- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
- HomeSand.net, "White Picture"
- Contributions:4392
But if you get in the congress, should I pay more tax to keep you in the congress for your living? Last I heard the congresswoman makes $150k a year from her post.
- James Callas, "ABBAUSA"
- Contributions:957
good luck to you. also if you can.....please get the politics out of the government....i know it is a strange request, but a sincere one.
- sunnyview
- Contributions:25127
That is great news! You are someone who will stay true to yourself, stay honest and do your best to serve the people you represent. I wish you the best and hope you win.
- dacolan
- Contributions:1073
Agree with Sunny. I'm so disenfranchised with our current gov't I've all but decided against voting for any incumbent. It's reassuring to hear there are still competent citizens with admirable intentions willing to clean up the Debts 'n Messes current legislators have created/exacerbated.
Good luck, Debts. This country needs more Americans like you!
Good luck, Debts. This country needs more Americans like you!
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
I admire your ambition; but I'm baffled how you will get sufficient funding for a reasonable campaign without accepting gifts from those corrupt interests... Nor do I see how you will have sufficient time for your family or your horse if you have to be in Washington DC and have to spend all that public relations time.
There is only one way to fix the problem, and that is not from the inside.
(But I would vote for you if you were in my area, in spite of my commitment to vote for absolutely no Republicans nor Democrats).
There is only one way to fix the problem, and that is not from the inside.
(But I would vote for you if you were in my area, in spite of my commitment to vote for absolutely no Republicans nor Democrats).
- NTETS, "Mr Caveat"
- Contributions:6436
you might be supprised who is still checking the boards from time to time(especcially when school isnt in session 0.o)
if you know a lot of people in your district, you should have a shot... sorry i cant vote for you!
anyway, good luck!
if you know a lot of people in your district, you should have a shot... sorry i cant vote for you!
anyway, good luck!
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
Looks like AzRob would have a better chance at running for congress... about 54 hundred page views for his thread, compared to about 1 hundred page views for this thread.
Even so, you need to have the backing of the local people. With less than 500 congress people, and 300 million people in the country, each congress person is supposed to be representing about 600 thousand people. Of course less than 20% of those people vote, and you only need 50% of those that vote to get elected, but that is still 60 thousand votes. Yes, in an off year, in an area where people don't vote, your odds may not be so bad. In some areas, I'm sure congress people get elected with only about 6 thousand votes. But I wouldn't count on that for your area.
Elections always come down to money and special interests. There is no way around that.
Even so, you need to have the backing of the local people. With less than 500 congress people, and 300 million people in the country, each congress person is supposed to be representing about 600 thousand people. Of course less than 20% of those people vote, and you only need 50% of those that vote to get elected, but that is still 60 thousand votes. Yes, in an off year, in an area where people don't vote, your odds may not be so bad. In some areas, I'm sure congress people get elected with only about 6 thousand votes. But I wouldn't count on that for your area.
Elections always come down to money and special interests. There is no way around that.
best of luck!
Pasa, I am afraid i could never run for congress! TOO much of an interesting past to come out an haunt me!
Pasa, I am afraid i could never run for congress! TOO much of an interesting past to come out an haunt me!
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
I don't think I could run for congress either, since one must take an "oath of office" to "defend the constitution", when I think major sections of the constitution need to be replaced or re-written.
Besides, when all the legislation proposed is bad, and the elected representatives are bought out by special interests, what is one to do? Just vote against everything, and propose revisions to everything, with all the revisions being voted down? And as a new person to the legislature, one would rarely get the floor, and certainly wouldn't be on any committees that have any influence.
Besides, when all the legislation proposed is bad, and the elected representatives are bought out by special interests, what is one to do? Just vote against everything, and propose revisions to everything, with all the revisions being voted down? And as a new person to the legislature, one would rarely get the floor, and certainly wouldn't be on any committees that have any influence.
- klarek the realist
- Contributions:7044
Go, DNM!
- Rachel Rosen, "RachelRosen"
- Contributions:1489
Best of luck to you!!!
Good to see you and good luck to you Terri - please keep us posted!
- frank432
- Contributions:1
What platform are you running on?
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
Nice to see that the views on the thread more than doubled in a day; but still not enough views (especially in the specific congressional district) for helping to get elected.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
Still would like to know where you will post your platform; and what your campaign strategy is.
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you all, campaigning takes a lot of time.
