Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have any idea what the hispanic population is in California? Have you noticed that the mayor of Phoenix & the city councils in Arizona's largest cities are condemning the law? That the conservative governors of Nevada & Texas have condemned the law? California votes 70% Democratic. Now what are the odds that such a law would pass in California?
Prop 187 passed with 31% of Hispanics voting YES on it. While California does have a large majority of Hispanics, they are the least likely group to vote: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...oVotersJTF.pdf
The White vote still rules in California, unless amnesty is passed on a federal level. So the 40ish % of Hispanics still do not make up the majority of votes, not even close. 187 was HARSH compared to 1070, and was watered down by an activist judge as being "Unconstitutional". A similar bulletproof law will pass in California- and Tony Villar is a joke for a mayor "We clean your toilets" LMAO!
so is Aaahhhnold- if there was no term limits he would be voted out FOR SURE this election. If being against Illegal Immigration is political suicide, then WHY has Meg Whitman done a complete 180 on immigration- going from being pro- amnesty to taking a harsh stance against it? I can tell you why.. Poizner closed a huge gap between the two by supporting tough Illegal Immigration laws. Californians are TIRED of the cost and problems associated with Illegal Immigrants, let a bill get on the ballot and I promise it will pass.
Prop 187 passed with 31% of Hispanics voting YES on it. While California does have a large majority of Hispanics, they are the least likely group to vote: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...oVotersJTF.pdf
The White vote still rules in California, unless amnesty is passed on a federal level. So the 40ish % of Hispanics still do not make up the majority of votes, not even close. 187 was HARSH compared to 1070, and was watered down by an activist judge as being "Unconstitutional". A similar bulletproof law will pass in California- and Tony Villar is a joke for a mayor "We clean your toilets" LMAO!
so is Aaahhhnold- if there was no term limits he would be voted out FOR SURE this election. If being against Illegal Immigration is political suicide, then WHY has Meg Whitman done a complete 180 on immigration- going from being pro- amnesty to taking a harsh stance against it? I can tell you why.. Poizner closed a huge gap between the two by supporting tough Illegal Immigration laws. Californians are TIRED of the cost and problems associated with Illegal Immigrants, let a bill get on the ballot and I promise it will pass.
One thing to remember about Whitman's and Poizner claims that aren't for an amnesty for illegal aliens is that it may mean they are for a CIR that allows all these illegals to remain here though. We should make sure that any candidate isn't for either. I wish these two candidates would come out and state how they feel about CIR. Stating they aren't for amnesty doesn't mean squat.
One thing to remember about Whitman's and Poizner claims that aren't for an amnesty for illegal aliens is that it may mean they are for a CIR that allows all these illegals to remain here though. We should make sure that any candidate isn't for either. I wish these two candidates would come out and state how they feel about CIR. Stating they aren't for amnesty doesn't mean squat.
I don't know if you have access to the political ads by Whitman & Poizner but they are hilarious. Both attack each other by listing all the liberal politicians or causes they have supported or gave money to. Republicans should be vomiting since both Whitman & Poizner are essentially liberals willing to lie and pretend they are conservatives. Both have contributed money to either Barbara Boxer or Al Gore. Both have advocated for more taxes. Both are essentially liberal on social issues. Of-course this is campaign time but whoever wins the primary will immediately downplay their so-called "conservative" credentials in order to appeal to Democrats. They are both phony & willing to do anything to become governor [which btw is a thankless job].
Prop 187 passed with 31% of Hispanics voting YES on it. While California does have a large majority of Hispanics, they are the least likely group to vote: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...oVotersJTF.pdf
The White vote still rules in California, unless amnesty is passed on a federal level. So the 40ish % of Hispanics still do not make up the majority of votes, not even close. 187 was HARSH compared to 1070, and was watered down by an activist judge as being "Unconstitutional". A similar bulletproof law will pass in California- and Tony Villar is a joke for a mayor "We clean your toilets" LMAO!
so is Aaahhhnold- if there was no term limits he would be voted out FOR SURE this election. If being against Illegal Immigration is political suicide, then WHY has Meg Whitman done a complete 180 on immigration- going from being pro- amnesty to taking a harsh stance against it? I can tell you why.. Poizner closed a huge gap between the two by supporting tough Illegal Immigration laws. Californians are TIRED of the cost and problems associated with Illegal Immigrants, let a bill get on the ballot and I promise it will pass.
It should be put on the ballot again, but I am sure that it would fail unfortunately. Even though they might be less likely to vote, you can be sure that they will have near 100% turnout in that community if put to a ballot. I am an american of mexican descent who voted FOR 187 last time around b/c I saw the costs associated with them even back then. It has gotten MUCH WORSE since then.
It should be put on the ballot again, but I am sure that it would fail unfortunately. Even though they might be less likely to vote, you can be sure that they will have near 100% turnout in that community if put to a ballot. I am an american of mexican descent who voted FOR 187 last time around b/c I saw the costs associated with them even back then. It has gotten MUCH WORSE since then.
It should be put on the ballot again, but I am sure that it would fail unfortunately. Even though they might be less likely to vote, you can be sure that they will have near 100% turnout in that community if put to a ballot. I am an american of mexican descent who voted FOR 187 last time around b/c I saw the costs associated with them even back then. It has gotten MUCH WORSE since then.
