You will hear NOTHING from any GOP leaders about this tomorrow. They will not acknowledge nor condemn it, or even admit it as a possibility. Which is becoming the real frightening scenario. Because there does not appear to be any line that can be crossed that will cause them to do the right thing and get this organized crime family out of the White House. Unless this story is completely off the rails, then we need to start seriously talking about impeachment NOW. Because this can only get worse.
Think where we are at. We are now at the point where it isn't just collusion that is being revealed, but a goddamn massive conspiracy at every single point of the Trump campaign and organization. The government is shut down. Mitch McConnell, who more than any single individual since the Civil War has basically destroyed the democratic norms of this society, is keeping the government shut down despite the fact that if he allowed a Senate vote, he would easily get the amount needed to override a Presidential veto. So why isn't he?? Something doesn't feel right here. This is not how any of this is supposed to work.
Everyone knows that Trump's immediate reaction to any potential problem is to go on the attack. The fact that it took him a while to do that this time is, I strongly suspect, because he knows it's not only true but also provable. He has now responded, but still not directly to deny it - but instead to attack Cohen. That presumably reflects a strategy of trying to cast doubt on evidence while continuing to create as much confusion as possible.
My feeling is that his wrecking tactics are not going to work this time - I suspect Mueller will be able to provide a coherent enough package of evidence to withstand attacks. There's no shortage of problems Trump faces, but this particular action, on its own, is impeachable. If the evidence is clear enough, many Republicans will be thinking about how they can get out of the hole that Trump has been digging for them - so a successful impeachment becomes a real possibility. I will now be surprised if he sees out his full term ...
You will hear NOTHING from any GOP leaders about this tomorrow. They will not acknowledge nor condemn it, or even admit it as a possibility. Which is becoming the real frightening scenario. Because there does not appear to be any line that can be crossed that will cause them to do the right thing and get this organized crime family out of the White House. Unless this story is completely off the rails, then we need to start seriously talking about impeachment NOW. Because this can only get worse.
Think where we are at. We are now at the point where it isn't just collusion that is being revealed, but a goddamn massive conspiracy at every single point of the Trump campaign and organization. The government is shut down. Mitch McConnell, who more than any single individual since the Civil War has basically destroyed the democratic norms of this society, is keeping the government shut down despite the fact that if he allowed a Senate vote, he would easily get the amount needed to override a Presidential veto. So why isn't he?? Something doesn't feel right here. This is not how any of this is supposed to work.
Everyone knows that Trump's immediate reaction to any potential problem is to go on the attack. The fact that it took him a while to do that this time is, I strongly suspect, because he knows it's not only true but also provable. He has now responded, but still not directly to deny it - but instead to attack Cohen. That presumably reflects a strategy of trying to cast doubt on evidence while continuing to create as much confusion as possible.
My feeling is that his wrecking tactics are not going to work this time - I suspect Mueller will be able to provide a coherent enough package of evidence to withstand attacks. There's no shortage of problems Trump faces, but this particular action, on its own, is impeachable. If the evidence is clear enough, many Republicans will be thinking about how they can get out of the hole that Trump has been digging for them - so a successful impeachment becomes a real possibility. I will now be surprised if he sees out his full term ...
I've seen interviews with both of the Buzzfeed reporters this morning. They stated in no uncertain terms that 1.) Michael Cohen is not a source on their story. 2.) They have seen some of the documents alluded to in the story and 3.) They are supremely confident in the accuracy of their reporting. So the story is either true, or these two reporters (one of whom has won a Pulitzer prize) have basically thrown away their careers to tell some fantastical tale. Occam's Razor tells you which is more likely. Do not let the narrative about Buzzfeed being some relatively inconsequential news outlet (simply because it hasn't been around for decades) fool you. These are two legitimate heavyweight investigative reporters willing to stand by their story.
For those who aren't aware, while the normal Buzzfeed is a collection of listicles and re-posted content, Buzzfeed News is written by actual journalists, who focus on original research rather than commentary on already-reported news.
This is disgusting. I understand that this woman was an activist during the era of police raids on gay bars, but banning police officers from a pride parade is nothing less than discrimination. Her tweet on the subject is the most blatant example of offensive, bigoted stereotyping that I can think of:
They’re all worthless, unimaginable, horrible people and destructive to mankind in general
Replace "they're" with any demographic group and it should become immediately obvious just what kind of sentiment this is. This isn't a commentary on police brutality; this is just blind stereotyping.
For those who aren't aware, while the normal Buzzfeed is a collection of listicles and re-posted content, Buzzfeed News is written by actual journalists, who focus on original research rather than commentary on already-reported news.
This is disgusting. I understand that this woman was an activist during the era of police raids on gay bars, but banning police officers from a pride parade is nothing less than discrimination. Her tweet on the subject is the most blatant example of offensive, bigoted stereotyping that I can think of:
They’re all worthless, unimaginable, horrible people and destructive to mankind in general
Replace "they're" with any demographic group and it should become immediately obvious just what kind of sentiment this is. This isn't a commentary on police brutality; this is just blind stereotyping.
