@Balrog99 This discussion has been about healthcare, which is and HAS been proven to work very well for literally every other country that has adopted it. But somehow these success, as well as studies into the mathmatics of cost are untrustworthy? Senseless.
As for climate change, prove that its not happening. You can't, especially since it has BEEN DEMONSTRATED to be real. Even a cursory look though recorded climates and the average global temperature in the past has shown that is has been increasing for some time. Evidence is EVERYWHERE, and you being skeptical of things that have been clearly demonstrated is only so much ear plugging and going "nah nah nah."
Why don't you take your own advice, shelve the bias, and do some actual investigation for yourself?
In fairness, I've read quite a few studies on various topics and many of them do suffer from the problem that they tend to find what they are looking for, especially when analysing complex data sets. On the other hand I think that there's enough evidence from research to suggest that human activities can affect the environment to some degree, so on the balance of probabilities it makes sense to take action on climate change. After all, even if some research is wrong humans will at worst be speeding their development of alternatives to dependence on finite resources.
@Balrog99 This discussion has been about healthcare, which is and HAS been proven to work very well for literally every other country that has adopted it. But somehow these success, as well as studies into the mathmatics of cost are untrustworthy? Senseless.
As for climate change, prove that its not happening. You can't, especially since it has BEEN DEMONSTRATED to be real. Even a cursory look though recorded climates and the average global temperature in the past has shown that is has been increasing for some time. Evidence is EVERYWHERE, and you being skeptical of things that have been clearly demonstrated is only so much ear plugging and going "nah nah nah."
Why don't you take your own advice, shelve the bias, and do some actual investigation for yourself?
You know what things are like when climate changes that fast? Mass extinctions because species can't keep up with their environment. Oh hey, we're in one. Us puny pathetic humans are probably going to be the cause of THE biggest mass extinction in known history. This isn't hysteria, this is science. We're not just wiping out a species here or there, we're wiping out ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMS.
@Balrog99 This discussion has been about healthcare, which is and HAS been proven to work very well for literally every other country that has adopted it. But somehow these success, as well as studies into the mathmatics of cost are untrustworthy? Senseless.
As for climate change, prove that its not happening. You can't, especially since it has BEEN DEMONSTRATED to be real. Even a cursory look though recorded climates and the average global temperature in the past has shown that is has been increasing for some time. Evidence is EVERYWHERE, and you being skeptical of things that have been clearly demonstrated is only so much ear plugging and going "nah nah nah."
Why don't you take your own advice, shelve the bias, and do some actual investigation for yourself?
Look, dude, I have one vote. Criticize me all you want but you're accomplishing nothing more than reinforcing my opinion that only total capitulation to their viewpoint will satisfy a liberal. It's not all or nothing. Pat yourself on the back for making me rethink my views on healthcare and call it a win...
In fairness, I've read quite a few studies on various topics and many of them do suffer from the problem that they tend to find what they are looking for, especially when analysing complex data sets. On the other hand I think that there's enough evidence from research to suggest that human activities can affect the environment to some degree, so on the balance of probabilities it makes sense to take action on climate change. After all, even if some research is wrong humans will at worst be speeding their development of alternatives to dependence on finite resources.
That's far too reasonable of an opinion that actually kind of makes sense. You must not be from the US...
Nancy Pelosi tried to make a show vote condemning Trump's racist comments.
“Every single member of this institution should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”
Republicans called for Pelosi’s words to be removed from the official record, arguing the speaker broke a House parliamentary rule that states lawmakers cannot mention any racism from the president. Because protecting their dear racist leader's ability to be racist is what's really important to Republicans.
Blame Thomas Jefferson for the obscure parliamentary procedure behind all this. House rules are guided by what is known as “the Jefferson Manual,” which states that “references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” So even when the President is blatantly racist, since the House is still following this manual you can't say it.
So Trump has license to be a racist and Republicans will defend that over denouncing the racist. Totally disgusting.
Mitch McConnell was asked if he would be ok with the President telling his wife, an immigrant, to go back to her country. He didn't say a damn thing because he's a coward.
Nancy Pelosi tried to make a show vote condemning Trump's racist comments.
“Every single member of this institution should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”
Republicans called for Pelosi’s words to be removed from the official record, arguing the speaker broke a House parliamentary rule that states lawmakers cannot mention any racism from the president. Because protecting their dear racist leader's ability to be racist is what's really important to Republicans.
Blame Thomas Jefferson for the obscure parliamentary procedure behind all this. House rules are guided by what is known as “the Jefferson Manual,” which states that “references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” So even when the President is blatantly racist, since the House is still following this manual you can't say it.
So Trump has license to be a racist and Republicans will defend that over denouncing the racist. Totally disgusting.
Mitch McConnell was asked if he would be ok with the President telling his wife, an immigrant, to go back to her country. He didn't say a damn thing because he's a coward.
Believe it or not I agree with you on this subject. I've been watching House Republicans turning into philosophical contortionists trying to justify Trump's tweet. They've been stammering and stuttering on CNN since I got home from work.
Personally I'm not sure if the tweet was intended to be 'racist' per se, or if Trump was just trying to fire up AOC and her cronies and keep them in the news. Either way it was about the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted and I sure as Hell won't defend it. I'm starting to wish I was in Justin Amash's district here in Michigan...
I love this goddamn article, ESPECIALLY in the wake of Trump's recent comments. The thrust of it is basically that adolescents and teenagers, on a base guttural level, know EXACTLY what the core of Trump's support is all about, and that adults also know, but are more skillful at being disingenuous about. Which is that Trump's PRIMARY appeal from the moment he walked down that escalator was an appeal to white nationalism on a primal level:
As for the Democratic antics in the House today, the only thing I took from it is that MAYBE some of them finally woke up and realized that Republicans wipe their ass with the "rulebook". And of course there is the crux of this whole issue. Sure most people on the right don't like the policies of these 4 women but that is NOT what sends them into fits about them. The reason they have such a seething hatred of them is because they stand up for themselves and don't apologize. They thought only they were allowed to do that, and Democrats were forever regulated to sucking their thumb in the corner because Billy took their lunch money. They hit back and they can't stand it. And watching Kevin McCarthy reach for the fainting couch talking about a couple of them using "profanity" when he supports Donald Trump is just too much to handle.