You are all right, I am not taking money from lobbyists. I am going there to help fix Congress and return the power to the people, where it rightfully belongs.
Regarding the Constitution, I already took an oath to it in my heart years ago. That is why I am running. To continue to allow the corrupt to run our govt is to succumb to the will of the corrupt.
You can see my 'platform' on my website if you look at my profile here. I do a LOT on facebook, too, which is linked on my webpage. The reason I posted here was so that I could have YOUR input as the in-depth researchers you all are. :-)
As far as winning goes, I will also be running through 2012. My opponent, Duncan Hunter, 'inherited' his seat from his father, Duncan Hunter. It may take me a while to get my name and beliefs out there. I am hopeful, but not pinning my hopes on winning this time. He's been campaigning this whole time, and I couldn't officially start until end of February.
Regarding the worry about running due to the past. It stops a lot of GOOD people and it is just that... a fear. Our country is in serious trouble and now is not the time for fear. It's the time to act.
I will also be writing a 'how to' run for Congress so others know the path and know what works and doesn't work. Even with my abilities to research and all my fancy degrees, it was hard to start because the paperwork path is not clear and what networking works best is helpful.
I encourage all here who have spent the last few years researching and studying the problems to also seriously consider running. If you consider me balanced, then you must realize you are, too.
You can send me a private note if you join me on facebook if you're using a diff handle. Good luck to all.
- HomeSand.net, "White Picture"
- Contributions:4392
I thought that you are joking, it turns out to be serious (I'm sorry).
The messages should not all about to fix the congress or against the corporations (it affects only to a few voters), John McCain tries to do that and He was lost to Obama.
"The messages, which fix the congress" do not go into the people's ears since the congress comes from the people and it was voted by the people.
"The messages, which against the corporations" do not go into the people's ears since the corporation's stocks are hold by the people.
the messages should be for all the people, neither 'just for the poors' nor 'just for the richs', that makes "All people are equal in your eyes", their voices are your voice, their wishes are your wishes, their actions are your actions.
The messages should not all about to fix the congress or against the corporations (it affects only to a few voters), John McCain tries to do that and He was lost to Obama.
"The messages, which fix the congress" do not go into the people's ears since the congress comes from the people and it was voted by the people.
"The messages, which against the corporations" do not go into the people's ears since the corporation's stocks are hold by the people.
the messages should be for all the people, neither 'just for the poors' nor 'just for the richs', that makes "All people are equal in your eyes", their voices are your voice, their wishes are your wishes, their actions are your actions.
- CORONA NICK
- Contributions:2218
Good luck, hope you win.
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
Yes, white. Thanks! I will work on that. It is how I feel, you said it well.
It does feel weird that I'm serious, huh? I just couldn't sit here and complain about it, I had to DO something about it.
Thank you, Nick. I hope I can also help others to do it, too. Wanna give it a go? lol
Btw, hubby finally got a job... 14 mos unemployed. Thankfully we were prepared.
It does feel weird that I'm serious, huh? I just couldn't sit here and complain about it, I had to DO something about it.
Thank you, Nick. I hope I can also help others to do it, too. Wanna give it a go? lol
Btw, hubby finally got a job... 14 mos unemployed. Thankfully we were prepared.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
Normally the way to get to a federal seat is to take a state seat first. Occasionally with the right connections and the right backing, one can skip the state office.
If one wants to have a chance at the political game, one must always appear happy, always appear hopeful, and always make the people believe you agree with them (or at least heard them properly and affirm their ideas...). It is not a position for those that are brutally honest.
One would think that a city seat would be a good stepping stone to a state or federal seat; but it never works that way. The political records work against people that start local, and those concerned with local issues are never considered broad enough to deal with federal issues.
The "real" way to make changes is not changing "who" is in office, but "what" the people in office are listening to. This requires mass organizing and huge numbers of letters, phone calls, E-mails and other communication, and leveraging the media.
But even that starts with "planting seeds" for the desired and needed changes. (Entertaining movies are ideal).
And for every one thing you want changed and want to tell someone that the present method... is "wrong", you need to tell them 2 things they are doing "right".
I got some of the things done at the local level that needed to be "fixed"; but the "powers that be" refused to shut down all the illegal drug sales in the city, even though I had the information and the methods.