Frankly, I don't understand how people who have been through these kind of blatant violations of their basic rights aren't ALL as bitter and vindictive as this woman is. If there is a reason to be distrustful of a certain group of people (and it's also a profession, and one that is supposed to carry with it some form of being answerable to the public), certainly a gay person involved in the Stonewall raids or say, an African-American who got their skull cracked open on the Edmund Pettus bridge would be the MOST valid reasons imaginable. Would any of us trust police officers again for the rest of our lives if the arm of the state was turned on us like it was on these groups in these instances?? I sure as hell wouldn't. In these instances, whole police forces engaged in this behavior to deliberately violate the rights of minority groups. Was their ever any reckoning or punishment for the officers who participated in the raids on gay gathering places or civil rights marchers?? What amazes me most about the African-American community in general in the United States is how utterly restrained they have been in their anger over the centuries given the circumstances thrown at them decade after decade. In the macro, they have been the definition of grace and restraint. By all rights given the arc of human history, they would have been justified in partaking in a massive violent uprising in any given year til at least 1964. My point is, it always seems in America the burden is on the oppressed to forgive, never on the oppressors to seek forgiveness. I think we continue to underestimate just how systematically HORRIBLY this country has treated various minority groups for the vast majority of it's history. I mean, the track record is absolutely appalling.
I'm not in any way saying I agree with her that cops should be banned from participating in Pride. On the whole, it's obviously a good thing if they do. But I am saying that since she is someone who was on the front line of some of the worst anti-gay discrimination that has taken place in this country, it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to at least understand where she is coming from and why she feels this way. How much abuse can a person take before they start to harbor these feelings?? And I'm definitely in the camp of people who view abuse at the hands of the state as something far more consequential than something carried out by random citizens. When the state turns against you, you are then being abused by the people who are SUPPOSED to protect you. When that happens, you have nowhere to turn and no recourse. Intense hatred and animosity can only be a logical human emotion in this instance for some people. I mean, I still get pissed when I think about the times I felt I was unreasonably questioned by police officers. I have no earthly idea how infuriated I would be if I was beaten or jailed because of my sexuality or skin color.
For those who aren't aware, while the normal Buzzfeed is a collection of listicles and re-posted content, Buzzfeed News is written by actual journalists, who focus on original research rather than commentary on already-reported news.
This is disgusting. I understand that this woman was an activist during the era of police raids on gay bars, but banning police officers from a pride parade is nothing less than discrimination. Her tweet on the subject is the most blatant example of offensive, bigoted stereotyping that I can think of:
They’re all worthless, unimaginable, horrible people and destructive to mankind in general
Replace "they're" with any demographic group and it should become immediately obvious just what kind of sentiment this is. This isn't a commentary on police brutality; this is just blind stereotyping.
Frankly, I don't understand how people who have been through these kind of blatant violations of their basic rights aren't ALL as bitter and vindictive as this woman is. If there is a reason to be distrustful of a certain group of people (and it's also a profession, and one that is supposed to carry with it some form of being answerable to the public), certainly a gay person involved in the Stonewall raids or say, an African-American who got their skull cracked open on the Edmund Pettus bridge would be the MOST valid reasons imaginable. Would any of us trust police officers again for the rest of our lives if the arm of the state was turned on us like it was on these groups in these instances?? I sure as hell wouldn't. In these instances, whole police forces engaged in this behavior to deliberately violate the rights of minority groups. Was their ever any reckoning or punishment for the officers who participated in the raids on gay gathering places or civil rights marchers?? What amazes me most about the African-American community in general in the United States is how utterly restrained they have been in their anger over the centuries given the circumstances thrown at them decade after decade. In the macro, they have been the definition of grace and restraint. By all rights given the arc of human history, they would have been justified in partaking in a massive violent uprising in any given year til at least 1964. My point is, it always seems in America the burden is on the oppressed to forgive, never on the oppressors to seek forgiveness. I think we continue to underestimate just how systematically HORRIBLY this country has treated various minority groups for the vast majority of it's history. I mean, the track record is absolutely appalling.
I'm not in any way saying I agree with her that cops should be banned from participating in Pride. On the whole, it's obviously a good thing if they do. But I am saying that since she is someone who was on the front line of some of the worst anti-gay discrimination that has taken place in this country, it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to at least understand where she is coming from and why she feels this way. How much abuse can a person take before they start to harbor these feelings??
I would venture to guess the reason they're so restrained is more due to the fact that they are still the minority than any moral high ground. In any true uprising of blacks vs. whites they would lose. That pretty much forces restraint.
In South Africa they were the majority, here they are not. The fair amount of restraint they've shown in South Africa, despite being treated much worse than here in the US, is far more impressive to me than anything black leadership in this country has ever proposed...
My comment is that she looks foolish. I won't speak on the issue of African-American hosts/pundits in right-wing media and how they are presented and used, because it gets into territory I'm not comfortable discussing. It suffices for me to say that about 92% of African-American voters disapprove of Donald Trump and roughly 90% of them vote for Democrats. Let's just say there is a very concerted effort on FOX News to make it seem like that number is much, much lower than it is.
Frankly, I've always had the general impression (and I could VERY WELL be wrong) that we don't have a single regular African-American poster in this thread, and it bothers me in the same way we basically have one woman participating at any given time. The demographics of the opinions here are pretty myopic, all things considered. It's self-selecting, and I realize that, but I don't really feel comfortable always "defending" a minority position when I am not, in fact, in any way, a minority.