Nancy Pelosi tried to make a show vote condemning Trump's racist comments.
“Every single member of this institution should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”
Republicans called for Pelosi’s words to be removed from the official record, arguing the speaker broke a House parliamentary rule that states lawmakers cannot mention any racism from the president. Because protecting their dear racist leader's ability to be racist is what's really important to Republicans.
Blame Thomas Jefferson for the obscure parliamentary procedure behind all this. House rules are guided by what is known as “the Jefferson Manual,” which states that “references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” So even when the President is blatantly racist, since the House is still following this manual you can't say it.
So Trump has license to be a racist and Republicans will defend that over denouncing the racist. Totally disgusting.
Mitch McConnell was asked if he would be ok with the President telling his wife, an immigrant, to go back to her country. He didn't say a damn thing because he's a coward.
Believe it or not I agree with you on this subject. I've been watching House Republicans turning into philosophical contortionists trying to justify Trump's tweet. They've been stammering and stuttering on CNN since I got home from work.
Personally I'm not sure if the tweet was intended to be 'racist' per se, or if Trump was just trying to fire up AOC and her cronies and keep them in the news. Either way it was about the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted and I sure as Hell won't defend it. I'm starting to wish I was in Justin Amash's district here in Michigan...
Why pick 4 non-white people to tell them to go back to their country? There's no excuse. Why'd he question the 1st black President's citizenship with the birther lies? Same reason.
It isn't controversial - telling American citizens to "go back to your country" is nothing other than racist.
This video about the Trump's tweet and subject has a short compilation of various people telling other Americans to "go back to their country" @ 2:31
Kellyanne Conway demanded to know 'What's your ethnicity?' before answering a question from a reporter. "Only the best people" folks:
Kellyanne Conway: "What's your ethnicity?"
"Why is that relevant?" Feinberg replied.
"Because I'm asking a question. My ancestors are from Ireland and Italy," Conway shot back.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-adviser-kellyanne-conway-asks-reporter-what-s-your-ethnicity-n1030406
So Kellyanne, cites her immigrant past, to defend uh... wait what is going on lol. How does her history of being desecended from Irish and Italian immigrants have anything to do? She's not saying that "my ancestors were white therefore __________________" Where could she have been going with it? I have no idea who asked the question but let's imagine the guy was a shade darker skin than Kellyane Irish-Italian. So the hell what lol. What does that have to do with statements that the President made?
I'm distrustful of the conclusions, not the scientific method itself. Any far reaching conclusions that can't be proved in a lifetime cannot be verified.
That depends on the standard you're using I think. Most scientific theories can't be proved 100% - which is why scientists don't claim climate change has been proved 100%. The IPCC current reports say that man-made climate change has been verified at the 95% confidence level. As the evidence is quickly accumulating over time, I would expect future reports to refer to higher confidence levels.
Climate science isn't chemistry or physics. In those sciences, you have to perform multiple experiments by different laboratories in order to prove your hypothesis. Climate science is more based on models and assumptions than any classical scientist could ever get away with in their laboratory.
Use of models / theories is a core aspect of science. Experiments are used to test the predictions of the models. Essentially the same process is used in climate science, where models are tested against the results from real-world data - which provides a far richer data-set than we could get from laboratory tests.
It's certainly true to say that climate models are being continually refined over time, but that should not imply that there is a binary state of "this model is correct" or "this model is incorrect". The purpose of the models is to better understand detailed effects. If you want to know what's likely to happen in a particular country for instance you not only need the model to predict worldwide temperature change, but much more local effects (like potential changes in atmospheric and ocean currents and speed of ice melting).
I actually view it more akin to a religion in that every time there's a bout of bad weather now it's blamed on climate change. Kind of like every time something bad happens, religious fundamentalists blame it on the nation being 'sinful'. Both are saying we need to change our ways in order to save the world, one just involves God...
I agree there's often an undue concentration on particular weather effects. That's why it's useful to take a step back and look at trends in the way that the graphic at https://xkcd.com/1732/ that @Quickblade posted does. It's not the fact that the earth is warming per se that's a problem, but the speed that is happening at.
There's one other point about models I think I should mention. While the models are trying to predict very complex real-world interactions, they are based on underlying scientific effects that have been proved to as near 100% as is possible in science. As we're talking about climate change, an obvious example of this is the greenhouse effect. In experimental closed systems, it's easy to test that various different gases change the extent to which radiation is trapped within a system and show for instance that even relatively small changes in the concentration of CO2 have a significant impact.
We thus know that the greenhouse effect is real, even though we don't know all the finer detail of how it operates in the world (due to the complexities of things like the extent of CO2 absorption by the oceans).
To dispute that the man-made increase in CO2 levels is causing climate change requires a couple of different things:
1) Postulating some unknown force that is counter-acting the greenhouse effect tested in the laboratory.
2) Postulating another unknown force that is causing the changes in temperatures observed over the last 50 years. We've already taken account of the impact of things that have caused climatic changes in the past (orbital changes, axial tilts, magnetic changes, cloud cover, solar radiation etc), so it's a real stretch to imagine some other still unknown force that's capable of making such major changes to the earth.
Personally I think we're now well past the point at which action would have been appropriate under the precautionary principle suggested by @Mantis37. That would have been appropriate 40-50 years ago when climate change models were just basic models looking to extend laboratory behavior into the real world. The best of those models have now been extensively tested against real world data to check that they can not only explain past behavior, but also predict future behavior.
I mentioned before the scientific similarity between the climate change models and weather forecasting. Would you think someone was sensible for staying in a flimsy seaside house when a hurricane was forecast to arrive there tomorrow? If you think that would not be sensible, why not? The accuracy of predicting the path of a hurricane is much less than the 95% confidence level attributed to man-made climate change ...
Textbook definition of racism. There's no way this guy would qualify for a security clearance if he wasn't President either - you're not supposed to give clearances to dishonest people who are susceptible to bribery and foreign influences and there's a lot of examples of that with him.
The agency is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
As for the Democratic antics in the House today, the only thing I took from it is that MAYBE some of them finally woke up and realized that Republicans wipe their ass with the "rulebook". And of course there is the crux of this whole issue. Sure most people on the right don't like the policies of these 4 women but that is NOT what sends them into fits about them. The reason they have such a seething hatred of them is because they stand up for themselves and don't apologize. They thought only they were allowed to do that, and Democrats were forever regulated to sucking their thumb in the corner because Billy took their lunch money. They hit back and they can't stand it. And watching Kevin McCarthy reach for the fainting couch talking about a couple of them using "profanity" when he supports Donald Trump is just too much to handle.