Ideal activists are extremely opinionated, and extremely determined. Ideal politicians are extremely good at listening and affirming others. They don't mix, but they do make good partnerships.
If one wants to have a chance at the political game, one must always appear happy, always appear hopeful, and always make the people believe you agree with them (or at least heard them properly and affirm their ideas...). It is not a position for those that are brutally honest.
One would think that a city seat would be a good stepping stone to a state or federal seat; but it never works that way. The political records work against people that start local, and those concerned with local issues are never considered broad enough to deal with federal issues.
The "real" way to make changes is not changing "who" is in office, but "what" the people in office are listening to. This requires mass organizing and huge numbers of letters, phone calls, E-mails and other communication, and leveraging the media.
But even that starts with "planting seeds" for the desired and needed changes. (Entertaining movies are ideal).
And for every one thing you want changed and want to tell someone that the present method... is "wrong", you need to tell them 2 things they are doing "right".
I got some of the things done at the local level that needed to be "fixed"; but the "powers that be" refused to shut down all the illegal drug sales in the city, even though I had the information and the methods.
Ideal activists are extremely opinionated, and extremely determined. Ideal politicians are extremely good at listening and affirming others. They don't mix, but they do make good partnerships.
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
Thank you pasa. I will keep that in mind.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
After reading through you campaign website, there are several issues where we substantially disagree on what caused us to get where we are, and what is necessary to reverse it.
Of course we both completely agree on the necessity to support and encourage small business, and to make sure that laws are not keeping people from starting business; but still the government needs to make sure the public is not ripped off and that business are not started just to spend money, provide services they are not qualified for and file bankruptcy. There still has to be some regulation to keep the minority from exploiting the majority.
But even if in office? Who would write the bills you are proposing? Would you? Lawyers are good at finding loopholes, thus most legislation is written by lawyers to try to close potential loopholes and minimize unintended consequences. But such writing makes it almost impossible for most people to know what the law is, and even harder to get it passed. If you would write the legislation yourself, why haven't you already written it and submitted it for backing?
Especially how would you change back a "federal" system primarily promoted by Abraham Lincoln back to a "union" of individual "States"?
(I still say the better solution is for California just to secede).
The major problems with our present system are:
1) short political terms encourages short range vision, no long term planning/forecasting, and no accountability. Not being elected again (but still collecting a huge retirement package...) does not help with the accountability. Until there is personal accountability and a means to ensure the larger picture is looked at; politicians will only vote for the short term impacts.
2) A representative system can never represent the majority of the people. If we are going to have a "democracy" instead of a "fake republic", the people need to be allowed to propose changes to pending legislation, AND the PEOPLE need to vote on each issue. (Not the pretend representatives).
3) The budget needs to be submitted by the people with their taxes and normalized. The people know what they want their money spend on, the politicians have no idea and will only vote for existing programs and pork to get elected again.
4) We need to stop spending money on what the people don't want, such as the 5 subsidized crops in the Farm Bill. The farm bill should have disappeared years ago; yet it keeps getting tweaked with more problems.
5) Every government that every exists will only get more laws, more "case law" decisions, and more and more spending. This process cannot be "reversed". At some point, it is necessary to strip everything down, and start fresh. (Which is the real reason governments tend to get overthrown, in addition to greedy people seeking more power). If you want to keep laws simple; it needs to start that way, and be written to force it to stay that way.
6) Yes, deficit spending needs to stop; but deficit spending is how you get people to financially "invest" in the future of the government, and thus have a reason not to over-throw it. But it is this deficit spending that always requires the budget to be increased each year to pay the interest in addition to all the programs. It can't change until the mindset of the people changes. As long as the people are spending more at home than they make, and financing cars and refrigerators... you can't expect government to do any different.
7) For the economy, it all comes down to ALL business paying for the environmental and social impacts they create. You can't keep allowing exporting of jobs to exploit the environment and people of other countries, while forcing the local businesses to pay for these impacts. All that does is put money in the hands of the wealthy, and remove opportunities for those that want to work hard. Tax all imports and all exported labor equivalent of the local tax burden. Call support centers overseas that U.S. companies pay $1 per hour, no healthcare, breaks, or other benefits... will only encourage more "slave labor" and a harder time for local small business to compete. (But those that have stocks in the mega-corporations will claim this will bankrupt them; so how do you make the change equitably?)