I disagree that there isn't white privilege. It's not actually a privilege per se, but a set of assumptions based on sex and (often) skin color. A friend of mine, Dave, is a huge white guy with red hair. He bought a new computer, and asked his roommate, Derwin, to help him carry it home. They each grabbed a box and started walking back to Dave's apartment. On the way there, Derwin disappeared. Dave looked around, and found him talking to a cop. Dave had to go back and talk to the officer and assure him that the computer (and monitor) was properly paid for.
I'll let you guess the color of Derwen's skin. The cop thought Derwin had stolen the box with whatever part of the computer was inside. Dave was assumed to have bought what was in his box.
Women run into something the same. Only women are assumed not to know what they are tallking about, if it's on a technical/engineering/computer matter. And if you're running for office, you have to worry about "likeability". Women get labeled as "Shril" or "Nagging", and men seem to ignore their ideas. There's a reason why "mansplaining" is thing.
I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but men rarely and almost never have to deal with some of the things women do, and black people have their own prejudgements from society.
Now, Areva Martin shouldn't have thrown her staff under the bus, but she *did* apologize. (maybe she thought she was talking with the actor? (same name)).
ETA: for some reason, I thought she was talking with Steve Martin. I misread. My bad.
My comment is that she looks foolish. I won't speak on the issue of African-American hosts/pundits in right-wing media and how they are presented and used, because it gets into territory I'm not comfortable discussing. It suffices for me to say that about 92% of African-American voters disapprove of Donald Trump and roughly 90% of them vote for Democrats. Let's just say there is a very concerted effort on FOX News to make it seem like that number is much, much lower than it is.
He’s in radio. People don’t see the colour of his skin. Hence why “Black music” has always popular.
Now she did look foolish, however white privilege is not about any other ethenicity unable to advance in life, there are always clear examples that isn’t the case. White privilege is giving a person a reasonable doubt that you wouldn’t afford someone of another ethenicity.
My comment is that she looks foolish. I won't speak on the issue of African-American hosts/pundits in right-wing media and how they are presented and used, because it gets into territory I'm not comfortable discussing. It suffices for me to say that about 92% of African-American voters disapprove of Donald Trump and roughly 90% of them vote for Democrats. Let's just say there is a very concerted effort on FOX News to make it seem like that number is much, much lower than it is.
Frankly, I've always had the general impression (and I could VERY WELL be wrong) that we don't have a single regular African-American poster in this thread, and it bothers me in the same way we basically have one woman participating at any given time. The demographics of the opinions here are pretty myopic, all things considered. It's self-selecting, and I realize that, but I don't really feel comfortable always "defending" a minority position when I am not, in fact, in any way, a minority.
And the left doesn't use minorities? They prop them up, pretend they're going to help them to get their votes and do next to nothing in the end. Then they blame the evil Republicans for getting nothing done. That's pretty much the same bullshit that Republicans have done for the middle class that they're so find of saying they represent, nothing. Look at them now, Pelosi and Trump, getting nothing done. Shocking!
Get rid of the parties and let us vote for individuals...
I've currently started what is an enormously consequential book call "The Warmth of Other Suns" which tells the story of the Great Migration from the Jim Crow South. When I am done, I will report on the myriad of unbelievable things I am learning from it, but the main takeway is that, on a systematic level, at every turn, any chance of African-American progress on a macro level has been shut down, and nowhere was it more true than the period of 1915-1975. It's about how the American Dream was basically made inaccessible to an entire class of people.
Lest we forget, right now, the government is shut down and Trump doesn't want to pay people. Who is arguing for opening the governent, and paying people back for the time they spent working whie not being paid. Whatever you think of them, they are advocating for working people. We already know Donald Trump has a history (a long history) of stiffing people who did work for him. Republicans aren't stepping up to see these workers get paid. So, it's up to the Democrats to do it.
Today the President went back to the old "The Muslims are coming to get you" trope in regards to the border, in a wholly bizarre claim that ranchers are finding "prayer rugs" along the border. Let's assume for even one second that there are mass amounts of Muslim terrorists for god knows what reason entering the country through the southern border. Even if this were the case, does it seem remotely plausible that they are leaving a trail a prayer rugs along their route like some kind of jihadist version of Hansel and Gretel?? What are they, the Wet Bandits?? Moreover, even if they are finding rugs, explain to me how some yokel rancher is going to know the difference between a "prayer rug" and any other random piece of carpet. The only reason they would think it was a prayer rug is because they want to BELIEVE it's a prayer rug. How many rugs are these guys carrying that they are just throwing them on the ground like a breadcrumb trail?? 4, 6, a dozen?? Is this an advanced part of the terrorist training camp?? "Before you try to sneak into the United States through Mexico, be sure to load your backpack up with at least 6-12 prayer rugs and strategically drop them along the southern border to scare local cattle farmers and alert the authorities to your presence." This entire thing sounds like the fever dream of a mental patient.
Look at them now, Pelosi and Trump, getting nothing done. Shocking!
Trump literally shut down the government before Nancy Pelosi took over the House. The only thing he's offering to work with her on is his demand to waste tax payer money on partially funding a stupid wall. That's it. So aside from that one thing, which she doesn't want, he is refusing to work with her.