The House motion "condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress" is an illustration of how far from the norm the US is now. In its history there have been only 4 previous Congressional resolutions passed that could be deemed as critical of the President.
- the one against Andrew Jackson said: “That the President, in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” That's not exactly extreme language and the resolution was technically expunged anyway 3 years later after the Democrats took back the Senate majority.
- the one against James Buchanan said: “the President and Secretary of the Navy ... have set an example dangerous to the public safety, and deserving the reproof of this House”
- there were also resolutions that were originally critical of Lincoln and Taft, though both of those were amended during debate to avoid any direct reference to, or criticism of, the President.
Nancy Pelosi tried to make a show vote condemning Trump's racist comments.
“Every single member of this institution should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”
Republicans called for Pelosi’s words to be removed from the official record, arguing the speaker broke a House parliamentary rule that states lawmakers cannot mention any racism from the president. Because protecting their dear racist leader's ability to be racist is what's really important to Republicans.
Blame Thomas Jefferson for the obscure parliamentary procedure behind all this. House rules are guided by what is known as “the Jefferson Manual,” which states that “references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” So even when the President is blatantly racist, since the House is still following this manual you can't say it.
So Trump has license to be a racist and Republicans will defend that over denouncing the racist. Totally disgusting.
Mitch McConnell was asked if he would be ok with the President telling his wife, an immigrant, to go back to her country. He didn't say a damn thing because he's a coward.
Believe it or not I agree with you on this subject. I've been watching House Republicans turning into philosophical contortionists trying to justify Trump's tweet. They've been stammering and stuttering on CNN since I got home from work.
Personally I'm not sure if the tweet was intended to be 'racist' per se, or if Trump was just trying to fire up AOC and her cronies and keep them in the news. Either way it was about the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted and I sure as Hell won't defend it. I'm starting to wish I was in Justin Amash's district here in Michigan...
Why pick 4 non-white people to tell them to go back to their country? There's no excuse.
Because he know the media and democrats would don the exact same crap they are doing right now. Everyone is talking about a stupid freaking tweet while he signed a bill that literally closes a literal immigration loophole that few people are talking.
Secondly he has literally caused The democrats to prop back up the "squad' which are the four democrats who are actually pushing seeing voters away from voting democrats.
It's interesting actually, the Democrats were already torn beyond repair thanks to identity politics and Pelosi trying to get those 4 especially AOC to stfu was literally one of the smarter moves the party tried to make.
The squad is the biggest point of hypocrisy that shows the democrats have lost their rocker.
AOC is a gaffe queen, who by her own admission is a socialist, which despite what some people want to pretend that the dems haven't gone anywhere (hahaha) is the dems going further to the left.
A gaffe queen who wants to just open the boarders to this country, despite the fact that it hurts the Black community more than the " privileged" whites *coughelitistcough* communities.
Miss abolish ice despite their job is much more than detaining ILLEGAL immigrants. Ignoring the fact this is a self filling prophecy which the dems continued to change their state meant on from there was no crisis at the boarder, to it's a self created crisis by republicans, to finally giving in and admitting trump was right yet don't want to directly say he was right because of tribalism, to omfg these facilities are horrible and this is the same as nazi concentration camp despite the fact people didn't choose to go from south America and even freaking Africa to cross a effing ocean, turn down citizenship from another prosperous country that they would relatively be safe in (despite what people like to pretend Mexico is), to try to take a dangerous journey that they will likely die on or get sick during and die in custody that Democrats just love to politicize and claim it was ICE treatment of them, in facilities they spent 4 years refusing to FREAKING FUND. All in the hopes that trump could not fulfil the promises that got him elected in the first place so it won't get him elected again.
Oh did I leave you house 10 years ago democrats was against open borders and ICE was a think long before the Trump administration, something that Obama ran on during his first presidential run and republicans even tried yo use photos of kids in cages that we're taken during Obama administration and tried to blame it on Trump.
But you know the dems have stayed relatively the same while the right move further right.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
I'm just going to move on from her because I'll be here all day.
Ilhan Omar, ah yes the anti. Racist unless its against the state of Israel and the jews, a group has joined whites and freaking Asians that it's ok to be racist towards. The funny thing about this is the hypocrisy of the group who is supposed to be all about POC, choose to demonize stump because KKK chose to support him which makes him guilty while Ilhan Omari's buddy, Louis Farrakhan who to anyone who doesn't bow to tribalism, KNOWS HE'S AN ANTISEMITE and herself tends to push against anything that she views as pro Israel. But who knows, maybe Isreal really does have the world hypnotized.
Well the rest, I'm too lazy to go digging on, I put more time and energy into this than I already wanted to as is.
There are no qualifiers on US citizenship, despite what many "native-born" people seem to believe (nevermind the fact that 3 of then WERE born here, and he was telling them to go back somewhere strictly because of their ETHNICITY). The "go back where you came from" line is something minorities have been hearing their entire lives (even those whose ancestors came in chains). It is NEVER spoken or uttered to white people. They'll get "love it or leave it", which is just as stupid, but much less insidious.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who is PRETENDING to not understand what that comment meant or who it was aimed at is being galactically disingenuous, and I'm convinced half the fun for the alt-right crowd over all of this is constantly claiming to one group of people that this is all meaningless trolling while among themselves reveling in even more vile racism than the President displays.
And, for the dozenth time, Israel is not synonymous with "all Jewish people", and most members of Congress of BOTH parties are owned by their lobbying arm AIPAC, and the defense industry that benefits from 10s of BILLIONS of dollars we had them with no conditions whatsoever. And while the hypnotized comment before she was a Congressman was slightly more problematic, the uproar about it being "All about the Benjamins" was absurd, because anyone who hasn't been in a cultural cave for the last 20 years knows that is slang for "money" which is used to buy influence, and is what lobbying IS at it's core level (buying influence), and was clearly a reference to a song from a late-90s rap record that only sold about 8 million frickin' hard copies on CD, and yet people again still pretended to not know that song existed or that she was clearly referencing it.
