There are 38 comments.

1. Thatcher
   Percival

   @Percival

   

   9:49 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2023

   Arahant (View Comment):

   Percival (View Comment):
   cattle reallocation specialist

   Yeah. I come from a higher class of folk.

   

   Puttin’ on airs even then, I see.

2. Member
   Arahant

   @Arahant

   9:53 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2023

   Percival (View Comment):

   Arahant (View Comment):

   Percival (View Comment):
   cattle reallocation specialist

   Yeah. I come from a higher class of folk.

   

   Puttin’ on airs even then, I see.

   Hey, he’s got a descendant who is the only female PotUS in history. (Unless one counts Barry.)

3. Member
   The Reticulator

   @TheReticulator

   10:57 PM EST ⋅ Nov 29, 2023

   Arahant (View Comment):

   The Reticulator (View Comment):
   I don’t think any of my immigrant ancestors had a working knowledge of English when they came here. Some of them never learned English, but didn’t need it because they were part of a supportive community. Their offspring all learned it, though.

   Depends on when and through where. Ellis Island’s facility did not open up until 1892. A lot of folks came in before that, and for awhile it was wide open and the Wild West.

   Most of my ancestors came before that.  My paternal grandmother came after that, and didn’t know any English when she came.  Her children taught her English after they started school. 

4. Coolidge
   David C. Broussard

   @Dbroussa

   10:51 AM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2023

   Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   Douglas Pratt (View Comment):

   Nice one. I like Cruz. Would have been happy with him as President, although I think governors are better; Senators run committes, governors run bureaucracies.

   I get the impression that, in his present position, he is free to speak his mind. I like the fact that he does so.

   To many leftists, Cruz was a “Trump” before DJT entered national politics.

   And to way too many on the Right as well. Cruz had the “outsider” lane for the nomination in ’16 until Trump appeared. I think he could have won the nomination and would have, absent Trump, because many who supported Trump would have liked Cruz. However, I am of the opinion that Cruz could not have won in ’16 using Trump’s path, and it is unlikely that he could have won using a more traditional path.

   I think Cruz was the outsider among the insiders. There was also Rand Paul who’s not in the club, and Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson were not even politicians. I think “rough insider” may apply to Cruz, but not outsider.

   I disagree, but only from the standpoint that Cruz wanted to be President, and he chose as his “lane” the outside lane to run from.  However, being the Solicitor General of Texas (not an elected position) was not a job that was a stepping stone to the White House.  He couldn’t run for Governor and beat Rick Perry which would have been the other logical stepping stone.  So, he ran for Senate where he caucuses with the GOP but stuck his finger in their eye when he could.  His filibuster in 2013 angered Sen. McConnell and many other GOP Senators.  This was all part of his effort to have a platform that was legitimate to run for the White House, but also allowed him to style himself as an outsider who felt that the GOP wasn’t doing enough, or even trying in many cases to resolve the issues the base cared about.

5. Thatcher
   Percival

   @Percival

   

   11:32 AM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2023

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   Douglas Pratt (View Comment):

   Nice one. I like Cruz. Would have been happy with him as President, although I think governors are better; Senators run committes, governors run bureaucracies.

   I get the impression that, in his present position, he is free to speak his mind. I like the fact that he does so.

   To many leftists, Cruz was a “Trump” before DJT entered national politics.

   And to way too many on the Right as well. Cruz had the “outsider” lane for the nomination in ’16 until Trump appeared. I think he could have won the nomination and would have, absent Trump, because many who supported Trump would have liked Cruz. However, I am of the opinion that Cruz could not have won in ’16 using Trump’s path, and it is unlikely that he could have won using a more traditional path.

   I think Cruz was the outsider among the insiders. There was also Rand Paul who’s not in the club, and Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson were not even politicians. I think “rough insider” may apply to Cruz, but not outsider.

   I disagree, but only from the standpoint that Cruz wanted to be President, and he chose as his “lane” the outside lane to run from. However, being the Solicitor General of Texas (not an elected position) was not a job that was a stepping stone to the White House. He couldn’t run for Governor and beat Rick Perry which would have been the other logical stepping stone. So, he ran for Senate where he caucuses with the GOP but stuck his finger in their eye when he could. His filibuster in 2013 angered Sen. McConnell and many other GOP Senators. This was all part of his effort to have a platform that was legitimate to run for the White House, but also allowed him to style himself as an outsider who felt that the GOP wasn’t doing enough, or even trying in many cases to resolve the issues the base cared about.

   He filibustered Obamacare, and that ticked off the Murder Turtle? Tough.

6. Member
   carcat74

   @carcat74

   5:10 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2023

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   Susan Quinn (View Comment):
   So you think if they are starving peasants, they aren’t going to appreciate the advantages of liberty? You might be right.

