Well the deficits exploding - but not because of the 9/11 Responders but because of the Republican tax scam they unilatererally passed which also has endangered health care for millions leading to Republicans try to destroy the ACA in court.
The justice department abandoned defending it in court because why not right, and in their handpicked court location they have Conservative judges overhearing arguments about how since Republicans zeroed out the tax part of the ACA during the Tax Scam and so they are saying the whole thing should be tossed because Roberts approved the ACA narrowly on it being a tax. Which again is not like his gerrymandering decision that no challenge can ever be made to gerrymandering in Federal court.
Lastly - Any time anyone says that Leftwing media bias is poisoning the country, it's important to remember that talk radio and locally syndicated news media are absolutely dominated by conservative sources. Cable new media is more left than right, when you add the other forms of media... it quickly balances out (I'm think Rush Limbaugh has a larger audience than CNN does, for example).
It's not just "dominated" by conservative voices, it is (no hyperbole) from a statistical standpoint, for all intents and purposes, 100% right-wing. There are currently two remaining liberal hosts who are even syndicated AT ALL on actual radio stations (Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller) and I'd be shocked if you could find even 20 stations they are NATIONALLY. Every significant liberal "radio" show is now almost exclusively online or a SINGLE channel on SiriusXM. I am pretty much an expert on this subject because of how much AM radio I have listened to over the years. And I cannot even BEGIN to describe how conservative it is. People are shocked by Trump?? They wouldn't have been if they'd spent any time in a car listening to ANY talk station the last two decades. 24/7/365. The people who claim liberal media bias and leave out radio, which EVERYONE who owns a car gets for FREE, is missing so much of the plot it isn't even worth discussing the issue with them. Liberal radio is non-existent. Getting a liberal station in 2019 to tune in on your car radio while driving across the country would be like spotting a saber-tooth tiger.
At Trump's rally tonight, the chants about Hillary have been replaced with chants of "send her back" in regards to Ilhan Omar. Whatever else you think of her, she was a Somali refugee who came here at the age of two. The people in this crowd are calling for nothing less than having your CITIZENSHIP stripped from you if you disagree with them, and then (seemingly) a forced exile. Can we put to bed the idea that Hillary was even REMOTELY wrong about her deplorables comment?? But I'm sure we're just "taking them out of context". These people who so garishly wear their so-called patriotism on their sleeve understand next to NOTHING about what this country is supposed to be, and actively despise so many people in it that they literally don't want them to be allowed to live here anymore. Shit, in Omar's case, it isn't even ostensibly because she doesn't support America enough, it's because she doesn't support ISRAEL enough, which apparently is now an official 51st state or something. Everything I've ever said about hardcore Trump supporters, harsh as it is, has been too kind by half. They are nothing but authoritarians who would follow Trump into the absolute abyss. And some food for thought:
Are we a 'democracy' or not? Democracy is a double-edged sword. It's great if the masses are for you, but it's oppressive if it's not. What's the fix? I want to hear what everybody thinks what should be done if the majority doesn't agree with your feelings of what is 'right' or 'moral'. Is that enough to shitcan 'democracy'? Both sides seem to think so in current America. Is democracy itself in question now? Maybe it's time to rethink democracy itself. Does anybody have a valid alternative? Is a 51-49 or a 52-48 majority enough to ignore the minority? Just wondering what folk here think. I actually respect everybody's view on this thread so I want feedback from everyone, American or not...
I agree that tyranny of the majority is an inherent problem with democracy, but I'm not sure that's entirely fixable . Alternative governing systems have their own serious flaws (exemplified in that Churchill quote: "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"). Tinkering with democracy to provide minority protections also causes as many problems as it solves (like the basis of Senate representation in the US we've talked about a lot).
I think the best means to provide protection against tyranny of the majority is a cultural one - to make it the norm to respect other people. Changes to laws and regulations may help that cultural process, but they cannot be enough on their own. That's pretty clear in the US at the moment where Trump is ignoring laws (both domestic and international) and constitutional protections - for instance around the treatment of immigrants. Ultimately any rules can be ignored or removed if the prevailing culture permits that.