There are no qualifiers on US citizenship, despite what many "native-born" people seem to believe (nevermind the fact that 3 of then WERE born here, and he was telling them to go back somewhere strictly because of their ETHNICITY). The "go back where you came from" line is something minorities have been hearing their entire lives (even those whose ancestors came in chains). It is NEVER spoken or uttered to white people. They'll get "love it or leave it", which is just as stupid, but much less insidious.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who is PRETENDING to not understand what that comment meant or who it was aimed at is being galactically disingenuous, and I'm convinced half the fun for the alt-right crowd over all of this is constantly claiming to one group of people that this is all meaningless trolling while among themselves reveling in even more vile racism than the President displays.
I don't even consider 3 out of the four squad members to be 'people of color' myself (the Somalian is close). I've never considered Latinos or Middle Easterners as 'colored'. They're basically whites with a nice tan. Many white folks are risking skin cancer to look like them! I guess I just don't get how so many people think...
There are no qualifiers on US citizenship, despite what many "native-born" people seem to believe (nevermind the fact that 3 of then WERE born here, and he was telling them to go back somewhere strictly because of their ETHNICITY). The "go back where you came from" line is something minorities have been hearing their entire lives (even those whose ancestors came in chains). It is NEVER spoken or uttered to white people. They'll get "love it or leave it", which is just as stupid, but much less insidious.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who is PRETENDING to not understand what that comment meant or who it was aimed at is being galactically disingenuous, and I'm convinced half the fun for the alt-right crowd over all of this is constantly claiming to one group of people that this is all meaningless trolling while among themselves reveling in even more vile racism than the President displays.
I don't even consider 3 out of the four squad members to be 'people of color' myself (the Somalian is close). I've never considered Latinos or Middle Easterners as 'colored'. They're basically whites with a nice tan. Many white folks are risking skin cancer to look like them! I guess I just don't get how so many people think...
I understand your sentiment, but we KNOW Trump would have never told Pelosi, Schumer, or even Hillary to "go back where they came from", because it is assumed they are from "here" because of their skin color. What this comment means at it's core is that minorities should be grateful for what white people LET them have as "guests" in "our" country, and to shut up and sit down. Nevermind he is floating an idea that seems to be of the belief that dissent or criticism of the country should be dealt with by EXPULSION, and the people who honestly believe that (and there are tens of millions of them) are who he is trying to reach with that tweet, not you. And let me tell you something, the people who DO believe in what Trump said hate this country and what it is supposed to represent a thousand times more than AOC ever could.
I don't even consider 3 out of the four squad members to be 'people of color' myself (the Somalian is close). I've never considered Latinos or Middle Easterners as 'colored'. They're basically whites with a nice tan. Many white folks are risking skin cancer to look like them! I guess I just don't get how so many people think...
I understand what you're saying - but soceity absolutely treats them as a minority and like they treat other people of color. So while they aren't in the same exact boat as an African American (for example), they're treated close to equivalently. For the sake of discussing race-relations in the country, they have more in common with African Americans than they do with white people.
It actually is in the progressive rhetoric, because in their rhetoric, women are always a victim being held back by the patriarchy. "POC" is always held down by white people. Their entire rhetoric is based on creating a oppressed class.
Progressive view think through an ideological lens of race, sexuality, and ethnicity which is why they are always the only ones who see dog whistles in EVERYTHING. They see the racism in it because they themselves are racist.
The very MINDSET that Jim Crow was built on is being used by the progressives right now. The second Pelosi told AOC and her elk to stop tweeting, what did AOC do? "SHE IS RACIST!" Calling out women of color.
What do you think is going to happen? If the U.S. gets rid of it's borders and opens up to every single immigrant? It will create a class much worse than the poor class we currently have. I mean shoot Democrats can't even fix their own freaking states, California has freaking medieval diseases returning to its streets.
California has a massive homeless problem, and large wealth inequality. It seems elite democrats are very progressive and tolerant as long as they keep it away from them.
No, we hear the dog whistles and call them out because some of us have heard them for (in some cases) decades. It's not that other people don't "hear" them, it's that they can't admit in public what they are because they KNOW it is and should be socially unacceptable. Which is rather beside the point because the whole point of Trump (which I have pointed since the 2016 Republican primary) is that he has dispensed with the "whistles" entirely and is instead using an unfiltered megaphone instead. Nothing about what he said the other day was a "whistle". It was the primal scream of every bigoted uncle in America who has ever had one too many glasses of wine at Thanksgiving dinner. And it's not like the "calling out racism is the new racism" card is a new argument. It's not a novel concept, it's a time-tested response to situations like this.
It's not that other people don't "hear" them, it's that they can't admit in public what they are because they KNOW it is and should be socially unacceptable.
What? Since effing when? Since when has something being racist stopped people from calling something racist? I'm pretty sure there is a whole departments and organizations developed to fight and call it out. Long before the 2016 election.
Which is rather beside the point because the whole point of Trump (which I have pointed since the 2016 Republican primary) is that he has dispensed with the "whistles" entirely and is instead using an unfiltered megaphone instead.
Whistles that only liberals were capable of seeing it seems. While to everyone else not playing the game of tribes, we saw a mass media play a game of favorites, attacking Trump at every little thing they could, from cnn to fox news. Yet Hillary because she had a vagina and was going against a white man, had the majority of the media seem to downplay or just so happen to forget her sins and the funniest thing out of all of it, she still lost! It wasn't because of dog whistle, Russian bots, by the very media that attacked ultimately meme'd him into office. Billions of dollars of free press, constant and nonstop attacks.
It was the primal scream of every bigoted uncle in America who has ever had one too many glasses of wine at Thanksgiving dinner. And it's not like the "calling out racism is the new racism" card is a new argument. It's not a novel concept, it's a time-tested response to situations like this.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you exhibit A to my point here and above.
@DragonKing: It wouldn't surprise me that Democrats in Congress previously refused to fund the locations that are currently housing detained immigrants, simply because the explanation is rather basic: they weren't so overcrowded during the Obama administration. The facilities require extra resources now because they have more people to care for while they're in U.S. custody.
I think the reason these facilities are overcrowded is because the administration has been sluggish in processing the immigrants and figuring out which ones qualify for entry and which ones need to be deported. I doubt the overcrowding is due to some sudden influx of immigrants during the Trump administration.
