Neither Kerry or Bush much good
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-19-2004 - 10:17pm |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
12 million illegals in the country from all over the world, many of them criminals (half of California's prison population is foreign born, California has 55% of the illegal immigrants in America, and one-half of the legal immigrants), other states like Texas and Florida it's 20-25% of those arrested for crimes are foreign born, many of them illegals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arab illegals are raising money for terrorists and some are undoubtly terrorists (many of the 9/11 terrorists violated our immigration laws and our government did nothing much about it).
Neither Kerry or Bush have any real plan to do anything about it. Both are too busy pandering to Hispanic and other immigrant lobbies, or to business people who want cheap labor.
------------------------------------------------------
The official unemployment rate in America is 5.5 percent. But that just includes people who have only been out of work for 4 months or less. The real unemployment rate is much higher. And we are at high rates of legal immigration compared to most previous decades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of the Mexican farmworkers, we have unemployed Americans willing to do most urban jobs, assuming of course they are paid first world, not third world wages.
--------------------------------------------------------
But regardless, there needs to be, for National Security reasons and crime reasons, enough money appropriated and enough people put on our borders and coasts, (as well as checking for terrorists and criminals from other countries in our cities and towns), to protect the country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Kerry and the Bush campaigns pretend that they are concerned with border controls and stopping illegal immigration, especially the movement of criminals and terrorist sympathizers (and even terrorists) into our country, but I don't believe them because they are not willing to spend the money nor do either of them have a real plan to control the borders and patrol the coasts and ports, (even though they both claim that an amnesty program for illegals will accomplish that. Hardly, do you think seriously that criminals and terrorists will apply for legal amnesty?)
------------------------------------------------
At some point we have to do what other countries (with the exception of Canada) are doing and get serious about controlling our borders, including militarizing them, and ending immigration from mostly Muslim countries (things that other industrial first world countries are in fact doing).
-------------------------------------------
The economic benefits of illegals are offset by the downward pressure on American wages,the increased real unemployment rate in our inner cities, the human and financial costs of crime brought into the country, and most importantly, the possibly incredibly tragic potential acts of terrorism, that could potentially kill millions of us, and could destroy our economy.

Pages
"In all honesty, I think they are both really mediocre."
I absolutely agree with you on this.
But I have to say that a third party candidate isn't going to be able to do much of anything if by some twist of fate they actually got elected. Where would they find all the qualified people to fill all the cabinet positions and other Presidential appointments? The only choice is between Kerry and Bush. I wish people would stop with the weak third party candidates or talk of writing in Bugs Bunny. It's still a free country so you can do as you wish, but I don't understand why you'd waste your vote. Maybe someday a third party candidate will be a real choice, but it's not yet. And maybe the candidates we have aren't perfect, but these are the choices. So make the choice - Bush or Kerry.
"Where would they find all the qualified people to fill all the cabinet positions and other Presidential appointments?"
I'm sure there are plenty of people in each political party to help run the government.
As to the amount of capable people, although I'm sure there are a lot of wonderful and capable people in third parties, are there enough with such varied areas of expertise to fill an entire cabinet and all the other appointments that must be made? Most third parties have depth in only one area. Who's to say they couldn't pull from the other parties though.
Hypothetical - If you were a liberal but you didn't like Gore so you voted for Nader, would you feel like you had wasted your vote or that you could've put it to better use when Bush was appointed President? If not and you were content with yourself that you really felt Nader was the best choice, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But for the many that thought Gore would win and voted for Nader because they wanted both parties to sit up and take notice, or for those appalled at what Bush has done, I think it's really hard to take a third party candidate seriously.
I like your optimism, I just don't think this election is the year of the third party. It's too late.
Do you really believe that a third party candidate will/could win in November?
They could
I strongly believe that this someday can be November 2, 2004. It is entirely up to the voting population to determine which candidates are viable choices""
Not if the third party candidate can't even get on all the states ballots. As for the Libertarian candidate? I've found that their views tend to be to radical for the average citizen, Eliminate the FDA? Open our borders completely? I don't think many people are going to be willing to get behind either one of those ideas. JMO
"Not if the third party candidate can't even get on all the states ballots."
I could go into how wrong it is that
Pages