The Race Is On

drifter

drifter

Well-known Member
The boy senator from Florida is running for president, saying he feel uniquely qualified to “pitch his republican party as a defender of the American Dream.”


I’ll bet he stayed up all night with that one. But, why? I know it’s not against the law for him to run and I suppose he has his reasons. One of them can’t be because he might get elected. Surely he knows the American people will not elect him when so many qualified people exist in the party. Maybe he’s running for a vice presidential spot on the ticket or to keep his name up in lights as we do with movie stars do or some great stage star.


Looking over the crop that’s running or talking of running I’ll admit there’s not much hope. Makes me wish Mitt Romney was running again what with Hillary jumping in. Who’s a poor girl to vote for if she’s not for Hillary?
 

drifter said:
The boy senator from Florida is running for president, saying he feel uniquely qualified to “pitch his republican party as a defender of the American Dream.”


I’ll bet he stayed up all night with that one. But, why? I know it’s not against the law for him to run and I suppose he has his reasons. One of them can’t be because he might get elected. Surely he knows the American people will not elect him when so many qualified people exist in the party. Maybe he’s running for a vice presidential spot on the ticket or to keep his name up in lights as we do with movie stars do or some great stage star.


Looking over the crop that’s running or talking of running I’ll admit there’s not much hope. Makes me wish Mitt Romney was running again what with Hillary jumping in. Who’s a poor girl to vote for if she’s not for Hillary?
Click to expand...

I wish they would all wait till this time next year to start all this nonsense.

Is our Florida candidate as young now as Obama was when he first started his run for President? I sure know that Obama was one very young candidate, but I don't recall either Florida's candidate age or Obama's candidate age.
 
Hmmmmmm Now this one has BOTH parents not US citizens when he was born HERE... SO.. Now can he run?

So far we have one born in Canada.. with a Cuban father.. but an American mother

and one born here, but with both parents non-citizens..

None of that would have worked for Obama..
 

The Honorable Senator from Florida is 43. Genetically, he's a kissing cousin to the latinos in your state of Arizona, Bob.

The point I was hoping to make is so far there is such a lackluster list of candidates running (and I include those hopefuls who ran last time on the republican ticket). Romney said he wasn't running. Jeb Bush said he'd favor Privatizing the Veterans Administration and I don't think that would be a good idea in the near future, and seriously, the rest don't count Next thing you know we'd want to Privatize the Military and we tried some of that in Iraq and it didn't work too well. Besides, what would all those Generals do and Colonels do? We're a nation of what, 306,000,000, and this is the best we can do? My, my.
 
QuickSilver said:
Hmmmmmm Now this one has BOTH parents not US citizens when he was born HERE... SO.. Now can he run?

So far we have one born in Canada.. with a Cuban father.. but an American mother

and one born here, but with both parents non-citizens..

None of that would have worked for Obama..
Click to expand...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article. II. Section. 1.

.
.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
.............

And that was exactly how Obama kept the job - natural born in Hawaii.
 
drifter said:
The Honorable Senator from Florida is 43. Genetically, he's a kissing cousin to the latinos in your state of Arizona, Bob.

The point I was hoping to make is so far there is such a lackluster list of candidates running (and I include those hopefuls who ran last time on the republican ticket). Romney said he wasn't running. Jeb Bush said he'd favor Privatizing the Veterans Administration and I don't think that would be a good idea in the near future, and seriously, the rest don't count Next thing you know we'd want to Privatize the Military and we tried some of that in Iraq and it didn't work too well. Besides, what would all those Generals do and Colonels do? We're a nation of what, 306,000,000, and this is the best we can do? My, my.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think it is way too far soon for all this nonsense to get started. We all should wait a year before so much is spent on whatever.
 
No, no. You've got it all wrong, Bob. The race is on and more will join that race as the year wears on. The presidential race starts the year before each Leap Year, otherwise if we only had one year the year of the election, we couldn't justify all the money spent on these egotistical contests. So, it's not too early to start speculating, passing out advice, evaluating comments from those egotistical midgets, and getting the feel of another Leap Year Election. Look at it as sort of a hanging. Remember how everyone used to come to town, camp out at its edge the night before, seeing old friends and catching up on the news about everybody when a hanging was announced. That's about what our politics is when you come right down to it.
 
And also, I don't think Cuban's and Mexican's are the same. There are some differences between Hispanics and Mexicans. We see it in their looks and ways they live. Some in Mexico are Hispanic's but many, if not most, are Mexican's (Indian's). But I think Cuba is mostly Hispanics and I am not sure what natives lived their prior to the Spanish invaders.
 