I'm legitimately curious as to what "attacks" the media should have refrained from covering in regards to Trump during the campaign. Was it the calls from the stage at his rallies to assault protestors and offer to pay for their legal bills?? Was it his singular refusal (in juxtaposition to every other Presidential candidate of our lifetimes) to release his tax returns?? Was it his defamation of a Gold Star family because they dared speak up against his proposed Muslim ban?? Was it him admitting to his tried and true methods of sexual assault on tape?? Or was it his declaration from the Presidential Debate stage that he wouldn't agree to honor the results of the election if he lost?? Which one of these incidents should not have been covered to make things more "fair"??
Just playing right into his hands. The original idea behind trumps tweet we're yo put the far left front and center, AOC has a 2 approval rating, Omar has an 8% You can argue the numbers are from a po that targetted working class Americans but as we saw with the last election its that very class that is the current swing vote. So not only is he putting the far left in the spot light again, he basically fractured the house and the left is still fighting itself.
Idk who side it but there was an apology I heard not to long ago that I liked. An eagle needs two wings to sore and right now one of the wings are broken.
"Trump's tweet caused an immediate uproar throughout Washington, and lawmakers in both parties objected. House Democrats quickly drafted a resolution decrying Trump's "racist tweets."
Yet House rules prevent a member from referring to the president or any of his statements as racist on the floor. Democrats warned each other to be careful and follow the rule during a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning.
Pelosi, however, decided to push the limits.
"Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets," Pelosi said during her floor speech. "To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people."
Republicans immediately objected. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) asked Pelosi to "rephrase" her statement, and when she refused, he sought to have the words stricken from the official record.
No speaker has had their words "taken down," as the process is referred to, in 35 years, and even challenging a speaker's comments is considered a serious breach of etiquette. Collins' request led to a nearly two-hour delay in the floor proceedings.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who was sitting in the speaker's chair for the dispute, didn't want to be part of it when it became clear Pelosi was going to lose via a ruling by the House parliamentarian over whether her comments would be allowed.
While Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) urged Cleaver to ignore the parliamentarian's ruling — a huge risk for a chamber that religiously follows precedent — the Missouri Democrat decided to "abandon the chair," a shocking move that left it empty for a moment.
As Cleaver stormed off the floor, several Democratic members could be heard gasping. Others turned to each other with confused looks.
“This whole day, we haven’t gotten anything for the American public," Cleaver later told reporters. "And at the center of this is just one man, all this is based on one man’s words.”
Democrats then scrambled to find someone to take Cleaver's place. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, several of whom were on the floor for the debate, refused, not wanting be the one to strike the speaker’s comments. Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a former CBC chairman, briefly stepped in, followed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who read a parliamentary ruling when announcing that Pelosi's comments were "out of order."
When asked whether Cleaver's abandonment of the chair was unprecedented, Hoyer said, “I’ve not seen it before.""
You can't even criticize these people without them running to the victim card! They call pelosi racist because she singled them out with the stop tweeting. This is the game the far left places. She got accused of bigotry and sending death threats, then steps up to defend yh when trumps say something that LITERALLY CAN BE SAID TO ANYONE! FRENCH, GERMAN, BRITISH, JAPANESE, CHINESE YORUBAN, IGBO, literally anyone.
Basically is in a position where she looks weak, the is nothing she can do to come out on top. Oh and let's add more crossing onto this situation, the president defends her claiming she is not racist.
Now she has progressives against her the base she was trying to cater too, a "racist" president defending her while she in return is attacking the very opponent who reached out to show support. Trump's base isn't going to abandon him, they are more than likely sitting there laughing at how INSANE the democrats look. The left is in a a circular firing squad attacking themselves and the swing voters are being pushed further to the right!
I'm legitimately curious as to what "attacks" the media should have refrained from covering in regards to Trump during the campaign. Was it the calls from the stage at his rallies to assault protestors
We talking about the same rally's where protestors would go and attack trump supporters? Trump making jokes out of his base defending itself and get called a support to violence. While synonymously we have democrats doing the exact same thing encouraging harassment of Republicans?.
and offer to pay for their legal bills?? Was it his singular refusal (in juxtaposition to every other Presidential candidate of our lifetimes) to release his tax returns??
So what? Presidents literally are not required by law to release their tax returns. That was literally a non issue no different then how there was a big whobla about freaking Obama's birth certificate.
Was it his defamation of a Gold Star family because they dared speak up against his proposed Muslim ban??
I may have missed that gold star w/e, but you mean that ban that wasn't a Muslim ban because
1. It didn't hit every Muslim country, he'll if their was any real criticism to be made there it actually didn't target the countries that held notable terrier organization.
2. Also it was something that was brought into play under the Obama administration trump just built on it. But like the children in cages under the Obama admin, we'll stay shhh about that.
Was it him admitting to his tried and true methods of sexual assault on tape??
Aww yes, the famous manipulation and taking out of context something it wasn't meant to mean. Remember when they did the same thing to what he said about the MS 13 gang members? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Or was it his declaration from the Presidential Debate stage that he wouldn't agree to honor the results of the election if he lost??
You mean like how democrats have been trying to do during his entire presidency? How they are trying to get the electoral college removed after they lost the presidency? How leftist refuse to enforce and even go out of their way to commit felonies to undermine trump like realising information about ice raids or what was that one congressman name again, the one that actually walked an illegal immigrant across the border into this country.
Trump say a lot of ish, he's brutish, he's boorish, but as I already started before what you do and what you say are two different things.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
Take special notice of how white, non-college grads are specifically referred to as "working class" and magically no other demographic group is ever given this label. Purposefully. And yes, that is absolutely the poll being referred to, unless another one with the exact same methodology came out in the last 24 hours.
And I'm all ears as to what the proper "context" of the Access Hollywood tape was.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
You mean the vast majority in this country? Do you mean the swing voters? This is the game identitarians love to place, when something isn't in their favor that'll try yo break it into a group which they can down play it. Especially when it shows their elitism.
Comments
As for climate change, prove that its not happening. You can't, especially since it has BEEN DEMONSTRATED to be real. Even a cursory look though recorded climates and the average global temperature in the past has shown that is has been increasing for some time. Evidence is EVERYWHERE, and you being skeptical of things that have been clearly demonstrated is only so much ear plugging and going "nah nah nah."