That is why the current political culture in the US is so dangerous to democracy. Trump is deliberately pushing an agenda of us and them - if you're not for 'us', you're one of 'them' and not worthy of any consideration. There's always been an element of that in the party political system (which I know you're not a great fan of), but the extent to which that agenda has been pushed in the last few years does seem different to me. It's not so long ago that the cultural norm for a President was that they should govern on behalf of the whole country. That norm has been so strong in the past that one of the 4 historical criticisms of a President by Congress I posted about yesterday was solely because a President was accused of favoring his own party. It seems to me that norm has now been pretty much destroyed. It's absolutely clear that no-one expects Trump to avoid taking sides (though in reality the only 'side' Trump really supports is himself) and there are increasing calls for Democrats to 'fight fire with fire' and follow the same extreme partisan approach to governing. In that situation I don't think either side wins - everyone, apart from a few of the current governing elite, would be worse off.
CNN is now bringing on " White Supremacist " Richard Spencer. Oy vey.
Yeah, another prime example of "liberal media bias", when CNN invites on an AVOWED white nationalist who has advocated for a "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and led a "Hail Trump" victory rally to offer his take on the current situation. This is why liberals laugh and scoff at the idea that the media is on their side.
There is no liberal media bias. Conservatives cry about liberal media bias to "game the refs". You cry and whine about imaginary slights and they overreact in the other way and the next thing you know Richard Spencer is on CNN .
There is bias sure but it's not liberal bias. It's establishment bias, pro-corporate bias. Fox News doctors every story on purpose. CNN doesn't do that.
Liberal Bias is a made up identity politics bullcrap made up by conservative double-think strategists.
The reason Spencer was brought on is because he wanted to air his "dissatisfaction" with Trump. CNN fell for that hard troll too.
CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever. Fact.
Say all you want about Trump but CNN is the lowest of the low, smutt, clickbait, opinionated dross.
Op pieces are NOT journalism. Opinions are not journalism. Colour commentary is not journalism. Unnamed sources are not journalism. One way panels are not journalism. Bigoted panelists are not journalists.
Fox is the same way, just wish people would stop defending these divisive forms of media. They are all owned by the same Elite. Wake up.
The reason Spencer was brought on is because he wanted to air his "dissatisfaction" with Trump. CNN fell for that hard troll too.
CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever. Fact.
Say all you want about Trump but CNN is the lowest of the low, smutt, clickbait, opinionated dross.
Op pieces are NOT journalism. Opinions are not journalism. Colour commentary is not journalism. Unnamed sources are not journalism. One way panels are not journalism. Bigoted panelists are not journalists.
Fox is the same way, just wish people would stop defending these divisive forms of media. They are all owned by the same Elite. Wake up.
"CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever". Fact? No, not fact.
Have you ever heard Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? And the rest? They do nothing but opinionize which is telling you how and what to think.
They claim that people are dirty, invaders, and race baiting and on and on. They whine about immigrants, millennials, Democrats endlessly. They tell you what to fear, what to hate, and repeat it until it comes out of your mouth.
They are 100% a wing of the Republican party. Theres' no difference between Fox and Trump. They feed each other. They employ each other.
CNN and Fox are not the same. CNN is fairly worthless or harmful in their own right but Fox is literally hate for profit propaganda.
Also I might even suggest that when talking about Liberals and Conservatives in the US, we should label then as "American Liberals" and "American Conservatives". Others around the world do not share these peoples views or forms of politics, it's unfriendly and may trigger some people.
The rest of us on planet earth just want to get along. We've actually have had enough of America and would be better without it honestly.
The reason Spencer was brought on is because he wanted to air his "dissatisfaction" with Trump. CNN fell for that hard troll too.
CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever. Fact.
Say all you want about Trump but CNN is the lowest of the low, smutt, clickbait, opinionated dross.
Op pieces are NOT journalism. Opinions are not journalism. Colour commentary is not journalism. Unnamed sources are not journalism. One way panels are not journalism. Bigoted panelists are not journalists.
