one state, two state, red state, blue state

(okay, that was an inappropriately light title for a post on a serious topic. my bad.)

As with so many others, this is more ramblings than actual position. Maybe that excuses the title a little?

Israel. Palestine. What's a person to think?

First blush - does this have to be a unique question? Why is this somehow a 'special question" for the USA? If we're following the Jefferson admonition re foreign policy ("Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."), aren't we equally hands-off here? Is it even necessary to have a position?

If our 'foreign policy' (if that's what you'd call it) is to be non-involved, non-aligned, and choosing to lead by the example that we set (both in dealing with our neighbors and internally with our own citizens), then perhaps what we have to contribute is commitment to the rights of the individual. And the mutual pledge/bond of our citizens to each other to defend and protect even our most outlandish tinfoil hatters. If that commitment were to exist in the Middle East, would it matter if there was one state or two? It should never ever matter here if it's a red state or blue.

just a thought on immigration; may change my mind

Why not let them all in? But tag each & every one in some definitive manner. Anyone caught here without the 'tag' does not go back home, they go to prison for a year or two and then send them back. Anyone who's more than a minor nuisance or becomes chronically unproductive, send them back. If they're still here.. 10.. 15.. years later, allow them a means of naturalizing. This is (as so many things are in my mind) an individual thing; there's no tagging along because you're related. The USA isn't forcing you to split up your family, you are, you could always stay put.

Which reminds me, we may choose to let you all come here. But that doesn't mean you have any kind of 'right' to immigrate. In all likelihood, USA citizens can't simply move permanently into your country, what the hell makes you think you can simply walk into ours? And since your country is your country, I have no objection to you keeping us out if you want to. Accept that we've got the same right to pick & choose who we let in.

I have no trouble with this tagging/ID thing - they're not citizens, they accept our terms or they stay out. And if none are being denied entry, why refuse?

Most of them are what we saw during the peak migration years of the early 1900s - decent productive people with some ambition to better themselves. So why wouldn't we want them? The huge majority of the 'bad guys' are your routine crooks, thugs, and lay-abouts and you can pretty much count on them to blow it sometime during their 10 or 20 year wait and get their asses sent back where they came from. Yes, probably there will be a very very few really really bad people who could be part of a long-term sleeper cell situation, but they may prove easier to locate once they're inside this country than outside. And sadly, no matter what you do, you won't find 100% anyway.

Now the big downside of all this is jobs for current citizens. The unfortunate truth is that our fellow citizens are already competing against these potential immigrants; it's probably to our advantage that they're here working for $7.25 minimum wage rather than there in their native country working for $1.50. And the still harsher truth - we would be getting their best, brightest, most ambitious, most motivated which makes them better for our country in the long term than the citizens they might displace. And I certainly hope we'd have provisions for citizens displaced from their work (although that is certainly a whole other issue).

edit: I see this is pretty damn close to my previous note on this topic. I guess I'm getting pretty close to a position.

domain name selected?

The pre-campaign version of the website (maybe, hopefully, the permanent version?). Where the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street meet.

Yes, it's come to this. The majority in this country who aren't politically engaged, aren't politically polarized, but are politically marginalized and often exploited, that majority must become downright militant in order to get commonsense things actually accomplished. The two "tribes" that have so wrecked our politics have to go. In their place, independent citizen legislators not subject to the party whips and empowered to get the job done.

OR

Face it, Americans are mostly "live & let live". As a whole, we're pretty damn tolerant. Period. Maybe it's not that we're exactly what you'd call "enlightened". Maybe it's just that basically we just can't be bothered with what other folks are doing under their own roofs. Doesn't much matter why though. It works out to the same thing.

Of course that doesn't mean we're going to like our crazier neighbors and their lifestyles. And we sure as hell are going to get mad if we're lectured about how we should respect and embrace the way they've chosen to live. But so long as, at the end of the day, we know in our hearts that we all share the same belief in self-determination and individual personal liberties and that we've got each others backs if anyone tries to deny those rights, then it's going to be okay.

SCOTUS & the VRA

Initial thoughts at least vaguely inspired by today's decision to keep sec 5 (pre-clearance) but invalidate sec 4 (who's subject to pre-clearance).

It's without doubt that a lot has improved in nearly 50 years. It's without doubt that there is still racism out there; prejudice will likely always exist (not that that makes it okay). These things should be acknowledged, but they're not central to what I'm focused on right now.

It seems to me that "tilting" election laws for racial reasons is pretty well on its last legs. The generations that experienced a time when it was perfectly acceptable to express clearly racist opinions are aging rapidly now and will soon be dead or consigned to old fogey-dom.

Election law tinkering is very real, but it's pretty exclusively done for partisan political advantage. That set of motivations may have disparate racial impacts, but that's not the primary intent. The intent is to keep "our guys" in office rather than "their guys". But you know what? It's still wrong to "game" the system even if your motives are less despicable.

SCOTUS nominations

Confirmation battles have sometimes been monumental. Some nominations never even get to a vote. What options would a non-major POTUS have? Why not both "advise" and "consent"?

What I'm thinking is to put it in the laps of the Senate leadership. Produce a list of 10 that both the majority leader and the minority leader will sign off that they will bring to a vote and confirm. POTUS picks any one of the 10. They advise, POTUS decides, they consent. If they dither and fail to produce a list, bash them both regularly & repeatedly over the head (politically this plays so wonderfully into the narrative that the two parties are non-functional), then ultimately do it the old fashioned way (for which you have at least bought additional time for vetting).

once again, parking some thoughts

If there were to be an [I] campaign in '20, if it failed (or succeeded), what would be the legacy? How could it be made to impact the legis branch? Advocate for L & G house & senate candidates. Their debate is the real debate.

Americans are generally socially tolerant. Gs & Ls agree on that as well. Abandon the R and D divisions over social policy.

Americans are coming around on the drug war (and might increasingly do so if it's end were tied to paying for things we want) and actual wars and military involvement. The Ls & Gs agree and could highlight the important discussion of how best to utilize those savings.

Americans don't want corporate rule. Neither do the Gs and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree) neither do the Ls.

Identify and emphasize as many areas as possible where Ls = Gs = most Americans. Contrast that to the petty R / D rifts.