Why don't you take your own advice, shelve the bias, and do some actual investigation for yourself?
THIS is my answer to climate change skeptics.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You know what things are like when climate changes that fast? Mass extinctions because species can't keep up with their environment. Oh hey, we're in one. Us puny pathetic humans are probably going to be the cause of THE biggest mass extinction in known history. This isn't hysteria, this is science. We're not just wiping out a species here or there, we're wiping out ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMS.
Look, dude, I have one vote. Criticize me all you want but you're accomplishing nothing more than reinforcing my opinion that only total capitulation to their viewpoint will satisfy a liberal. It's not all or nothing. Pat yourself on the back for making me rethink my views on healthcare and call it a win...
That's far too reasonable of an opinion that actually kind of makes sense. You must not be from the US...
“Every single member of this institution should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets,” Pelosi said. “To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people.”
Republicans called for Pelosi’s words to be removed from the official record, arguing the speaker broke a House parliamentary rule that states lawmakers cannot mention any racism from the president. Because protecting their dear racist leader's ability to be racist is what's really important to Republicans.
Blame Thomas Jefferson for the obscure parliamentary procedure behind all this. House rules are guided by what is known as “the Jefferson Manual,” which states that “references to racial or other discrimination on the part of the President are not in order.” So even when the President is blatantly racist, since the House is still following this manual you can't say it.
So Trump has license to be a racist and Republicans will defend that over denouncing the racist. Totally disgusting.
Mitch McConnell was asked if he would be ok with the President telling his wife, an immigrant, to go back to her country. He didn't say a damn thing because he's a coward.
Believe it or not I agree with you on this subject. I've been watching House Republicans turning into philosophical contortionists trying to justify Trump's tweet. They've been stammering and stuttering on CNN since I got home from work.
Personally I'm not sure if the tweet was intended to be 'racist' per se, or if Trump was just trying to fire up AOC and her cronies and keep them in the news. Either way it was about the stupidest thing he's ever tweeted and I sure as Hell won't defend it. I'm starting to wish I was in Justin Amash's district here in Michigan...
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/teenage-pricks-pareene
As for the Democratic antics in the House today, the only thing I took from it is that MAYBE some of them finally woke up and realized that Republicans wipe their ass with the "rulebook". And of course there is the crux of this whole issue. Sure most people on the right don't like the policies of these 4 women but that is NOT what sends them into fits about them. The reason they have such a seething hatred of them is because they stand up for themselves and don't apologize. They thought only they were allowed to do that, and Democrats were forever regulated to sucking their thumb in the corner because Billy took their lunch money. They hit back and they can't stand it. And watching Kevin McCarthy reach for the fainting couch talking about a couple of them using "profanity" when he supports Donald Trump is just too much to handle.
Why pick 4 non-white people to tell them to go back to their country? There's no excuse. Why'd he question the 1st black President's citizenship with the birther lies? Same reason.
It isn't controversial - telling American citizens to "go back to your country" is nothing other than racist.
This video about the Trump's tweet and subject has a short compilation of various people telling other Americans to "go back to their country" @ 2:31
BTW today, Kellyanne Conway was causing problems herself. This is on the same day her husband (George Conway) called Donald Trump a racist in a Washington Post OP ED
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-racist-president/2019/07/15/b13c0bd4-a740-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.4f00233f2a73
Kellyanne Conway demanded to know 'What's your ethnicity?' before answering a question from a reporter. "Only the best people" folks:
Kellyanne Conway: "What's your ethnicity?"
"Why is that relevant?" Feinberg replied.
"Because I'm asking a question. My ancestors are from Ireland and Italy," Conway shot back.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-adviser-kellyanne-conway-asks-reporter-what-s-your-ethnicity-n1030406
So Kellyanne, cites her immigrant past, to defend uh... wait what is going on lol. How does her history of being desecended from Irish and Italian immigrants have anything to do? She's not saying that "my ancestors were white therefore __________________" Where could she have been going with it? I have no idea who asked the question but let's imagine the guy was a shade darker skin than Kellyane Irish-Italian. So the hell what lol. What does that have to do with statements that the President made?
Use of models / theories is a core aspect of science. Experiments are used to test the predictions of the models. Essentially the same process is used in climate science, where models are tested against the results from real-world data - which provides a far richer data-set than we could get from laboratory tests.
It's certainly true to say that climate models are being continually refined over time, but that should not imply that there is a binary state of "this model is correct" or "this model is incorrect". The purpose of the models is to better understand detailed effects. If you want to know what's likely to happen in a particular country for instance you not only need the model to predict worldwide temperature change, but much more local effects (like potential changes in atmospheric and ocean currents and speed of ice melting).
I agree there's often an undue concentration on particular weather effects. That's why it's useful to take a step back and look at trends in the way that the graphic at https://xkcd.com/1732/ that @Quickblade posted does. It's not the fact that the earth is warming per se that's a problem, but the speed that is happening at.
There's one other point about models I think I should mention. While the models are trying to predict very complex real-world interactions, they are based on underlying scientific effects that have been proved to as near 100% as is possible in science. As we're talking about climate change, an obvious example of this is the greenhouse effect. In experimental closed systems, it's easy to test that various different gases change the extent to which radiation is trapped within a system and show for instance that even relatively small changes in the concentration of CO2 have a significant impact.
We thus know that the greenhouse effect is real, even though we don't know all the finer detail of how it operates in the world (due to the complexities of things like the extent of CO2 absorption by the oceans).
To dispute that the man-made increase in CO2 levels is causing climate change requires a couple of different things:
1) Postulating some unknown force that is counter-acting the greenhouse effect tested in the laboratory.
2) Postulating another unknown force that is causing the changes in temperatures observed over the last 50 years. We've already taken account of the impact of things that have caused climatic changes in the past (orbital changes, axial tilts, magnetic changes, cloud cover, solar radiation etc), so it's a real stretch to imagine some other still unknown force that's capable of making such major changes to the earth.
Personally I think we're now well past the point at which action would have been appropriate under the precautionary principle suggested by @Mantis37. That would have been appropriate 40-50 years ago when climate change models were just basic models looking to extend laboratory behavior into the real world. The best of those models have now been extensively tested against real world data to check that they can not only explain past behavior, but also predict future behavior.