   Some of that is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. When you are starving you seek food, shelter, and comfort. When all those needs are met and you have stability, you seek self-realization. When we look at some immigrants to the US, the Cubans as one example, they were the elites under Batista and usually successful. They came here with nothing but they built something because they had done it before and could do it again. When you take a person who was poor in their homeland and bring them here, they aren’t likely to become wildly successful, or even moderately successful (note I said likely, it can and does happen). They are, often, looking to be poor in the richest country in the world because being poor here is middle to upper class where they came from. They didn’t come in search of liberty, but economic improvement. This pattern has repeated itself for a very long time…really to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. Those original settlers were motivated to come to the US, and it was expensive. They were not poor, though they were when they got here. They built, often from nothing, something of value as they had at home. This was true of most immigrant waves, because even in the midst of the Eastern European waves, the Irish, the Southern Europeans…it was expensive to immigrate. You had to buy a ticket on a ship and it was one-way. That is a tough decision to make and only the motivated did it. Now, it’s a long walk, but that is about it. Much easier to come and thus we get less motivated people. Often they come with the intention of going back home or sending money to family back home. They are here to make money not be Americans.

   The desperately poor do not have the resources to migrate. They might be transported by a generous private or public benefactor. Otherwise they are stuck at home.

   I wonder how the ‘desperately poor’ have been managing the $5000 a person to make the journey?

7. Coolidge
   DaveSchmidt

   @DaveSchmidt

   5:18 PM EST ⋅ Nov 30, 2023

   carcat74 (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   Susan Quinn (View Comment):
   So you think if they are starving peasants, they aren’t going to appreciate the advantages of liberty? You might be right.

   Some of that is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. When you are starving you seek food, shelter, and comfort. When all those needs are met and you have stability, you seek self-realization. When we look at some immigrants to the US, the Cubans as one example, they were the elites under Batista and usually successful. They came here with nothing but they built something because they had done it before and could do it again. When you take a person who was poor in their homeland and bring them here, they aren’t likely to become wildly successful, or even moderately successful (note I said likely, it can and does happen). They are, often, looking to be poor in the richest country in the world because being poor here is middle to upper class where they came from. They didn’t come in search of liberty, but economic improvement. This pattern has repeated itself for a very long time…really to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. Those original settlers were motivated to come to the US, and it was expensive. They were not poor, though they were when they got here. They built, often from nothing, something of value as they had at home. This was true of most immigrant waves, because even in the midst of the Eastern European waves, the Irish, the Southern Europeans…it was expensive to immigrate. You had to buy a ticket on a ship and it was one-way. That is a tough decision to make and only the motivated did it. Now, it’s a long walk, but that is about it. Much easier to come and thus we get less motivated people. Often they come with the intention of going back home or sending money to family back home. They are here to make money not be Americans.

   The desperately poor do not have the resources to migrate. They might be transported by a generous private or public benefactor. Otherwise they are stuck at home.

   I wonder how the ‘desperately poor’ have been managing the $5000 a person to make the journey?

   Excellent question.  

8. Coolidge
   Fritz

   @Fritz

   2:16 PM EST ⋅ Dec 1, 2023

   carcat74 (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   Susan Quinn (View Comment):
   So you think if they are starving peasants, they aren’t going to appreciate the advantages of liberty? You might be right.

   Some of that is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. When you are starving you seek food, shelter, and comfort. When all those needs are met and you have stability, you seek self-realization. When we look at some immigrants to the US, the Cubans as one example, they were the elites under Batista and usually successful. They came here with nothing but they built something because they had done it before and could do it again. When you take a person who was poor in their homeland and bring them here, they aren’t likely to become wildly successful, or even moderately successful (note I said likely, it can and does happen). They are, often, looking to be poor in the richest country in the world because being poor here is middle to upper class where they came from. They didn’t come in search of liberty, but economic improvement. This pattern has repeated itself for a very long time…really to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. Those original settlers were motivated to come to the US, and it was expensive. They were not poor, though they were when they got here. They built, often from nothing, something of value as they had at home. This was true of most immigrant waves, because even in the midst of the Eastern European waves, the Irish, the Southern Europeans…it was expensive to immigrate. You had to buy a ticket on a ship and it was one-way. That is a tough decision to make and only the motivated did it. Now, it’s a long walk, but that is about it. Much easier to come and thus we get less motivated people. Often they come with the intention of going back home or sending money to family back home. They are here to make money not be Americans.

   The desperately poor do not have the resources to migrate. They might be transported by a generous private or public benefactor. Otherwise they are stuck at home.

   I wonder how the ‘desperately poor’ have been managing the $5000 a person to make the journey?

   Soros-backed NGOs? Cartels buy-on-time plans?