WDSmart

I disagree with you on most of these, and I even support some of them. Trump is a dangerous felon who did a horrible job last time, and if re-elected, will cause destructive turmoil in the USA I also am not sure what you mean by saying, "...you are a foreigner." I was born and still am a citizen of the USA. In fact, I just returned my vote in the November elections. I am a foreigner here in Thailand, but I have a Thai wife and have lived here for over 20 years now. I have no intention of returning to the USA, at least not relocating there. .

As far as Pete goes, he is a bright guy, and I've really been impressed with the video snippets of his remarks. But, as you say, there's really nothing outstanding yet. I'd like to see him in a debate setting and hear his answers to a lot of the important questions. I thought Shapiro would be the best choice for the vice presidential nominee, too, but mostly because he is from Pennsylvania, a very important state in the election. I'm happy, though, with Walz. I like the way he presents himself and hope he will be our (USA) next vice president. I've already sent in my vote for him and Kamala—not that my vote matters a lot since I'm registered to vote in California.

Yes! Buttigieg would have been my choice for VP, too. And in fact, for president someday. But I don't think the US voters are ready for people like him yet. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.

Again, I'm removing a duplicate post. I keep doing this because nothing happens when I click on Submit. So, after I waited for about 10 seconds, I clicked again.

I think Walz won, but I admit I'm extremely biased about all this. I will say I did think Vance did better than I expected. He lied at times, but at least he was moderately respectful and polite.

Lock him up!

Lock them up!

Lock them up!

Lock him up!

I do see the USA morphing into an oligarch - a plutocracy. On that, we agree. I myself am a far-left liberal and advocate some form of democratic socialism, removing the capitalistic portions of our economy. But I know that will not happen in my lifetime, especially mine since I am now 78 years old. Oh well, we'll all have to do our best with what we've got and try to make whatever changes we feel are important to support the society in which we want to live.

Right now, I think the wait to apply for citizenship in the USA is five years. By "true democracy," I just mean allowing all citizens to vote (with a minimum age qualification and not felons in prison). So, in that sense, all citizens are "equal." Under the USA's capitalistic economic system, no, they certainly are not "equal." To be truly equal, you'd have to go clear to a communistic economy. Even in socialism, not everyone is "equal" in the sense that they all share everything equally. Anyway, I think once an immigrant has qualified to become a citizen, he/she should be eligible to register to vote—even former pig farmers from Nicaragua.

Sorry, I didn't see your "8 year" suggestion. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that obviously is not what the majority of voters in the USA want. I had to look up "Lumpenproletariat." Others who have never heard that term can read about it here: Lumpenproletariat - Wikipedia. That categorization is, of course, not applicable to a true democracy, but I do understand why some who are not lumpenproletariats themselves would like to see people like that restricted from voting. In my book, you either have a democracy or you don't. The more you limit access to voting, the further you move from true democracy and into some other form of government, most likely an aristocracy, oligarch, plutocracy, or, what we (USA) are heading into if Trump gets re-elected, a kakistocracy. Kakistocracy - Wikipedia

So, my question above is still relevant: "How long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?" Please answer that. If you believe democracy should only be practiced in a "small local population with a vested interest in land ownership," then you're thinking exactly the way our (USA) forefathers did when they limited voting to only White landowners. But now, as I've said before, our (USA) laws governing citizenship and voting have changed. Those changes came about as a result of a democratic voting process (in each state in the republic. So, yes, all those changes allowing all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and registered to vote has caused a massive distortion of the political landscape. So what? That's democracy at work. You may not like the results. I sometimes don't like the results myself. But that's all part of the democratic process. The majority calls the shots, not just the wealthy, like those who have a "vested interest and land ownership. Please answer my previous question, which I've repeated at the top of this comment. I'd appreciate that.

If he/she has the qualifications and passes the tests to become a US citizen, is one, and has registered to vote, then of course I am. Why wouldn't I be? And in anticipation of your response, how long do you think a citizen should have to be a citizen before he/she should be allowed to vote? Or what other qualifications do you think he/she should have?

Thanks for the history lesson. I did not know all of that. In my home country, the USA, at first, only citizens who were White landowners could vote. Eventually, and over a long period of time, the restrictions were reduced to all citizens of all races, of all genders, over 18, with no regard to wealth, and were registered to vote. Even citizens who have been convicted of a felony after being released from prison are eligible to vote in about half of the states. So, if a recent immigrant is granted citizenship, they should be allowed to register to vote. TO NOT DO SO would be a breach of democracy. You can read my opinion about the US Electoral College written in 2016 here: Rung & Bill: US Electoral College - Opinion (billsmart.com) And, yes, the Democrats are doing things to increase the number of voters who would be most favorable to them, just as the Republicans are doing things to decrease the number of voters in the hope of retaining their lead in the swing states. A voting population that favors Democrats is not a threat to democracy, and neither is one that favors Republicans. What threatens democracy is how the laws of the various states are enacted to prevent or discourage voting.

I've never taken Niacin, but I take a vitamin B supplement daily, along with many other supplements. I've never had any problems.

I'm hoping my next car/truck will be an EV. It's the best way to go for the future. EVs are not pollution-free, but they're better than gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles.

I think of the four charges filed against the driver, only the last one, "failing to assist or report the incident leading to fatalities," will prove to be valid.

Musk is, IMO, a POS, and the USA, my home country, is not a democracy but a republic. But even without considering all that, how would speeding up the process of enabling an immigrant to become a citizen and then be eligible to vote be seen as "a threat to democracy"? The majority of the votes cast would still determine the winner of the elective office in each state. That's democracy, isn't it? Trump had shown himself as a "threat to democracy" when he tried to invalidate the democratically elected Electors from a couple of states by declaring their election was corrupt and asking for new, appointed Electors to be used instead.

"Two coach fire students in ICU, one may lose her eyesight" This is the headline of this article. I thought it meant two coaches fired students working in an ICU. The headline should have been Two coach-fire students are in ICU; one may lose her eyesight...

Lock him up! He published documents he knew were marked "Classified" by the US government, and he's pled guilty to that. Case closed!

Lots of things are required by law in Thailand but most ignore the rules, you are also required to wear a helmet, have working lights, don't drink and drive, use the left hand lane, indicate when turning or changing lanes, stop at stop at stop signs, drive on the left hand side of the road, do not speed, stop at the scean of an accident, don't carry a gun or big knife in public, your lucky if they even have a license, the list is pretty much endless. It summary ALL traffic laws are ignored, the fines are small, and the cops don't do their job. The question was whether or not cars were required to stop a zebra crossing. Just because I believe they are doesn't mean I'll risk my life by walking out onto the street in a zebra crossing and believing the cars will stop. If I am driving, I will stop. If I am a pedestrian, I will slowly start onto the zebra crossing while cautiously watching the oncoming traffic

"White Culture" in the USA, my home country, is just White Supremacy. It has never been completely wiped out, and, in my opinion, thanks to Trump, there has been a resurgence in the past ten years or so.

This duplicate post was removed.

My understanding is cars are required to stop at a zebra crossing when it is being used by pedestrians.