There was an issue with "Constitutional rights" being violated, with the whole denying emergency medical care and what not..There would have to be a new bill (something similar to Arizona's) that would hold ACCOUNTABLE "sanctuary" cities that chose not to enforce it. The ACLU in San Diego is already taking measures to block anything like it from going into the ballot in California.. things will get ugly here really quick. But even at that, over 30% of Hispanic's voted FOR prop. 187. They can have a turnout of nearly 100% of ELIGIBLE voters (will not happen) and can still lose. Read this link, has info in voter turnout: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1202JCRB.pdf
There was an issue with "Constitutional rights" being violated, with the whole denying emergency medical care and what not..There would have to be a new bill (something similar to Arizona's) that would hold ACCOUNTABLE "sanctuary" cities that chose not to enforce it. The ACLU in San Diego is already taking measures to block anything like it from going into the ballot in California.. things will get ugly here really quick. But even at that, over 30% of Hispanic's voted FOR prop. 187. They can have a turnout of nearly 100% of ELIGIBLE voters (will not happen) and can still lose. Read this link, has info in voter turnout: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1202JCRB.pdf
I'm not sure your figures are correct:
". . . a Field Poll analysis (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-94-95-Jan-Election.pdf - broken link) of the 1994 general election in California found that the vast majority of Hispanics actually voted against the ballot measure: "White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage-point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin." The analysis showed that 73 percent of Hispanic voters voted against Proposition 187. The Field Research Corp. (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.field.com/about.html - broken link) conducts the Field Poll, which it describes as "an independent political and public policy poll" that "enjoys widespread respect for its fairness and accuracy in charting opinion trends in California's dynamic political and social climate." Coulter falsely claimed "majority of Hispanics voted in favor of" California's Proposition 187 | Media Matters for America
Don't mean to be picayune but the exact numbers of Hispanics who voted for Prop 187 is likely under 30%
And more importantly, what happened after Prop 187 passed? Latinos registered to vote in huge numbers and the Republican party has never recovered.
"But the backlash to Proposition 187, delivered at the hands of a growing Latino electorate, was severe and long lasting, with the Republican Party suffering the most blame and punishment." Learning from Proposition 187
Republicans are now a distinct minority party in California and have been for over 20 years thanks, in part, to Prop 187. That's why national-level Republican leaders are urging Arizona to halt the new law or face the same consequences. Arizona will become a Blue state even faster than predicted a year ago.
". . . a Field Poll analysis (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-94-95-Jan-Election.pdf - broken link) of the 1994 general election in California found that the vast majority of Hispanics actually voted against the ballot measure: "White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage-point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin." The analysis showed that 73 percent of Hispanic voters voted against Proposition 187. The Field Research Corp. (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.field.com/about.html - broken link) conducts the Field Poll, which it describes as "an independent political and public policy poll" that "enjoys widespread respect for its fairness and accuracy in charting opinion trends in California's dynamic political and social climate." Coulter falsely claimed "majority of Hispanics voted in favor of" California's Proposition 187 | Media Matters for America
OK, I dug up that SAME EXACT link I posted for you earlier... it's from "just the facts" I remember you using it as a source the other day. 68% of Whites vote, 17% Latino, 6% Black, 6% Asian, 3% "Others". Latino's make up 47% of California residents: so we will round up and say out of Half the states residents only 17% vote =(.. ON the other hand, about 40% of the state is WHITE- and out of that 40% of the states population 68% of them DO vote- Latino's do have a slightly higher population than Whites in California, but Whites out-vote Latino's 4:1- and this is current figures not from 1994... http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf...oVotersJTF.pdf
Don't mean to be picayune but the exact numbers of Hispanics who voted for Prop 187 is likely under 30%
And more importantly, what happened after Prop 187 passed? Latinos registered to vote in huge numbers and the Republican party has never recovered.
"But the backlash to Proposition 187, delivered at the hands of a growing Latino electorate, was severe and long lasting, with the Republican Party suffering the most blame and punishment." Learning from Proposition 187
Republicans are now a distinct minority party in California and have been for over 20 years thanks, in part, to Prop 187. That's why national-level Republican leaders are urging Arizona to halt the new law or face the same consequences. Arizona will become a Blue state even faster than predicted a year ago.
More disinformation.. But Ok- we go with 27% of Latino's voting no on prop 187. The 187 "backlash" is not caused by "Huge droves of Latino voters" alienated by the Republican party. Did you even read the link I sent earlier? regarding the huge majority of voters in California STILL being White? apparently not. don't have the time right now to dig it back up, but here is some reading on your "sleeping giant" http://vdare.com/sailer/graphic_evidence.htm
the facts can all be easily verified. Good try though, you are getting better!
Last edited by Iceman82; 05-21-2010 at 09:34 PM..
Reason: CHANGED LINK!
Do you have any idea what the hispanic population is in California? Have you noticed that the mayor of Phoenix & the city councils in Arizona's largest cities are condemning the law? That the conservative governors of Nevada & Texas have condemned the law? California votes 70% Democratic. Now what are the odds that such a law would pass in California?
I live in the inland empire, rent homes out in O.C. AND IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY. The problem with our state is that we need to vote everyone in Power, OUT, and like now, soon is not soon enough. The problem is the 70% democratic vote, that is currently the problem wrong with our state, and too many ignorant morons, with sticks up their ---- where they should not be. We have the same exact situation going on that Arizona does, only difference Arizona, actually gives a damn about their residents, and good old L.A. could give a crap, about us, all about their agendas, and not us. All about benefiting them, and the damn democratic vote, enough is enough, and the people should have SPOKEN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