Of course we both completely agree on the necessity to support and encourage small business, and to make sure that laws are not keeping people from starting business; but still the government needs to make sure the public is not ripped off and that business are not started just to spend money, provide services they are not qualified for and file bankruptcy. There still has to be some regulation to keep the minority from exploiting the majority.
But even if in office? Who would write the bills you are proposing? Would you? Lawyers are good at finding loopholes, thus most legislation is written by lawyers to try to close potential loopholes and minimize unintended consequences. But such writing makes it almost impossible for most people to know what the law is, and even harder to get it passed. If you would write the legislation yourself, why haven't you already written it and submitted it for backing?
Especially how would you change back a "federal" system primarily promoted by Abraham Lincoln back to a "union" of individual "States"?
(I still say the better solution is for California just to secede).
The major problems with our present system are:
1) short political terms encourages short range vision, no long term planning/forecasting, and no accountability. Not being elected again (but still collecting a huge retirement package...) does not help with the accountability. Until there is personal accountability and a means to ensure the larger picture is looked at; politicians will only vote for the short term impacts.
2) A representative system can never represent the majority of the people. If we are going to have a "democracy" instead of a "fake republic", the people need to be allowed to propose changes to pending legislation, AND the PEOPLE need to vote on each issue. (Not the pretend representatives).
3) The budget needs to be submitted by the people with their taxes and normalized. The people know what they want their money spend on, the politicians have no idea and will only vote for existing programs and pork to get elected again.
4) We need to stop spending money on what the people don't want, such as the 5 subsidized crops in the Farm Bill. The farm bill should have disappeared years ago; yet it keeps getting tweaked with more problems.
5) Every government that every exists will only get more laws, more "case law" decisions, and more and more spending. This process cannot be "reversed". At some point, it is necessary to strip everything down, and start fresh. (Which is the real reason governments tend to get overthrown, in addition to greedy people seeking more power). If you want to keep laws simple; it needs to start that way, and be written to force it to stay that way.
6) Yes, deficit spending needs to stop; but deficit spending is how you get people to financially "invest" in the future of the government, and thus have a reason not to over-throw it. But it is this deficit spending that always requires the budget to be increased each year to pay the interest in addition to all the programs. It can't change until the mindset of the people changes. As long as the people are spending more at home than they make, and financing cars and refrigerators... you can't expect government to do any different.
7) For the economy, it all comes down to ALL business paying for the environmental and social impacts they create. You can't keep allowing exporting of jobs to exploit the environment and people of other countries, while forcing the local businesses to pay for these impacts. All that does is put money in the hands of the wealthy, and remove opportunities for those that want to work hard. Tax all imports and all exported labor equivalent of the local tax burden. Call support centers overseas that U.S. companies pay $1 per hour, no healthcare, breaks, or other benefits... will only encourage more "slave labor" and a harder time for local small business to compete. (But those that have stocks in the mega-corporations will claim this will bankrupt them; so how do you make the change equitably?)
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
And then, even if we had a "true democracy" instead of a "fake republic", one must face the fundamental flaw of all "democracies"; the "majority" choosing to put an undue "burden" on selected "minorities", such as stating a nuclear power plant with potential radiation problems should be placed in a given community, due to the potential benefits for those outside that community. Or taxing only selected groups of people to pay for a program that doesn't benefit them in the slightest.
At some point, all democracies must realize that basic rights, decisions and independence of all minority groups must be protected, otherwise you have the government doing what Hitler did to the Jews, or what California did to the Japanese Americans.
Sure, the "bill of rights" was supposed to provide some of those protections; but that is totally inadequate, and did nothing to protect the Japanese Americans.
Even a dictatorship is better than allowing any "majority" to exploit any "minority".
At some point, all democracies must realize that basic rights, decisions and independence of all minority groups must be protected, otherwise you have the government doing what Hitler did to the Jews, or what California did to the Japanese Americans.
Sure, the "bill of rights" was supposed to provide some of those protections; but that is totally inadequate, and did nothing to protect the Japanese Americans.
Even a dictatorship is better than allowing any "majority" to exploit any "minority".
- Terri Linnell, "DebtsNMesses"
- Contributions:6728
Pasa, you and I have always disagreed in a few areas. I expected here, too, and wouldn't respect you much for totally agreeing with me. lol
You are right that we currently have seriously strayed from our roots and now have a 'fake republic'. Our Constitution is set up to be a Republic, not a democracy. Ben Franklin said it best, "I have given you a Republic, Madam, now you must keep it."