She deserves zero blame here on not getting anything done. Zero.
Get rid of the parties and let us vote for individuals...
Money in politics is the biggest problem. When politicians hide from voters but make themselves available to their donors something is very wrong. Also parties aren't good but it's be less of a problem if there were more than two viable choices people wouldn't feel forced to choose between the party that believes in government and the party that wants to destroy it.
Today the President went back to the old "The Muslims are coming to get you" trope in regards to the border, in a wholly bizarre claim that ranchers are finding "prayer rugs" along the border. Let's assume for even one second that there are mass amounts of Muslim terrorists for god knows what reason entering the country through the southern border. Even if this were the case, does it seem remotely plausible that they are leaving a trail a prayer rugs along their route like some kind of jihadist version of Hansel and Gretel?? What are they, the Wet Bandits?? Moreover, even if they are finding rugs, explain to me how some yokel rancher is going to know the difference between a "prayer rug" and any other random piece of carpet. The only reason they would think it was a prayer rug is because they want to BELIEVE it's a prayer rug. How many rugs are these guys carrying that they are just throwing them on the ground like a breadcrumb trail?? 4, 6, a dozen?? Is this an advanced part of the terrorist training camp?? "Before you try to sneak into the United States through Mexico, be sure to load your backpack up with at least 6-12 prayer rugs and strategically drop them along the southern border to scare local cattle farmers and alert the authorities to your presence." This entire thing sounds like the fever dream of a mental patient.
This made me die laughing. Figuratively, of course. And then there is the problem that they have only stopped 6 people on a terrorist Watch List coming over the southern border, while they caught 41 coming in from Canada. (and this doesn't mean they are terrorists, just that they had similar/the same name. Or you're coming from somewhere they don't expect, like Australians coming in through Mexico. or a New Zealander from Canada. "G'day, mate! Can I thow a few shrimp on yer Barbie?" (Me: Stay away from my doll or I'll sic Ken on you!" No, not really...)
All the stuff Trumo was taking pictures with on his visit to Texas? Seized at legal ports of entry. And there are drug tunnels under already existing sections of fence. How, pray tell, is a wall going to make THAT MUCH of a difference? Yeah, sure, Trumpy Bear, built the 95' tall wall you described in a campaign rally. It's not much of a block if they can dig under the darned thing!
Back during the election, I remember some local Trum supporter saying, every time I said a wall wouldn't work "It just got 10' taller!" So I responded, "Make it a thousand feet tall! It won't help when they dig under the damn thing." That shut her right up. She looked like she took a rock to the head.
And such tunnels already exist, which invalidates the whole reason for having a wall in the first place. Plus, there are some spots on the Border where it takes Border Patrol an hour to respond to calls. They'll get over, or under the wall, and by the time Border Patrol shows up to the wall, they'll be long gone.
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
My comment is that she looks foolish. I won't speak on the issue of African-American hosts/pundits in right-wing media and how they are presented and used, because it gets into territory I'm not comfortable discussing. It suffices for me to say that about 92% of African-American voters disapprove of Donald Trump and roughly 90% of them vote for Democrats. Let's just say there is a very concerted effort on FOX News to make it seem like that number is much, much lower than it is.
Frankly, I've always had the general impression (and I could VERY WELL be wrong) that we don't have a single regular African-American poster in this thread, and it bothers me in the same way we basically have one woman participating at any given time. The demographics of the opinions here are pretty myopic, all things considered. It's self-selecting, and I realize that, but I don't really feel comfortable always "defending" a minority position when I am not, in fact, in any way, a minority.
And the left doesn't use minorities? They prop them up, pretend they're going to help them to get their votes and do next to nothing in the end. Then they blame the evil Republicans for getting nothing done. That's pretty much the same bullshit that Republicans have done for the middle class that they're so find of saying they represent, nothing. Look at them now, Pelosi and Trump, getting nothing done. Shocking!
Get rid of the parties and let us vote for individuals...
Pelosi has done her job. McConnell hasn’t. Why is his name being left out of the conversation?
We have the same rhetoric here in Canada. Liberals get the minority/multicultural vote because they are the ones that help people migrate to the country.
Which is true. It was Pierre Trudeau who championed multiculturalism and it was during Chretien’s rein for a decade and an half that brought numerous immigrants to Canada. Many MPs and MMPs help new immigrants not only get to Canada, but supplied them with the information and outreach that they needed to start enjoying all the benefits of living in Canada.
Minority groups always had a sympathetic ear with Liberals when issues arose in their home countries and they were brought to the forefront. But that’s their job, and those votes are earned from supporting communities you are suppose to represent.
When Democrats “prop up minorities” it is usually an attempt to treat them as equals in the Unites States. However, this type of argument, IMO, feels empty as I can’t think of an example of a politician using a minority group as an example of something that needs to change and then backtrack on it once the stories blows away.
Obviously there are politicans that do that. That repersentative from Hawaii for example who jumped aboard the “microtramsactions are bad for our children” arguement that went no where beyond the scheduled press conference, did it blatently but I don’t see a pattern of Democrats using minorities in the same fashion that gets echoed by right wing pundits.
