OptimusSpice

I601 receipt date: 12 Oct 2017

Status changed: Decision Notice Mailed (denied) 9 Nov 2018

Still waiting on the letter to arrive to explain why it was denied and what options we have (if any)

@TBoneTX - you make a really good point! I hadn't even thought about that. 

On the plus side of it - I'm not going to complain when an incumbent retires, even if it does mean the seat flips parties.  Politics shouldn't be a "career" lasting decades. (cough, cough, "term limits", cough, cough)

I'm not really all that bothered by the House flipping to Dem majority.  I don't think it's in the best interest of the Nation for either party to hold all the power.  Even if the Dems are ignoring the Constitution as much as they possibly can (and it's costing them) we need something that will still provided some semblance of balance.  The Republicans can't be allowed to function unchecked and uncontested, that wouldn't be healthy for the Nation in the long run (the whole "absolute power corrupts absolutely" thing).  Overall I'm pleased with how I see our system working.  It's not a perfect system, but it's one of the best I've seen considering the basic faults in human nature.  To see so many people actually get involved in a mid term election is awesome! 

As for the second part of your question - if you get married/hold a wedding ceremony prior to the issuance of the K1 visa - you will VOID your K1 and have to restart the entire process on a CR1.  People have had their K1's denied for "being too married" based off of the traditional engagement ceremonies held in some countries - even though the couple did not technically marry per the nation's laws.  Anything that even LOOKS like a wedding can trigger a denial for a K1 at the consular interview.  The K1 is specifically for getting married AFTER entry and within 90 days of that entry.  If you want to get married prior to getting a visa - look into the CR1.

Due to the nature of the K1 - many have done a "courthouse" marriage within the 90 days then had the big family celebration with dresses and cake later.

I concur with the other poster.  If you read through the various months for K1s (lots of threads for filers by month/year) you'll see that there is a general timeline but there are so many different things that come up that can throw it off at ANY stage.  Everything can be fully approved and simply waiting for the consulate to return a passport - seems like a simple 14-30 day thing - so people start buying plane tickets and reserving venues, etc....then for some unknown reason they spend 4 months in "AP" or the passport doesn't get sent back for 90 days or 6 months - and no one knows why.  The most consistent piece of advice I have seen on VJ no matter what thread, what visa, what country, etc - NEVER SPEND MONEY on plane tickets or wedding plans UNTIL you PHYSICALLY have the VISA/PASSPORT in hand.  As much as it sucks and it makes planning anything really hard - it's just the reality of the immigration process.  

I would get banned if I posted my thoughts regarding all these questions about "which way are you leaning?"  .....as a chick, I don't know exactly what leaning feels like, so I'll just have to take the guys words on it....

I wonder, what will the stats be in 8 more years? 8 of the past 10, the Left had Obama. And yes, the extreme right was violent. It's been my observation that it's only really been since Trump won that the Left has been getting increasingly more violent. It started as the extreme Left, but as we have seen and discussed in other threads, the reason #walkaway has happened and some are leaving the Democratic party is that the tantrums from the extreme have become the proclamations of the party leaders and especially during the Kavanaugh circus became the behavior of much of the party members. It's no longer "the extreme Left".  It's still not the entire democratic party, but it is spreading rapidly.  

I don't condone the violence from either side.  Just to be sure that point is made clear.

It seems that the main focus or "measure" of violence is related to deaths rather than the lesser degrees of overall harassment.  And if the stats are correct - then it does appear that the right is better at actually killing their targets rather than merely being disruptive.  I would think that would cause everyone to pause and deeply evaluate the consequences of what that forebodes.  If this all continues to escalate and the Right starts to feel like the Constitution is under attack do such a degree that they are willing to engage in a civil war, who wins?  The disruptive, harassing, rock throwing, less lethal violence but louder screaming Left or the silent, skip the arguing, aim, fire, kill of the Right?

Just a thought.

Gosh! Where do I fit?? I'm white - okay, check.  I live in a rural area, okay check.....  I have a 2 year degree so I'm neither "less educated" nor am I "highly educated"...I guess that makes me "medium educated".  I'm not afraid for "my personal safety" and I'm not afraid of "losing land" or whatever the author was trying to convey as the "rich white man's fear"....  Am I old?  I don't know, is 40 old?