I mentioned before the scientific similarity between the climate change models and weather forecasting. Would you think someone was sensible for staying in a flimsy seaside house when a hurricane was forecast to arrive there tomorrow? If you think that would not be sensible, why not? The accuracy of predicting the path of a hurricane is much less than the 95% confidence level attributed to man-made climate change ...
The agency is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The House motion "condemning President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of Congress" is an illustration of how far from the norm the US is now. In its history there have been only 4 previous Congressional resolutions passed that could be deemed as critical of the President.
- the one against Andrew Jackson said: “That the President, in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” That's not exactly extreme language and the resolution was technically expunged anyway 3 years later after the Democrats took back the Senate majority.
- the one against James Buchanan said: “the President and Secretary of the Navy ... have set an example dangerous to the public safety, and deserving the reproof of this House”
- there were also resolutions that were originally critical of Lincoln and Taft, though both of those were amended during debate to avoid any direct reference to, or criticism of, the President.
This paper by the Congressional Research Service gives details of all resolutions censuring Presidents, whether those were passed or not, up to February 2018.
Secondly he has literally caused The democrats to prop back up the "squad' which are the four democrats who are actually pushing seeing voters away from voting democrats.
It's interesting actually, the Democrats were already torn beyond repair thanks to identity politics and Pelosi trying to get those 4 especially AOC to stfu was literally one of the smarter moves the party tried to make.
The squad is the biggest point of hypocrisy that shows the democrats have lost their rocker.
AOC is a gaffe queen, who by her own admission is a socialist, which despite what some people want to pretend that the dems haven't gone anywhere (hahaha) is the dems going further to the left.
A gaffe queen who wants to just open the boarders to this country, despite the fact that it hurts the Black community more than the " privileged" whites *coughelitistcough* communities.
Miss abolish ice despite their job is much more than detaining ILLEGAL immigrants. Ignoring the fact this is a self filling prophecy which the dems continued to change their state meant on from there was no crisis at the boarder, to it's a self created crisis by republicans, to finally giving in and admitting trump was right yet don't want to directly say he was right because of tribalism, to omfg these facilities are horrible and this is the same as nazi concentration camp despite the fact people didn't choose to go from south America and even freaking Africa to cross a effing ocean, turn down citizenship from another prosperous country that they would relatively be safe in (despite what people like to pretend Mexico is), to try to take a dangerous journey that they will likely die on or get sick during and die in custody that Democrats just love to politicize and claim it was ICE treatment of them, in facilities they spent 4 years refusing to FREAKING FUND. All in the hopes that trump could not fulfil the promises that got him elected in the first place so it won't get him elected again.
Oh did I leave you house 10 years ago democrats was against open borders and ICE was a think long before the Trump administration, something that Obama ran on during his first presidential run and republicans even tried yo use photos of kids in cages that we're taken during Obama administration and tried to blame it on Trump.
But you know the dems have stayed relatively the same while the right move further right.
The gaffe queen that has only a 21% approval rating in her own distract... But I guess that isn't a problem when you get primaried in!
I'm just going to move on from her because I'll be here all day.
Ilhan Omar, ah yes the anti. Racist unless its against the state of Israel and the jews, a group has joined whites and freaking Asians that it's ok to be racist towards. The funny thing about this is the hypocrisy of the group who is supposed to be all about POC, choose to demonize stump because KKK chose to support him which makes him guilty while Ilhan Omari's buddy, Louis Farrakhan who to anyone who doesn't bow to tribalism, KNOWS HE'S AN ANTISEMITE and herself tends to push against anything that she views as pro Israel. But who knows, maybe Isreal really does have the world hypnotized.
Well the rest, I'm too lazy to go digging on, I put more time and energy into this than I already wanted to as is.
I doubt the Democratics party would push the narrative that non-whites are animals. Its kinda against their key rhetoric.
And as I mentioned in my previous post, anyone who is PRETENDING to not understand what that comment meant or who it was aimed at is being galactically disingenuous, and I'm convinced half the fun for the alt-right crowd over all of this is constantly claiming to one group of people that this is all meaningless trolling while among themselves reveling in even more vile racism than the President displays.
And, for the dozenth time, Israel is not synonymous with "all Jewish people", and most members of Congress of BOTH parties are owned by their lobbying arm AIPAC, and the defense industry that benefits from 10s of BILLIONS of dollars we had them with no conditions whatsoever. And while the hypnotized comment before she was a Congressman was slightly more problematic, the uproar about it being "All about the Benjamins" was absurd, because anyone who hasn't been in a cultural cave for the last 20 years knows that is slang for "money" which is used to buy influence, and is what lobbying IS at it's core level (buying influence), and was clearly a reference to a song from a late-90s rap record that only sold about 8 million frickin' hard copies on CD, and yet people again still pretended to not know that song existed or that she was clearly referencing it.
I don't even consider 3 out of the four squad members to be 'people of color' myself (the Somalian is close). I've never considered Latinos or Middle Easterners as 'colored'. They're basically whites with a nice tan. Many white folks are risking skin cancer to look like them! I guess I just don't get how so many people think...
I understand your sentiment, but we KNOW Trump would have never told Pelosi, Schumer, or even Hillary to "go back where they came from", because it is assumed they are from "here" because of their skin color. What this comment means at it's core is that minorities should be grateful for what white people LET them have as "guests" in "our" country, and to shut up and sit down. Nevermind he is floating an idea that seems to be of the belief that dissent or criticism of the country should be dealt with by EXPULSION, and the people who honestly believe that (and there are tens of millions of them) are who he is trying to reach with that tweet, not you. And let me tell you something, the people who DO believe in what Trump said hate this country and what it is supposed to represent a thousand times more than AOC ever could.
I understand what you're saying - but soceity absolutely treats them as a minority and like they treat other people of color. So while they aren't in the same exact boat as an African American (for example), they're treated close to equivalently. For the sake of discussing race-relations in the country, they have more in common with African Americans than they do with white people.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans
It actually is in the progressive rhetoric, because in their rhetoric, women are always a victim being held back by the patriarchy. "POC" is always held down by white people. Their entire rhetoric is based on creating a oppressed class.
Progressive view think through an ideological lens of race, sexuality, and ethnicity which is why they are always the only ones who see dog whistles in EVERYTHING. They see the racism in it because they themselves are racist.