Fox is the same way, just wish people would stop defending these divisive forms of media. They are all owned by the same Elite. Wake up.
"CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever". Fact? No, not fact.
Have you ever heard Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? And the rest? They do nothing but opinionize which is telling you how and what to think.
They claim that people are dirty, invaders, and race baiting and on and on. They whine about immigrants, millennials, Democrats endlessly. They tell you what to fear, what to hate, and repeat it until it comes out of your mouth.
They are 100% a wing of the Republican party. Theres' no difference between Fox and Trump. They feed each other. They employ each other.
CNN and Fox are not the same. CNN is fairly worthless or harmful in their own right but Fox is literally hate for profit propaganda.
Keep fighting the good fight my friend. Just let me know how it turns out for you. I hope your dog wins.
Also I might even suggest that when talking about Liberals and Conservatives in the US, we should label then as "American Liberals" and "American Conservatives". Others around the world do not share these peoples views or forms of politics, it's unfriendly and may trigger some people.
The rest of us on planet earth just want to get along. We've actually have had enough of America and would be better without it honestly.
That didn't use to be true but we're clearly watching the rapid decline of America as any kind of moral authority for anything. "Go back to your country" excused by lawmakers. That's like textbook obvious racism and workplace harrasment.
Had enough of America? Yeah I can see how we are wearing people's patience thin. We got Canadian Prime minister Trudeau needing to say that "here in Canada a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian." Every other world leader too had to be asked about the ignorance we are growing numb too here. And the stupid tarrifs ain't helping the image either. Nor is breaking our treaties and general ignorance and incompetence these days. Worse than usual. It was might embarrassing being an American under GW Bush this is worse.
You know the thought experiment : "What would I gave done in the early days of Nazi Germany, I wouldn't have let them round up my neighbors. I can't imagine how it happened there it could never happen here."
Trump's lying and gaslighting on this issue is flat-out sociopathic. I have NEVER seen anyone who lies so effortlessly about things that are verifiably untrue to anyone who has eyes and ears. And that is perhaps one of the most infuriating things about it. That he and his rallygoers are too cowardly to actually accept responsibility for what they say and do. With him and them, it's always something it clearly wasn't, it's always some disingenuous excuse. They don't even have the balls to stand behind their own views when confronted on them:
With him and them, it's always something it clearly wasn't, it's always some disingenuous excuse. They don't even have the balls to stand behind their own views when confronted on them:
Well it's good that he doesn't stand by those views but he does and will repeat them again. It would #bebest if he didn't begin this to begin with but he is a 70 something year old man and isn't going to charge his spots ever.
With him and them, it's always something it clearly wasn't, it's always some disingenuous excuse. They don't even have the balls to stand behind their own views when confronted on them:
Well it's good that he doesn't stand by those views but he does and will repeat them again. It would #bebest if he didn't begin this to begin with but he is a 70 something year old man and isn't going to charge his spots ever.
Of course he stands by them. His daughter in-law was LITERALLY warming the crowd up to say this before he even took the stage. I don't like to keep repeating myself, but THIS is why the lies about the inauguration size were not trivial. It was laying the groundwork for training people to not believe their own eyes and ears. The very first thing a cult does is convince you that everyone else in your life is lying to you. I'm positive you could convince a significant portion of that audience last night the entire thing never even happend. That is how far gone this is. I don't think we've seen even a 1/3rd of how bad these rallies are going to get next spring and summer.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rico is on the verge of collapse--large crowds of protesters calling for Rosello to resign after several members of his Cabinet were arrested in an FBI corruption probe and over 900 pages of texts/e-mails were published where he told the Financial Advisory Board to do something with itself that is anatomically impossible.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rico is on the verge of collapse--large crowds of protesters calling for Rosello to resign after several members of his Cabinet were arrested in an FBI corruption probe and over 900 pages of texts/e-mails were published where he told the Financial Advisory Board to do something with itself that is anatomically impossible.
Why look in Puerto Rico for corruption when there's so much in Washington? Was Trump sending Barr's FBI after his perceived political enemies again?