Middle age Female, with a middle degree education,  and a middle class income, not afraid of anything.....I feel left out....  I guess I'm supposed to be a Democrat (couldn't be because I'm not afraid of old, white, republican males)???  Apparently I don't have a defined place in America according to all the rhetoric lately.  I feel left out and think I just might have to have a tantrum because I'm entitled to be grossly grouped into some poorly defined subculture of America darn it!  I mean, if the media is so insistent on telling me how to think, shouldn't they give me an assigned group to mind meld with????

I think the only thing I'm concerned about (though I wouldn't say afraid of) is the Democratic party's outright war on the Constitution, and I didn't need anyone to tell me to be afraid of that - I've  witnessed it plenty in their own actions over the last few years.

Why does it matter "how many people" would be affected by the policy?  I've seen much in the thread about the percentages....  Frankly, I don't care if the percentage is so small it's not noticeable, or so large that it's having undeniable negative impacts - anchor babies are an abuse to the system.  If it's such a small number affected, then why get up in arms to keep the issue unchanged?  If it's a large number, then it's apparent it needs changed.  Either way - small % or large % - changing the amendment is not a bad idea. 

From what I've observed (and the nature of VJ) we are ALL in support of LEGAL immigration.  From what I've seen and understood about the Trump administration and platform is more about being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (though all the supporters of illegal immigration never want to use those words to define it).  Does Trump want to implement changes to the current legal system of immigration as well, yes.  So far, I haven't seen any proposed changes that would hurt the USA.  I'm not opposed to changes in our severely abused and way too "wide open" immigration policies.  That doesn't make me "anit-immigration".  That simply makes me "honest about the faults in the current immigration system".  Anything that makes it harder to abuse is a good thing.  I have zero problem with people who go through the entire process legally, honoring the intent of policies.  Those who try to abuse the system through fraudulent methods, even if they are going through the process - I have a problem with.  Part of why the process takes so excruciatingly long is because of all the abuses.  Cut the abuses, and the whole system becomes more efficient.  That's a win for all those who are using the immigration system for it's intended purpose, a very "pro-immigration" stance. 

If a fruit tree is allowed to grow unchecked, untended - it actually produces less fruit.  To maximize the production of fruit, a tree must be wisely pruned.  It can't be hacked so far back that there is nothing left, but if it's not cut back responsibly - all the energy goes into growing more branches rather than producing fruit.  Immigration is like that tree - if we want the best, most productive "USA possible" then we need wise management of the "Immigration Tree" - when it gets out of control, it needs pruned, however that pruning must not be so overkill as to remove all the branches.  How exactly we find that balance, I don't know but a good place to start is to review the immigration policies of countries all over the world and review how those policies compare/contrast to the values and strength of our Nation.  Regardless, our tree is so overgrown that it's a huge mess.  It needs attention.  That doesn't mean I want the tree cut down and removed (anit-immigration).  It means I want to see the tree as healthy as it can be (pro-immigration).

I agree that if they are so certain the claims are credible then they should be fully investigated, however because it was obviously nothing more than a political smear campaign that failed miserably and also backfired terribly, they've tried to distance themselves from it as much as possible.  They want Americans to forget what the Democratic leaders did prior to the Nov vote.  I can't recall exactly which thread on the topic it was but someone posted an article about how the whole Kavanaugh thing resulted in a massive swell of Republican voter interest and that the Dems needed to do everything they could to distance themselves from it and get voters to forget by midterms.  Even without the media coverage or any continued investigations, the conservatives and even the liberals who left the Dems over the whole mess won't forget.  But they sure do get an A+ for effort!  I've said it before, and I'll say it again - time and time again American's prove to be much smarter than the Democratic party (and yes, politicians in general) tend to think they are.  The silent majority still votes.