It has gotten so bad, there are meme’s that spout “Democrats want open borders because they just want illegal immigrants to vote for them.” Which is just people not grasping how anything works but it’s still echoed even though it is blatently wrong.
Honestly, I don't see the "minorities vote for Democrats, and Democrats cater to minorities" thing as any different from the "whites vote for Republicans, and Republicans cater to whites" thing.
You know, people vote for politicians they think are on their side. In turn, politicians try to convince people that they're on their side, in order to get those votes. It's called an election.
Who the hell even knows at this point?? On the one hand, it might be more insignificant nonsense like his Oval Office speech. On the other hand, he may invoke autocratic powers less than 48 hours after it's been revealed his goose is likely cooked. Or, I should say, would be cooked in any universe in which the Republican Senate didn't exist, but since it does, he's probably going to stay right where he is, because literally NOTHING matters anymore.
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
I personally don't want a wall because it's a stupid idea. That's really the only idea that arguably the most powerful country in the world can come up with? The same idea that the Chinese tried a thousand years ago (with mixed results)? I guess for birds and butterflies it won't matter much, but what does it do to the other animals in the region? Any non-flying animal that ranges between the two countries will be affected by this stupidity. For what? Some dumb-ass campaign promise? Why can't Trump just forget about most of his campaign promises as soon as he's elected like 99% of the other politicians? He can even blow the dust off of them and bring them back for the next election like most of them do!
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
I personally don't want a wall because it's a stupid idea. That's really the only idea that arguably the most powerful country in the world can come up with? The same idea that the Chinese tried a thousand years ago (with mixed results)? I guess for birds and butterflies it won't matter much, but what does it do to the other animals in the region? Any non-flying animal that ranges between the two countries will be affected by this stupidity. For what? Some dumb-ass campaign promise? Why can't Trump just forget about most of his campaign promises as soon as he's elected like 99% of the other politicians? He can even blow the dust off of them and bring them back for the next election like most of them do!
It's not about campaign promises or the wall it's about power and taking it from the Democracts who took over the House. Why is this only an emergency once the Dems took over the House and not the first two years of his presidency? The reason he claims he does things is never the real reason he does things.
He thinks this issue is a winning one in his neverending struggle against the Democrats. He holds power by positioning himself in opposition to soneone
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
I personally don't want a wall because it's a stupid idea. That's really the only idea that arguably the most powerful country in the world can come up with? The same idea that the Chinese tried a thousand years ago (with mixed results)? I guess for birds and butterflies it won't matter much, but what does it do to the other animals in the region? Any non-flying animal that ranges between the two countries will be affected by this stupidity. For what? Some dumb-ass campaign promise? Why can't Trump just forget about most of his campaign promises as soon as he's elected like 99% of the other politicians? He can even blow the dust off of them and bring them back for the next election like most of them do!
It was never supposed to be an actual promise. Roger Stone, rat bastard that he is, has as much admitted that "the wall" was originally just a go-to phrase for Trump to stay on message during stump speeches. Then he started getting reactions out of the crowd, quite frankly because it's the kind of stuff most people who would attend a Trump rally hear on the radio 8-10 hours a day. So he pushed it further and further until he willed the need for an ACTUAL wall into existence among a core constituency. It was reported early on in the Administration that his first talk with the President of Mexico was him basically saying "you have to bail me out on this wall thing" and the Mexican President saying "you realize that's never going to happen, right??" And since then it's all just been a complete farce. Even Trump originally thought it was just like his university or frozen steaks, something to sell to the rubes. But (let's be honest), without the rubes, what is he left with for support?? 10-15% of the electorate who likes the tax cuts enough to vote for him again?? Which is why we've reached the point were Ann Coulter is influential enough to convince him to keep the government shut down. There really isn't anything more to. It's literally the DUMBEST possible reason this could be happening right now. No one ever thought this was a realistic idea, not even Trump, but we're all sitting around pretending like it is. He put himself in this box. You can't be filmed saying something HUNDREDS of times and not expect to be held to account for doing so.
What is the Republican end-game here?? The numbers aren't going to change. 55-60% of the country blames Trump and/or the Republican Senate and about 35% blame the Democrats. Hardly anyone is persuadable about how they view this. So what exactly is the play here?? SNAP benefits run out in 2 days. IRS refunds need to start getting processed. The second missed paycheck is this coming Friday. I won't go into any specifics professionally, but I am seeing more and more people affected by it, and can say without question that private sector businesses are starting to take on some of the water here because they really don't have a choice in regards to accommodations. These people aren't getting paid and it isn't their fault. So every level of the economy is going to start to see hits. We're not talking about the stock market here, we are talking "gee, the local supermarket sales are down 10-15% in the last few weeks" type stuff.
Because he's afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who can rile up his base and make them kick Trump to the curb, after which his goose is well and truly cooked. The Republicans back Trump because they are afraid of him and his base. But at this point, their butts just got stomped in the last election, and Nancy Pelosi isn't the Republican boogeyman anymore. They tried to make Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez their next boogeyman, and she's laughing at their sorry butts and dancing rings around them (almost literally, in this case).
So far, all they've done is gone and made fools of themselves.