With his demands for personal loyalty and Barr's track record it's tough to take anything the justice department does as legitimate.
I don't think this FBI probe had anything to do with Trump--he pretty much ignores Puerto Rico, as do 99% of all the politicians in Washington, D. C. If Trump were going after a political enemy in Puerto Rico he would go after San Juan Mayor Cruz.
*laugh* Okay--locals are calling the document dump "RickyLeaks".
I don't think this FBI probe had anything to do with Trump--he pretty much ignores Puerto Rico, as do 99% of all the politicians in Washington, D. C. If Trump were going after a political enemy in Puerto Rico he would go after San Juan Mayor Cruz.
*laugh* Okay--locals are calling the document dump "RickyLeaks".
It has everything to do with him because he has Barr handpicked because he's loyal to Trump personally - not to the country.
Barr, loyal to Trump, decides where to do anything.
Last night at the white supremacist presidential rally he did attack Puerto Rico and Mayor Cruz. No slight no matter how minor is above him. His heart is filled with hate, it's the only thing fueling him in his old age.
The corruption probe in Puerto Rico seems legitimate to me. The focus on Barr should be how he influenced the end of the Cohen matter in SDNY. Once again, it is CRYSTAL clear given the information released today that Trump was only not charged with felony campaign finance violations because he is the President. If he was not, he would be facing no less than two felony charges right now in regards to this and obstruction. He is above the law, and William Barr will keep it that way.
There isn't a bigger William Barr critic on Earth than me, but there are tangible matters he is clearly influencing and I don't think this Puerto Rico FBI probe is one of them. Trump doesn't need a corruption probe to convince his supporters it was justified to abandon them after the hurricane, all he needs for that is their brown skin and the desire to make sure they "stay where they come from".
I'm starting to like Trump again after that chant. Honestly, really great stuff. The shrieking journos from all corners just makes it even better.
The only thing that would have made it better was if he didn't disavow it, but we've come to expect him to be only half-baked in that regard. His supporters said it because they meant it. They meant it, and it is the correct response. He should care as little to defend himself from the foaming-at-the-mouth hordes as they care about the concept of confirmation bias.
A few spicy comments could probably help him electorally anyway, if they are wisely timed.
I'm starting to like Trump again after that chant. Honestly, really great stuff. The shrieking journos from all corners just makes it even better.
The only thing that would have made it better was if he didn't disavow it, but we've come to expect him to be only half-baked in that regard. His supporters said it because they meant it. They meant it, and it is the correct response. He should care as little to defend himself from the foaming-at-the-mouth hordes as they care about the concept of confirmation bias.
A few spicy comments could probably help him electorally anyway, if they are wisely timed.
You believe American citizens should be shipped back to "where they came from" based on criticism or policy differences. This doesn't surprise me an OUNCE. Will rail to hell and back about censorship by private companies, but will openly advocate expulsion from the country for not being right-wing enough. Of course, you'll say it's all about the "luls", that it's just A+ trolling. It's not, and what's more, is you KNOW it isn't. You believe immigrant citizens who "complain" should go back where they came from, and that the President of the United States should advocate this. I once defended you in an argument you had with @ThacoBell when you were called disingenuous. I'll be damned if I'll ever make that mistake again. If I get a suspension or ban for this comment, so be it.
@WarChiefZeke Can you please explain to me what you mean by "the correct response"?
It feels a tad too ironic to try defending myself after I said Trump shouldn't defend himself, but i'm not a public figure, so i'll bite. I think it's defendable both literally and figuratively, although I believe they mean figuratively, as in the oft-repreated phrase among boomercons that "if you don't like this country, leave.". Not deportation by law or anything.
But in regards to literally, there is evidence that Omar committed migration fraud via marriages. At least, that is the theory anyway, because she simply isn't answering any questions about it. Politifact, surprisingly, did a write up here, so you can judge for yourself. While I make no claims as to the truth of this, although it seems obvious to me that *something* weird is going on there, it's been a popular story on the right for awhile, so it wouldn't surprise me that most people who care enough to go to a rally would know this stuff. I don't care if you are a Congressperson or a farm worker, your citizenship should be revoked and you should have to reapply, after a certain time period for a penalty, if you commit fraud. You should, quite literally, be deported.
