You can't assimilate immigrants without setting a number as to how many can emigrate here. You need to set the numbers to a level that can be assimilated effectively; and it should be open to many countries - not just the one on the unsecured border.

You are absurd for suggesting so. As far as I am concerned Southern California has a LOT of assimilation issues - and would have even more if your way of thinking was, somehow, made into law. What's a number - they are all the same to you.

And the government already has legal channels for legal immigration already - it is the unsecured border that is partly to blame for this assimilation/illegal immigration problem. The government is NOT choosing to have a security issue - the government is NOT choosing to have millions wander over an unsecured border illegally - I think they don't really know what to do; so those on the red-side simply use it as a talking point (a sound bite); and actually do little or nothing.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-01-22 15:04:52)

ATG wrote:

Damn dude, you live in L.A., how can you say these things?

How can I say what?

I believe it's a wedge issue. There was lots of tough talk during elections, with little to no follow-through on anything since, so far as what I can see.

fadedsteve wrote:

Their is no doubt that half the shit these candidates say they will "do" in office, never gets done. . .

But we need a moratorium on immigration in this country. . .this isnt the same ole' USA in the 20th century where everyone and their polish pony could come here!

What do you mean by that, exactly? Apparently it IS the same, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining. But what exactly is different between 2007 and let's say the 1930s? People were complaining about the damn Italians, their impact on the economy and culture, their national allegiance, and their inability to speak English back then too.

fadedsteve wrote:

I'm tired of trying to buy simple produce at a market, and the guy "helping" me doesnt understand what the fuck I'm saying!! I speak spanish (have to, I live in California) and I WILL NOT do it unless I am absolutely fed up. . .so I speak A LOT of spanish these days, and I am tired of it!!!

Oh man, I feel so sorry for you. That sounds rough. Why don't you send a stern letter to the head of produce, and encourage him to double or triple his employment costs by hiring someone legally? I'm sure he'll see the light of day.

fadedsteve wrote:

Not too mention the Democrats trying to stick to the mexicans like "flys to shit" to get their votes. . .its sickening!

Actually - the Democratic party would never pander to Mexicans. Mexicans can't vote.

A field guide to the Democratic Presidential Hopefulls
Alphabetical Order:

This is a highly subjective list featuring the issues that have featured int he press to date.

Sen. Joseph Biden: Democrat, Delaware. If chickens could vote, he would have a chance. In Delaware he has been a senator since 1973 and now believes he has a vision for America. Uh, huh. Does he pass the Barack Obama suitsuit test?

Gen. Wesley Clark Ret. Wants to be the national security candidate. Good, we will write you in for Homeland Security in the new Administration. Swimsuit test; 62 years old, but was military for 40+ years, so he should be in good physical condition.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: The Eva Peron of American politics. Equally loved and hated, strong on domestic issues, flexible as a $4,000 a night whore in her views. Swimsuit test: Oh, fuck, my eyes.

Senator Cristopher Dodd, Connecticut Yes, CT gets two senators, and one of them is a democrat. On domestic issues, Dodd, who is well thought of in the Dodd household, felt that more illegals would allow more people to have domestic help. Has been in the legislative branch since 1975. Need I say more? Swimsuit test: 60 year old WASP who trains at the Senate Chamber. Uh, no thank you.

John Edwards; Former Senator from NC, Former running mate of **John Kerry** has been runnning for president since November, 2004. Has as much traction as he had that day. Domestic Policies, strongly believes John Edwards should be president of US. THis is felt by many to be a minority position. Swimsuit Test: Unknown. We hope he has been working out with all this free time.

Mike Gravel. Wackjob, Alaska Former senator and state representative from Alaska, He will be 78 at the time of the election, and supports a free pampers for needy citizens platform. Swimsuit test: He is 78,would you want to see Grandpa Munster in a swimsuit?

Dennis Kucinich Rep. Ohio, So freaking far to the left that He is standing to the right of Rush Limbaugh. Favors peace, flowers and cute little bunnies, Former boy mayor of Cleveland, current forever young forever candidate for president. Swimsuit test. Soft. White. Boy.

Barack Obama, Senator, Ill. Wildly popular candidate with no known track record or positions. In other words, the ideal candidate for our times. This is not the first time this tactic has been used, and it is effective. Widely considered the one Democrat Laura Bush would toss a salad for. Swimsuit Test. Hell, he is the test.

Bill Richardson: Governor, New Mexico Bill the governor of one of the, poorest least populated states. May answer the phone in the governor's office himself, who knows, no one has ever called him. Is considered progressive and wants to teach the rest of the country that NEW Mexico is different from Mexico. THe Border Patrol still wants to see his papers. Will share his campaign bus with 230 illegals. Swimsuit test: Modelled for the character "Gordo" in the comic strip. Well, better than Mostro, anyway.

Tom Vilsack, Governor, Iowa. Yeah right a democrat form Iowa. Stands a good chance to win the Iowa caucus. Swimsuit test: he is only 56, probably looks as good as me.

Others;
Al Gore the winner of the 2000 election still thinks he has a chance. Yup, just like in 2000. Go make another movie, Al.
John Kerry The loser of the 2004 election. "There were 12 ways to win the 2004 election. John found the only way to lose. He could emerge as the Democratic candidate if all the others as killed in a disco inferno.