The very MINDSET that Jim Crow was built on is being used by the progressives right now. The second Pelosi told AOC and her elk to stop tweeting, what did AOC do? "SHE IS RACIST!" Calling out women of color.
What do you think is going to happen? If the U.S. gets rid of it's borders and opens up to every single immigrant? It will create a class much worse than the poor class we currently have. I mean shoot Democrats can't even fix their own freaking states, California has freaking medieval diseases returning to its streets.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/06/07/return-of-medieval-diseases/
California has a massive homeless problem, and large wealth inequality. It seems elite democrats are very progressive and tolerant as long as they keep it away from them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html
Actions talk louder than words and the actions of a lot of Democrats contradict their"beliefs".
What? Since effing when? Since when has something being racist stopped people from calling something racist? I'm pretty sure there is a whole departments and organizations developed to fight and call it out. Long before the 2016 election.
Whistles that only liberals were capable of seeing it seems. While to everyone else not playing the game of tribes, we saw a mass media play a game of favorites, attacking Trump at every little thing they could, from cnn to fox news. Yet Hillary because she had a vagina and was going against a white man, had the majority of the media seem to downplay or just so happen to forget her sins and the funniest thing out of all of it, she still lost! It wasn't because of dog whistle, Russian bots, by the very media that attacked ultimately meme'd him into office. Billions of dollars of free press, constant and nonstop attacks.
You're right it wasn't a whistle, it was him playing liberals got a fool, even freaking liberals are starting to realize that, way to late.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/16/20695031/trump-ocasio-cortez-omar-pressley-tlaib-pelosi-squad
Ladies and gentlemen I give you exhibit A to my point here and above.
I think the reason these facilities are overcrowded is because the administration has been sluggish in processing the immigrants and figuring out which ones qualify for entry and which ones need to be deported. I doubt the overcrowding is due to some sudden influx of immigrants during the Trump administration.
Idk who side it but there was an apology I heard not to long ago that I liked. An eagle needs two wings to sore and right now one of the wings are broken.
"Trump's tweet caused an immediate uproar throughout Washington, and lawmakers in both parties objected. House Democrats quickly drafted a resolution decrying Trump's "racist tweets."
Yet House rules prevent a member from referring to the president or any of his statements as racist on the floor. Democrats warned each other to be careful and follow the rule during a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning.
Pelosi, however, decided to push the limits.
"Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets," Pelosi said during her floor speech. "To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people."
Republicans immediately objected. Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) asked Pelosi to "rephrase" her statement, and when she refused, he sought to have the words stricken from the official record.
No speaker has had their words "taken down," as the process is referred to, in 35 years, and even challenging a speaker's comments is considered a serious breach of etiquette. Collins' request led to a nearly two-hour delay in the floor proceedings.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who was sitting in the speaker's chair for the dispute, didn't want to be part of it when it became clear Pelosi was going to lose via a ruling by the House parliamentarian over whether her comments would be allowed.
While Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) urged Cleaver to ignore the parliamentarian's ruling — a huge risk for a chamber that religiously follows precedent — the Missouri Democrat decided to "abandon the chair," a shocking move that left it empty for a moment.
As Cleaver stormed off the floor, several Democratic members could be heard gasping. Others turned to each other with confused looks.
“This whole day, we haven’t gotten anything for the American public," Cleaver later told reporters. "And at the center of this is just one man, all this is based on one man’s words.”
Democrats then scrambled to find someone to take Cleaver's place. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, several of whom were on the floor for the debate, refused, not wanting be the one to strike the speaker’s comments. Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a former CBC chairman, briefly stepped in, followed by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who read a parliamentary ruling when announcing that Pelosi's comments were "out of order."
When asked whether Cleaver's abandonment of the chair was unprecedented, Hoyer said, “I’ve not seen it before.""
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/16/pelosi-trump-racism-resolution-1417365
You can't even criticize these people without them running to the victim card! They call pelosi racist because she singled them out with the stop tweeting. This is the game the far left places. She got accused of bigotry and sending death threats, then steps up to defend yh when trumps say something that LITERALLY CAN BE SAID TO ANYONE! FRENCH, GERMAN, BRITISH, JAPANESE, CHINESE YORUBAN, IGBO, literally anyone.
Basically is in a position where she looks weak, the is nothing she can do to come out on top. Oh and let's add more crossing onto this situation, the president defends her claiming she is not racist.
Now she has progressives against her the base she was trying to cater too, a "racist" president defending her while she in return is attacking the very opponent who reached out to show support. Trump's base isn't going to abandon him, they are more than likely sitting there laughing at how INSANE the democrats look. The left is in a a circular firing squad attacking themselves and the swing voters are being pushed further to the right!
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-rashida-tlaib-blame-speaker-pelosi-for-attacks-and-death-threats/
That's not even close to true. Were you thinking of the national poll among white likely voters with two years or less of college education?
So what? Presidents literally are not required by law to release their tax returns. That was literally a non issue no different then how there was a big whobla about freaking Obama's birth certificate.
I may have missed that gold star w/e, but you mean that ban that wasn't a Muslim ban because
1. It didn't hit every Muslim country, he'll if their was any real criticism to be made there it actually didn't target the countries that held notable terrier organization.
2. Also it was something that was brought into play under the Obama administration trump just built on it. But like the children in cages under the Obama admin, we'll stay shhh about that.
Aww yes, the famous manipulation and taking out of context something it wasn't meant to mean. Remember when they did the same thing to what he said about the MS 13 gang members? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
You mean like how democrats have been trying to do during his entire presidency? How they are trying to get the electoral college removed after they lost the presidency? How leftist refuse to enforce and even go out of their way to commit felonies to undermine trump like realising information about ice raids or what was that one congressman name again, the one that actually walked an illegal immigrant across the border into this country.
Trump say a lot of ish, he's brutish, he's boorish, but as I already started before what you do and what you say are two different things.
Take special notice of how white, non-college grads are specifically referred to as "working class" and magically no other demographic group is ever given this label. Purposefully. And yes, that is absolutely the poll being referred to, unless another one with the exact same methodology came out in the last 24 hours.
And I'm all ears as to what the proper "context" of the Access Hollywood tape was.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-gets-new-2020-challenger
You mean the vast majority in this country? Do you mean the swing voters? This is the game identitarians love to place, when something isn't in their favor that'll try yo break it into a group which they can down play it. Especially when it shows their elitism.