As for figuratively, the only objections I can really see are the BlueCheck JournoWoke charges of closet racism. The concept of "go back to your original country if you don't like the one you moved to" is racially neutral. This is a meaningful and coherent statement independent of race. In fact, it doesn't even imply it. So is "the country you originally came from sucks, and this one is great". You can, in fact, apply this concept to the whole of his statements.
To say these statements are inherently racist, as virtually every shrieking journo i've seen has done, requires motive-seeking on their part beyond the content of the statements themselves, which is why I said they care so little of confirmation bias. They think it is because they believe, very strongly, that he is, and there is virtually no convincing them otherwise, and no reason to really try.
Some people are also saying that Trump wants to f**k his daughter and raped a 13-year old girl. Media can neither confirm nor deny this.
Also, do some CURSORY research before you talk about her citizenship. She became a citizen at 17. Even if these stories were 110% true, they start when she is 19. There is NO crime she would have committed that can possibly be dealt with by deportation. What in the everloving hell are you even talking about?? It took me all of 5 minutes to research what WOULD be cause for revoking the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. But then again, it's probably easier to just take it straight from Steven Crowder's mouth:
Naturalized citizens cannot lose their citizenship except in rare cases and quite limited circumstances:
1.) If your citizenship was derived through military service, it can be revoked upon a dishonorable discharge after a general court-martial.
2.) Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 5 years of naturalization, the U.S. government proved you joined a subversive group. Such groups include Al Qaeda and the Nazi Party, for example.
3.) Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 10 years of naturalization, you refused to testify before a U.S. congressional committee investigating your involvement in an allegedly subversive act. Subversive acts include trying to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the government.
4.) If you lied or concealed relevant facts in order to obtain U.S. citizenship, your citizenship could be revoked. This is called illegally procuring citizenship.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Unless you know about a time-machine that can teleport people between between the ages of 17 and 19, even assuming EVERY fever-swamp theory from Townhall.com is correct, what you claimed about her is simply flat-out dead wrong. All it would have required is a.) looking at her Wikipedia page to find out when she became a citizen and b.) doing a Google search of "having your citizenship stripped" to find out what the circumstances of that are. But who has time for that shit, right?? And even though I shouldn't even dignify the claims with hypotheticals, again, even if she was 100% guilty of what she is being accused of in right-wing circles, she would have only, at an absolute MAXIMUM helped someone ELSE illegally procure citizenship. Which, you will notice, is nowhere on the list of the 4 things that would revoke someone's citizenship and be cause for deportation. I would have honestly hoped this would have been even SLIGHTLY harder to debunk, because this was just shooting fish in barrel. But I suppose it's only fitting that the prevailing motive and theory about this on the right would literally require the collapse of the time/space continuum to fall into place.
As for figuratively, the only objections I can really see are the BlueCheck JournoWoke charges of closet racism. The concept of "go back to your original country if you don't like the one you moved to" is racially neutral. This is a meaningful and coherent statement independent of race. In fact, it doesn't even imply it. So is "the country you originally came from sucks, and this one is great". You can, in fact, apply this concept to the whole of his statements.
To say these statements are inherently racist, as virtually every shrieking journo i've seen has done, requires motive-seeking on their part beyond the content of the statements themselves, which is why I said they care so little of confirmation bias. They think it is because they believe, very strongly, that he is, and there is virtually no convincing them otherwise, and no reason to really try.
C - Trump was one of the key pushers of the concept of Birtherism, which was a fundamentally racist concept that Obama had been born in Kenya. He has now told 4 separate people (of color) to "Go back to where you came from". Three of them were born in the United States. The other migrated when she was 2. This looks and sounds a lot like birtherism 2.0
D - Evidence that more than just journalists think his statements are racist:
Also. Just a reminder. You're the one who complained about how politifact isnt a source worth using. Now you're using it (again) to support your arguments but refuse to acknowledge it when others do.