Congratulations! You definitely received something unheard of these days without an expedite!  I'm Oct 2017 and still waiting.  Many other cases from my receipt date are moving along, but mine's still pending.  Hopefully we'll hear something soon.  That's so wonderful for you!  I'm not sure what Casablanca is like, perhaps someone else will know.  Perhaps email or call the consulate and ask them what the next steps are. Some consulates want a 2nd interview, others just want updated medical/police reports (if the original ones have expired).  I hope the rest of your case continues to proceed as quickly!!  Best of luck!

O LAWD! You might as well just drink water!  YUK! 0% is terrible!!!! hahaha 

My absolute favorite in coffee is a bit of heavy cream and honey - but i settle for 1/2 n 1/2 - whole if it's all I've got.  The divinity of milk is in it's fat!!

2 hours ago, Satisfied said:

Whole milk, as in the real stuff from cows, not the pasteurized stuff you buy in stores, is tasty, and probably as good as any for us.  Drank it whole, skimmed the cream off the top, made butter & ice cream growing up.  Heck, I drank it straight from the nipple many a time!

 

But now, I think we are not intended to drink milk after we are weaned.  As I said above, no other animal in the kingdom does it other than humans (or the creatures we “force” it on, such as cats).   I am not against it by any means, but I cannot find it fresh and unpasteurized where I live these days.  And when I don’t drink it for a while, the first few times I do consume it, it tears my stomach up for a few days.  

 

But there is nothing quite like fresh-from-the-cow warm milk and honey just before bed time.  Miss those days...

<-------turns green with envy!  I've honestly considered and looked into what it would take to own a dairy cow (too much work/responsibility atm, but maybe someday)

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I couldn't drink milk as a child, so it was special formula for me. By the time I reached a point where I seemed to slightly tolerate milk as an adult, I had no taste for it. It just tastes disgusting to me, and I still am bothered by consumption of it unless it is low fat or cooked form. I can tolerate small amounts of cheese and yoghurt, but for the most part I even find yoghurt to be especially unpleasant. I use soy or almond milk out of necessity.

That is understandable...tragic...but understandable.  I tried to do a diet once where I had to cut dairy....it didn't last long!  I can't stand the taste of soy, but almond milk and even oat milk can be tasty in the right application. Coconut milk ice cream can be yummy (very brand dependant). It's good that we have more options available now, for those who don't like/can't tolerate milk. I'm just really glad I can stick with the cow kind! You're in good company though - Ed, the Full Metal Alchemist, hates milk too!

Sounds like my kinda motor lodge!

On 10/22/2018 at 2:57 PM, yuna628 said:

 

All I know is milk is an evil demon-spawn unfit for drinking.

The SHOCK! The HORROR! Them's fightin words right there!!!!  

I drink so much milk it's (admittedly) probably overkill.  My fiance was shocked - but in a good way - because he's the exact same (we are going to need to invest in some special milk access program when he gets here! lol).  I love the stuff!  Give me some full heavy cream for my coffee and I'm a very happy woman (a touch of honey and it's beyond divine)!  I settle for half/half most days - more cost efficient.  And cheese?!?! I once heard someone say there was such a thing as "too much cheese"...well I never!  And yogurt - especially when I make it myself.....then there is ice cream, whipped cream, butter....there is no end to the wonders that simple plain milk is and all the extra goodies that can be derived from it!  

I suppose the upside is - if ya'll don't like it then that just leaves more for me!!!

On 9/3/2018 at 2:38 PM, Merle said:

You mean Neil Armstrong didn't build his own spacecraft and fly himself to the moon?

"Neil A." backwards...."Alien"....didn't you know - the whole moon thing is really the story of Aliens!!! 

We should use THIS flag!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-witches-aim-hex-supreme-courts-brett-kavanaugh-010926105.html

that Feb 2017 curse sure worked out well for them....oh wait....

They have the right to express themselves, by all means.  I'm just wondering what exactly they are expecting to see as a result.  I do see some mad dollar signs flying though!  Capitalism at it's finest grabbing onto a marketing opportunity such as this one.

It is telling that this kind of activity is no longer "occult" (as defined: "hidden") but advertised in such large scales and openly practiced.  I wonder what impact it will have on the left/right political spectrum overall.