Our nation has strayed from the framework of our Constitution, and we need to restore it in order to promote freedom. I hear the left saying our govt is too far right and the right saying our govt is too far left. Food for thought... I'll give you a hint... They are BOTH correct.
The Constitutional framework is not 'a living document', it is set in stone. I can't believe they no longer teach the Constitution and Federalist Papers in law school. The Law of the Land is not taught?!
The root word of diversity is to divide. We should promote Unity, as in the United States, indivisible. Otherwise, the 'will of the people' will be totally lost and our nation will be further divided.
Did you look at the video on the bottom of the first blog? It's a must watch. A dem station interview almost throttled me for bringing up this issue. It angers all Americans to their core.
Last point, the people are a lot more color blind than the 'paid for' media gives them credit. (Both dems and reps agree that the media twists things out of persepective.) A higher percentage of whites voted for Obama than in any other election. That is a testimate in itself and something we should all be proud of.
You are right that we currently have seriously strayed from our roots and now have a 'fake republic'. Our Constitution is set up to be a Republic, not a democracy. Ben Franklin said it best, "I have given you a Republic, Madam, now you must keep it."
Our nation has strayed from the framework of our Constitution, and we need to restore it in order to promote freedom. I hear the left saying our govt is too far right and the right saying our govt is too far left. Food for thought... I'll give you a hint... They are BOTH correct.
The Constitutional framework is not 'a living document', it is set in stone. I can't believe they no longer teach the Constitution and Federalist Papers in law school. The Law of the Land is not taught?!
The root word of diversity is to divide. We should promote Unity, as in the United States, indivisible. Otherwise, the 'will of the people' will be totally lost and our nation will be further divided.
Did you look at the video on the bottom of the first blog? It's a must watch. A dem station interview almost throttled me for bringing up this issue. It angers all Americans to their core.
Last point, the people are a lot more color blind than the 'paid for' media gives them credit. (Both dems and reps agree that the media twists things out of persepective.) A higher percentage of whites voted for Obama than in any other election. That is a testimate in itself and something we should all be proud of.
- HomeSand.net, "White Picture"
- Contributions:4392
By the way, how is the poll going?
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
"A higher percentage of whites voted for Obama than in any other election."-
That is testimony to the effectiveness of using movies to change the views and opinions of large groups of people, and to allow change to occur by planting ideas as seeds in unsuspected entertainment.
And when I speak of "minority groups", I'm not referencing ethnicity, origin, race, or color at all. I'm only referring to people that don't agree with or don't vote the way 50.1% of the people think or vote.
For that matter, the "minority" for some decisions may be those that make $1 billion per year or more....
You cannot create "unity" and "consensus" with decisions that only take approval of 50.001% of the people, or worse, 50.001% of the "pretend representatives".
But even worse, the "majority" is often "wrong". Take the housing bubble for example; only a small "minority" recognized it for what it was and spoke out against it.
Good governance requires a lot more than a well framed democracy or well framed republic.
That is testimony to the effectiveness of using movies to change the views and opinions of large groups of people, and to allow change to occur by planting ideas as seeds in unsuspected entertainment.
And when I speak of "minority groups", I'm not referencing ethnicity, origin, race, or color at all. I'm only referring to people that don't agree with or don't vote the way 50.1% of the people think or vote.
For that matter, the "minority" for some decisions may be those that make $1 billion per year or more....
You cannot create "unity" and "consensus" with decisions that only take approval of 50.001% of the people, or worse, 50.001% of the "pretend representatives".
But even worse, the "majority" is often "wrong". Take the housing bubble for example; only a small "minority" recognized it for what it was and spoke out against it.
Good governance requires a lot more than a well framed democracy or well framed republic.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
By the way, I certainly hope that our next president is a Muslim American whose dad was from Iran involved in the Iranian revolution and whose grandfather on his mother's side fought on the North Korean side of the Korean war.
That would really give some indication whether the first amendment to the constitution was respected by the people or not.
And as to the statement in the declaration of independence that was completely ignored when drafting the constitution ("created equal"); --- first it was "bigoted" because it purposely excluded women; second it was "racist" as those making those statements denied that certain ethic groups were "human"; and third the majority (over 50%) of Americans no longer believe they were "created", but instead believe they "evolved", or were "conceived" from unintelligent natural biological processes that has nothing to do with "design", but only random permutations and "natural selection".