I would agree with that, Jim. Texas, which I think I know more about, will get a small Hispanic vote but the majority will go to the democrats and they are getting to be a bigger force if redistricting is fair. Here in Oklahoma I haven't the foggiest what's happening. There's a lot of democrats in Oklahoma but the vote republican. I live in a college town where there's always more liberals than the outlying areas. Here I think we're like sheep country, we follow the bell or the dogs will snip at our heels. We seem to be a poor state that's proud of it. I wish there was someone running besides Hillary. I know she's a woman and Romney is a man but otherwise I don't think we could tell them apart in their real skins. I know few would agree but looking through my peephole, that's the way it looks to me.
 
BobF said:
And also, I don't think Cuban's and Mexican's are the same. There are some differences between Hispanics and Mexicans. We see it in their looks and ways they live. Some in Mexico are Hispanic's but many, if not most, are Mexican's (Indian's). But I think Cuba is mostly Hispanics and I am not sure what natives lived their prior to the Spanish invaders.
Click to expand...

All Latinos are Hispanic.

[h=1]Hispanic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary[/h]merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hispanic
1
: of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal

2
: of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin
— Hispanic noun
— His·pan·i·cism \-ˈspa-nə-ˌsi-zəm\ noun
— His·pan·i·cist \-sist\ noun
— His·pan·i·cize \-ˌsīz\ transitive verb

[h=2]Origin of HISPANIC[/h] Latin hispanicus, from Hispania Iberian Peninsula, Spain
 
Az Jim, not all Mexicans or Cubans are Hispanic. If you are speaking about our southern friends they are a mix of Spanish and what ever was there prior to the Spanish introductions. South of the US in Mexico it would have been the Indians that made up their native populations. They were not Spanish at all. Same with the Cuban area. The Spanish came and decided that was to be their lands. But there was already some mixture of folks already living there. There are still those differences in those lands. And where you live you should be able to see those physical differences yourself.

So you are likely correct about the Spanish folks but not about the natives of the lands that the Spanish decided were theirs. Their would be Hispanics and others, which is what I was pointing out.
 
BobF said:
Az Jim, not all Mexicans or Cubans are Hispanic. If you are speaking about our southern friends they are a mix of Spanish and what ever was there prior to the Spanish introductions. South of the US in Mexico it would have been the Indians that made up their native populations. They were not Spanish at all. Same with the Cuban area. The Spanish came and decided that was to be their lands. But there was already some mixture of folks already living there. There are still those differences in those lands. And where you live you should be able to see those physical differences yourself.

So you are likely correct about the Spanish folks but not about the natives of the lands that the Spanish decided were theirs. Their would be Hispanics and others, which is what I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

Ok you make sure the dictionaries are all changed to reflect your opinion.
 
Jim, I sometimes think the dictionaries don't matter nearly as much as what the people involved think. Hispanic is (probably) a term applied from the outside, but what do the people living in the US originally from Mexico and Cuba call themselves?

We had this dictionary meaning argument when Julia Gillard called Tony Abbott out for his misogynistic attitudes and behaviour. Some argued that she had gotten it wrong because of certain dictionary definitions of the word misogyny. Other dictionaries, such as the Oxford, were exactly in line with the way she used it. However, around the world women from many nations were punching the air because they had experienced misogyny and knew exactly what it means and what it feels like.

It's hardly a point worth arguing about because in the end it is rather subjective and unless I am mistaken, neither you nor Bobf are of those tribes.
 
Well, I just looked up more 'Latin American' definitions in different sources. All seem to be a bit different and most completely ignore the native peoples of that area. Some how all definitions speak as if no peoples existed prior to the Spanish coming.

So Jim, I guess in your way your are correct, but to me those original peoples are not and never have been Spanish of any type. So those dictionaries are far from honest.

I like my way of seeing things better as we have Spanish conquests of native tribes, but that does not make them Spanish. In the US and Canada we have most of our natives conquered by English or US armies, hardly hispanics there are they.

And what I have read about Mexico is that there is a difference in attitude in Mexico about Spanish related immigrants, conquerors, and the native indians. They look to be more like different groups in living and working. If I can remember where I read such I will post it.
 
I tend to agree with you Bob because one could hardly call an English speaking Australian aborigine "Anglo".
In fact, calling him aborigine (meaning "from the beginning") is not what he would call himself. It's a term applied to all of the first people of this land by other Australians because we usually have no idea whether they are Koori or Murray, let alone any of the tribal subdivisions within these two main groups.

In any case, it doesn't matter all that much to the argument, which was? I've forgotten by now because of this particular herring.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top