(I actually do have a spiritual set of beliefs and I am not mocking anyone who has faith of any kind nor do I see any reason to insult those who hold no faith/spiritual belief)

I thought her platform was "Just like Houdini - nothing to see here - watch this hand amaze you while the other hand deceives you - can escape from ANYTHING" with a sub-platform of "If you don't vote for me you hate women - all minorities should love me - white men, especially rich white men are evil and you should hate them (except my special angel Bill)" followed with the party line "If you don't vote for me you will be subjected to either untimely death or eternal damnation - perhaps both if i think you are a true threat" BEHOLD THE POWER OF HILLARY!!  Gimme an H! for Houdini Hillary and Gimme an H! for Hell's own devil darling!

I am so glad she is being prosecuted for this!  Her disruption to that flight based solely on her arrogant ignorance...  She can protest and voice her opinions all she wants, but it crosses the line when it disrupts other people's lives - and that flight delay was no minor disruption.  There are appropriate ways to protest and speak one's views.  I can only hope that the USA will also prosecute anyone, from any party or movement or whatever that takes their "right to freedom of speech" and "right to peaceful protest" and abuses it to violate anyone else's "right to dissent".  

Imho, I believe that the reason why Trump and Clinton keep coming up as comparisons from both sides of the discussion is more a matter of calling out hypocracy. Both sides of the argument seem to be feeling like it's discrediting of the opposition to give "their guy" a "pass" while crucifying the opponent's guy for what each side feels like "the same thing".  I get that. I understand how one can say "why do you hate Clinton when but love Trump when they are both womanizing a**es!?!" I can see how in some minds, that seems logical. The problem is with the premises. In any progression of logical conclusion, if the "premise" is true, then the "conclusion" is true. 

So it's the premises that need discussion and comparison, rather than the conclusions.  Yes, in Trump's history there are some disgusting womanizing behaviors. There's a clash of fact/fiction, what is merely stated vs what can be proven. Some is proven fact of terrible behavior. I don't believe that anyone here is condoning that. Let's narrow the comparing to the defined time of "while in the office of President". I don't care what Bill or Donald did prior to wearing that mantle. That mantle is about job performance and the weight of it's implicit authority as it relates to the topic at hand. 

I care about the fact that while wearing that mantle, I don't believe that Clinton did well. He wasn't the worst, but he was far from satisfactory in my opinion. I believe he used his charisma and charm to get away with doing some bad things that he was able to in large part because of the implicit authority of his mantle. I was not happy with many of his policies, but that's expected when I hold a different political views. He did, without a doubt, engage in sexual activity with a subordinate employee while wearing his mantle. His impeachment hearings weren't about establishing guilt but rather if he should be able to continue as president in spite of it. 

I approve of job Trump is doing.  No one has tried to accuse him if violating the authority of his presidential mantle to engage in sexual activity. 

With the apples to apples comparison of the premises, I feel like Clinton abused his authority and I don't see the same abuse with Trump.  The fact that Hillary doesn't see Bill's actions as an abuse of power discredits her judgement in my opinion. That matters and applies because she is still grappling for that same power, even if not for herself then for others who think like she does... which then casts doubt on their judgement. So it's relevant because it impacts who we as voters chose to give that authority to. 

As long as I see Trump wearing that mantle and using that authority to better our nation, I'm willing to accept that he runs his mouth and says cringeworthy things sometimes. The day he abuses that mantle and has an affair, is the day I'll reevaluate my support. I'm looking at the actions more than the words, for both Presidents. And I'm listening to the opinions expressed by those who want to be given that power because I can't judge them on actions with it. I will evaluate actions prior to giving it (I didn't vote for either Hillary or Donald). 

That should bring it full circle on the hypocracy, conclusions, and reasons why it's all applicable. Hopefully it makes sense (I'm horribly sleep deprived ATM...lol)

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

They won't need to choose; they can protest between their physical attacks on Republican voters who show up.  Plenty of time for both.

IDK if you are saying that "tongue in cheek" or being absolutely serious - but that is a truly scary thought.  We all have our banter and various discussions here - but that is a sobering statement you've made.  I genuinely hope it does not prove to be prophetic as well.  For any voter, from any party.