But Trump is stuck between a rock (his base, who REALLY, REALLY want a wall to keep out the scary brown-skinned people) and a hard place (Rush and Ann), who will accuse him of betraying his base if he doesn't build it. And if he drops it? He looks like a fool. Weak. In his own words: "a pussy". He's caught between not being able to back down or give up, and if he can't get that wall built, he looks like a loser. And Trump never, ever is able to admit defeat. So he's stuck.
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
I personally don't want a wall because it's a stupid idea. That's really the only idea that arguably the most powerful country in the world can come up with? The same idea that the Chinese tried a thousand years ago (with mixed results)? I guess for birds and butterflies it won't matter much, but what does it do to the other animals in the region? Any non-flying animal that ranges between the two countries will be affected by this stupidity. For what? Some dumb-ass campaign promise? Why can't Trump just forget about most of his campaign promises as soon as he's elected like 99% of the other politicians? He can even blow the dust off of them and bring them back for the next election like most of them do!
It was never supposed to be an actual promise. Roger Stone, rat bastard that he is, has as much admitted that "the wall" was originally just a go-to phrase for Trump to stay on message during stump speeches. Then he started getting reactions out of the crowd, quite frankly because it's the kind of stuff most people who would attend a Trump rally hear on the radio 8-10 hours a day. So he pushed it further and further until he willed the need for an ACTUAL wall into existence among a core constituency. It was reported early on in the Administration that his first talk with the President of Mexico was him basically saying "you have to bail me out on this wall thing" and the Mexican President saying "you realize that's never going to happen, right??" And since then it's all just been a complete farce. Even Trump originally thought it was just like his university or frozen steaks, something to sell to the rubes. But (let's be honest), without the rubes, what is he left with for support?? 10-15% of the electorate who likes the tax cuts enough to vote for him again?? Which is why we've reached the point were Ann Coulter is influential enough to convince him to keep the government shut down. There really isn't anything more to. It's literally the DUMBEST possible reason this could be happening right now. No one ever thought this was a realistic idea, not even Trump, but we're all sitting around pretending like it is. He put himself in this box. You can't be filmed saying something HUNDREDS of times and not expect to be held to account for doing so.
What is the Republican end-game here. The numbers aren't going to change. 55-60% of the country blames Trump and/or the Republican Senate and about 35% blame the Democrats. Hardly anyone is persuadable about how they view this. So what exactly is the play here?? SNAP benefits run out in 2 days. IRS refunds need to start getting processed. The second missed paycheck is this coming Friday.
I don't see this ending anytime soon unless Pelosi caves (which she has about zero reason to do). Trump is not going to budge on this. His ego is too involved now. He would have to give in to a (gasp) woman! Oh the ignominity...
I do think more fortifications would decrease illegal immigration, in the sense that it's harder to get over a bad wall than no wall at all. For me, the main reason the wall makes no sense is that most illegal immigrants get into the country by overstaying legal visas--you don't have to swim across the Rio Grande or climb over a wall when you can just get a business or tourist visa and then wander off instead of going back to your home country when your visa expires. The wall would cost a lot of money while only decreasing illegal immigration by a small amount.
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
I personally don't want a wall because it's a stupid idea. That's really the only idea that arguably the most powerful country in the world can come up with? The same idea that the Chinese tried a thousand years ago (with mixed results)? I guess for birds and butterflies it won't matter much, but what does it do to the other animals in the region? Any non-flying animal that ranges between the two countries will be affected by this stupidity. For what? Some dumb-ass campaign promise? Why can't Trump just forget about most of his campaign promises as soon as he's elected like 99% of the other politicians? He can even blow the dust off of them and bring them back for the next election like most of them do!
It was never supposed to be an actual promise. Roger Stone, rat bastard that he is, has as much admitted that "the wall" was originally just a go-to phrase for Trump to stay on message during stump speeches. Then he started getting reactions out of the crowd, quite frankly because it's the kind of stuff most people who would attend a Trump rally hear on the radio 8-10 hours a day. So he pushed it further and further until he willed the need for an ACTUAL wall into existence among a core constituency. It was reported early on in the Administration that his first talk with the President of Mexico was him basically saying "you have to bail me out on this wall thing" and the Mexican President saying "you realize that's never going to happen, right??" And since then it's all just been a complete farce. Even Trump originally thought it was just like his university or frozen steaks, something to sell to the rubes. But (let's be honest), without the rubes, what is he left with for support?? 10-15% of the electorate who likes the tax cuts enough to vote for him again?? Which is why we've reached the point were Ann Coulter is influential enough to convince him to keep the government shut down. There really isn't anything more to. It's literally the DUMBEST possible reason this could be happening right now. No one ever thought this was a realistic idea, not even Trump, but we're all sitting around pretending like it is. He put himself in this box. You can't be filmed saying something HUNDREDS of times and not expect to be held to account for doing so.
What is the Republican end-game here. The numbers aren't going to change. 55-60% of the country blames Trump and/or the Republican Senate and about 35% blame the Democrats. Hardly anyone is persuadable about how they view this. So what exactly is the play here?? SNAP benefits run out in 2 days. IRS refunds need to start getting processed. The second missed paycheck is this coming Friday.
I don't see this ending anytime soon unless Pelosi caves (which she has about zero reason to do). Trump is not going to budge on this. His ego is too involved now. He would have to give in to a (gasp) woman! Oh the ignominity...