As the constitution completely ignored the basis of the declaration for independence, (and the "truths held to be self evident") as well as the conditions of the declaration of independence being identical to those may U.S. citizens now face (taxation without representation); the Constitution is already null and void, and was never valid.
Besides, a "majority" of the people at the time of the war of
independence were against such a war and against such secession, thus it would have never occurred if there was a "democracy".
And the form of government was nothing but a copy of British Parliament (House of Lords & House of Commons), with a "prime minister" or other executive branch "figure head"/"spokes person" (King..), and a Judicial system with much based on "common law"; as well as some vague references to Greek democracy and Roman governance.
That would really give some indication whether the first amendment to the constitution was respected by the people or not.
And as to the statement in the declaration of independence that was completely ignored when drafting the constitution ("created equal"); --- first it was "bigoted" because it purposely excluded women; second it was "racist" as those making those statements denied that certain ethic groups were "human"; and third the majority (over 50%) of Americans no longer believe they were "created", but instead believe they "evolved", or were "conceived" from unintelligent natural biological processes that has nothing to do with "design", but only random permutations and "natural selection".
As the constitution completely ignored the basis of the declaration for independence, (and the "truths held to be self evident") as well as the conditions of the declaration of independence being identical to those may U.S. citizens now face (taxation without representation); the Constitution is already null and void, and was never valid.
Besides, a "majority" of the people at the time of the war of
independence were against such a war and against such secession, thus it would have never occurred if there was a "democracy".
And the form of government was nothing but a copy of British Parliament (House of Lords & House of Commons), with a "prime minister" or other executive branch "figure head"/"spokes person" (King..), and a Judicial system with much based on "common law"; as well as some vague references to Greek democracy and Roman governance.
- klarek the realist
- Contributions:7044
"By the way, I certainly hope that our next president is a Muslim American whose dad was from Iran involved in the Iranian revolution and whose grandfather on his mother's side fought on the North Korean side of the Korean war."
Not sure about the second part, but totally agree with the first part. Iranians are an amazing asset to our collective society. A lot of them that fought for freedom from the Shah have been purged by the tyrannical regime that runs Iran today.
Not sure what a DPRK supporter would add to our society though. Geez. Sarcasm maybe? If so, that's really unfair to lump Iranians in with North Koreans.
Not sure about the second part, but totally agree with the first part. Iranians are an amazing asset to our collective society. A lot of them that fought for freedom from the Shah have been purged by the tyrannical regime that runs Iran today.
Not sure what a DPRK supporter would add to our society though. Geez. Sarcasm maybe? If so, that's really unfair to lump Iranians in with North Koreans.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21453
Just pointing out the still prevalent view against mixed marriages and prejudice against selected ideologies; and the tendency to "assume" that an offspring's view cannot differ from that of their parents. Also an underhanded comment about Bush's comment about "axis of evil". If we respect the 1st amendment of the constitution, we cannot call any group of people completely "evil", nor can we label the free expression of ideas as "evil".
For someone to have a Grandparent fighting in (and for) North Korea, but still be born in the United States... obviously there would have to be other circumstances for immigration to have occurred; yet the voting public still prefers the methods of the McCarthy era (guilt by association, or even assumed association).
One thing a mixed race leader with an exceptionally diverse family background would be able to do is address foreign policy on a diplomatic level not available to the majority of people. And there is also an assumption of being multi-lingual when parents and/or grandparents only recently immigrated.
For someone to have a Grandparent fighting in (and for) North Korea, but still be born in the United States... obviously there would have to be other circumstances for immigration to have occurred; yet the voting public still prefers the methods of the McCarthy era (guilt by association, or even assumed association).
One thing a mixed race leader with an exceptionally diverse family background would be able to do is address foreign policy on a diplomatic level not available to the majority of people. And there is also an assumption of being multi-lingual when parents and/or grandparents only recently immigrated.
- HomeSand.net, "White Picture"
- Contributions:4392
Too early to tell!!!!
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 52ND DISTRICT – REPUBLICAN
DUNCAN D. HUNTER – REP 24,083 votes 89.29%
TERRI R. LINNELL – REP 2,888 votes 10.71%
Precincts: 414
Counted: 55
Percentage: 13.3%
DebtsNMesses in Congress?
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.