You aren't wrong about that, but I have seen reporting in the last week that he actually respects Pelosi in a way he doesn't respect other politicians. You'll notice he hasn't given her a dumb nickname. Either that or he fears what her being in charge of the House means for him legally.
Comments
My feeling is that his wrecking tactics are not going to work this time - I suspect Mueller will be able to provide a coherent enough package of evidence to withstand attacks. There's no shortage of problems Trump faces, but this particular action, on its own, is impeachable. If the evidence is clear enough, many Republicans will be thinking about how they can get out of the hole that Trump has been digging for them - so a successful impeachment becomes a real possibility. I will now be surprised if he sees out his full term ...
Replace "they're" with any demographic group and it should become immediately obvious just what kind of sentiment this is. This isn't a commentary on police brutality; this is just blind stereotyping.
Frankly, I don't understand how people who have been through these kind of blatant violations of their basic rights aren't ALL as bitter and vindictive as this woman is. If there is a reason to be distrustful of a certain group of people (and it's also a profession, and one that is supposed to carry with it some form of being answerable to the public), certainly a gay person involved in the Stonewall raids or say, an African-American who got their skull cracked open on the Edmund Pettus bridge would be the MOST valid reasons imaginable. Would any of us trust police officers again for the rest of our lives if the arm of the state was turned on us like it was on these groups in these instances?? I sure as hell wouldn't. In these instances, whole police forces engaged in this behavior to deliberately violate the rights of minority groups. Was their ever any reckoning or punishment for the officers who participated in the raids on gay gathering places or civil rights marchers?? What amazes me most about the African-American community in general in the United States is how utterly restrained they have been in their anger over the centuries given the circumstances thrown at them decade after decade. In the macro, they have been the definition of grace and restraint. By all rights given the arc of human history, they would have been justified in partaking in a massive violent uprising in any given year til at least 1964. My point is, it always seems in America the burden is on the oppressed to forgive, never on the oppressors to seek forgiveness. I think we continue to underestimate just how systematically HORRIBLY this country has treated various minority groups for the vast majority of it's history. I mean, the track record is absolutely appalling.
I'm not in any way saying I agree with her that cops should be banned from participating in Pride. On the whole, it's obviously a good thing if they do. But I am saying that since she is someone who was on the front line of some of the worst anti-gay discrimination that has taken place in this country, it doesn't seem far-fetched to me to at least understand where she is coming from and why she feels this way. How much abuse can a person take before they start to harbor these feelings?? And I'm definitely in the camp of people who view abuse at the hands of the state as something far more consequential than something carried out by random citizens. When the state turns against you, you are then being abused by the people who are SUPPOSED to protect you. When that happens, you have nowhere to turn and no recourse. Intense hatred and animosity can only be a logical human emotion in this instance for some people. I mean, I still get pissed when I think about the times I felt I was unreasonably questioned by police officers. I have no earthly idea how infuriated I would be if I was beaten or jailed because of my sexuality or skin color.
In South Africa they were the majority, here they are not. The fair amount of restraint they've shown in South Africa, despite being treated much worse than here in the US, is far more impressive to me than anything black leadership in this country has ever proposed...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2590841002
Any comments?
Frankly, I've always had the general impression (and I could VERY WELL be wrong) that we don't have a single regular African-American poster in this thread, and it bothers me in the same way we basically have one woman participating at any given time. The demographics of the opinions here are pretty myopic, all things considered. It's self-selecting, and I realize that, but I don't really feel comfortable always "defending" a minority position when I am not, in fact, in any way, a minority.
I'll let you guess the color of Derwen's skin. The cop thought Derwin had stolen the box with whatever part of the computer was inside. Dave was assumed to have bought what was in his box.
Women run into something the same. Only women are assumed not to know what they are tallking about, if it's on a technical/engineering/computer matter. And if you're running for office, you have to worry about "likeability". Women get labeled as "Shril" or "Nagging", and men seem to ignore their ideas. There's a reason why "mansplaining" is thing.
I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but men rarely and almost never have to deal with some of the things women do, and black people have their own prejudgements from society.
Now, Areva Martin shouldn't have thrown her staff under the bus, but she *did* apologize. (maybe she thought she was talking with the actor? (same name)).
ETA: for some reason, I thought she was talking with Steve Martin. I misread. My bad.
Both seem rather obvious. Not sure why you feel it is worth discussing?
Now she did look foolish, however white privilege is not about any other ethenicity unable to advance in life, there are always clear examples that isn’t the case. White privilege is giving a person a reasonable doubt that you wouldn’t afford someone of another ethenicity.
Get rid of the parties and let us vote for individuals...
She deserves zero blame here on not getting anything done. Zero. Money in politics is the biggest problem. When politicians hide from voters but make themselves available to their donors something is very wrong. Also parties aren't good but it's be less of a problem if there were more than two viable choices people wouldn't feel forced to choose between the party that believes in government and the party that wants to destroy it.
All the stuff Trumo was taking pictures with on his visit to Texas? Seized at legal ports of entry. And there are drug tunnels under already existing sections of fence. How, pray tell, is a wall going to make THAT MUCH of a difference? Yeah, sure, Trumpy Bear, built the 95' tall wall you described in a campaign rally. It's not much of a block if they can dig under the darned thing!
Back during the election, I remember some local Trum supporter saying, every time I said a wall wouldn't work "It just got 10' taller!" So I responded, "Make it a thousand feet tall! It won't help when they dig under the damn thing." That shut her right up. She looked like she took a rock to the head.
And such tunnels already exist, which invalidates the whole reason for having a wall in the first place. Plus, there are some spots on the Border where it takes Border Patrol an hour to respond to calls. They'll get over, or under the wall, and by the time Border Patrol shows up to the wall, they'll be long gone.
Trump and North Korea's Kim to meet again at the end of February: White House
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-north-koreas-kim-meet-again-end-february-193641241.html?.tsrc=notification-brknews"Don't pay attention to the shut down or Mueller! Look, I'm going to meet with Kim Jong Un again@||!"
You don't fortify your front door when most people are sneaking through the back door. That's just a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it gives policymakers a pass on solving the problem. If you can point to a big, ineffective wall, fewer people are going to ask you to implement an effective policy, because you can pretend that you solved the problem.
We have the same rhetoric here in Canada. Liberals get the minority/multicultural vote because they are the ones that help people migrate to the country.
Which is true. It was Pierre Trudeau who championed multiculturalism and it was during Chretien’s rein for a decade and an half that brought numerous immigrants to Canada. Many MPs and MMPs help new immigrants not only get to Canada, but supplied them with the information and outreach that they needed to start enjoying all the benefits of living in Canada.
Minority groups always had a sympathetic ear with Liberals when issues arose in their home countries and they were brought to the forefront. But that’s their job, and those votes are earned from supporting communities you are suppose to represent.
When Democrats “prop up minorities” it is usually an attempt to treat them as equals in the Unites States. However, this type of argument, IMO, feels empty as I can’t think of an example of a politician using a minority group as an example of something that needs to change and then backtrack on it once the stories blows away.
Obviously there are politicans that do that. That repersentative from Hawaii for example who jumped aboard the “microtramsactions are bad for our children” arguement that went no where beyond the scheduled press conference, did it blatently but I don’t see a pattern of Democrats using minorities in the same fashion that gets echoed by right wing pundits.
It has gotten so bad, there are meme’s that spout “Democrats want open borders because they just want illegal immigrants to vote for them.” Which is just people not grasping how anything works but it’s still echoed even though it is blatently wrong.
You know, people vote for politicians they think are on their side. In turn, politicians try to convince people that they're on their side, in order to get those votes. It's called an election.
However, wasn’t the republicans duped into passing a bill yesterday about the shutdown?
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/house-voice-vote-end-government-shutdown-sows-confusion
He thinks this issue is a winning one in his neverending struggle against the Democrats. He holds power by positioning himself in opposition to soneone
It was never supposed to be an actual promise. Roger Stone, rat bastard that he is, has as much admitted that "the wall" was originally just a go-to phrase for Trump to stay on message during stump speeches. Then he started getting reactions out of the crowd, quite frankly because it's the kind of stuff most people who would attend a Trump rally hear on the radio 8-10 hours a day. So he pushed it further and further until he willed the need for an ACTUAL wall into existence among a core constituency. It was reported early on in the Administration that his first talk with the President of Mexico was him basically saying "you have to bail me out on this wall thing" and the Mexican President saying "you realize that's never going to happen, right??" And since then it's all just been a complete farce. Even Trump originally thought it was just like his university or frozen steaks, something to sell to the rubes. But (let's be honest), without the rubes, what is he left with for support?? 10-15% of the electorate who likes the tax cuts enough to vote for him again?? Which is why we've reached the point were Ann Coulter is influential enough to convince him to keep the government shut down. There really isn't anything more to. It's literally the DUMBEST possible reason this could be happening right now. No one ever thought this was a realistic idea, not even Trump, but we're all sitting around pretending like it is. He put himself in this box. You can't be filmed saying something HUNDREDS of times and not expect to be held to account for doing so.
What is the Republican end-game here?? The numbers aren't going to change. 55-60% of the country blames Trump and/or the Republican Senate and about 35% blame the Democrats. Hardly anyone is persuadable about how they view this. So what exactly is the play here?? SNAP benefits run out in 2 days. IRS refunds need to start getting processed. The second missed paycheck is this coming Friday. I won't go into any specifics professionally, but I am seeing more and more people affected by it, and can say without question that private sector businesses are starting to take on some of the water here because they really don't have a choice in regards to accommodations. These people aren't getting paid and it isn't their fault. So every level of the economy is going to start to see hits. We're not talking about the stock market here, we are talking "gee, the local supermarket sales are down 10-15% in the last few weeks" type stuff.
So far, all they've done is gone and made fools of themselves.
But Trump is stuck between a rock (his base, who REALLY, REALLY want a wall to keep out the scary brown-skinned people) and a hard place (Rush and Ann), who will accuse him of betraying his base if he doesn't build it. And if he drops it? He looks like a fool. Weak. In his own words: "a pussy". He's caught between not being able to back down or give up, and if he can't get that wall built, he looks like a loser. And Trump never, ever is able to admit defeat. So he's stuck.