These comments remind me why I find replying so tedious. Trying to "gotcha" me with something I didn't claim to be true, when I am elaborating on the mindset of the average hardcore MAGAbot, the stories that circulate there that are as popular as RussiaGate here, or simply twisting my words beyond comprehension (literally only journalists believe this- really? there are obviously left wing people). If I believe something myself i'll just say it, rather than making disclaimers to the contrary, or in regards to wild reaches, i'll just speak it plainly. I do appreciate the effort though.
Just a little rebuttal of your point C. Two of those people are not really 'people of color' and one is marginal. People of color has traditionally been reserved for African heritaged people (not even really North African, thus Somalia is debatable) and I really think it's counter-productive to extend this to other ethnicities where it doesnt apply. I realize that this is just my opinion but I'm sorry, when did Latinos and Middle Easterners become 'people of color'? I think it's race-baiting to the extreme to group all four of them together as one...
Edit: I can't prove this, but if one of the 'Squad' was Chinese or Vietnamese, I still think Trump would have said the same damned thing. Would Asians then be considered ' people of color' in order to make the same case?
These comments remind me why I find replying so tedious. Trying to "gotcha" me with something I didn't claim to be true, when I am elaborating on the mindset of the average hardcore MAGAbot, the stories that circulate there that are as popular as RussiaGate here, or simply twisting my words beyond comprehension (literally only journalists believe this- really? there are obviously left wing people). If I believe something myself i'll just say it, rather than making disclaimers to the contrary, or in regards to wild reaches, i'll just speak it plainly. I do appreciate the effort though.
You SPECIFICALLY posted the article with the caveat you believed she should be deported IF it were true. So we get the Sarah Palin defense, where pointing out a blatant inaccuracy is viewed as some kind of dirty pool. I poured concrete around the goalposts this time, you won't find them so easy to shift as you might be used to. If we're gonna have this debate, you should know by now I'm not the same kind of easy pickings a 20-year old gender studies major who spends slightly too much time worrying about pronouns is. That said, this is getting too heated, and I'm logging off for the night before I get in any more trouble than I already have.
But for the record, let me state why so many on the left are coming to her defense, and are bigger fans of her than even AOC. 1.) She was the ONLY person who was willing to call Elliott Abrams out for what he was when he appeared before the House committee, which is a war criminal who is directly responsible for many of the problems in South America that have caused the refugee influx. 2.) She is standing on a frickin' ISLAND as the only person in either party willing to actually call out our absurd defense funding and, for all intents and purposes, fealty to the nation of Israel. She is doing so DESPITE knowing that as a Muslim she is not only going to get raked over the coals for doing so, but is likely putting her own life in danger given the climate Trump is creating (where last night he basically painted her as an honorary member of Al Qaeda). In the crudest terms, she has more balls than every male House Democrat combined.
Comments
The justice department abandoned defending it in court because why not right, and in their handpicked court location they have Conservative judges overhearing arguments about how since Republicans zeroed out the tax part of the ACA during the Tax Scam and so they are saying the whole thing should be tossed because Roberts approved the ACA narrowly on it being a tax. Which again is not like his gerrymandering decision that no challenge can ever be made to gerrymandering in Federal court.
It's not just "dominated" by conservative voices, it is (no hyperbole) from a statistical standpoint, for all intents and purposes, 100% right-wing. There are currently two remaining liberal hosts who are even syndicated AT ALL on actual radio stations (Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller) and I'd be shocked if you could find even 20 stations they are NATIONALLY. Every significant liberal "radio" show is now almost exclusively online or a SINGLE channel on SiriusXM. I am pretty much an expert on this subject because of how much AM radio I have listened to over the years. And I cannot even BEGIN to describe how conservative it is. People are shocked by Trump?? They wouldn't have been if they'd spent any time in a car listening to ANY talk station the last two decades. 24/7/365. The people who claim liberal media bias and leave out radio, which EVERYONE who owns a car gets for FREE, is missing so much of the plot it isn't even worth discussing the issue with them. Liberal radio is non-existent. Getting a liberal station in 2019 to tune in on your car radio while driving across the country would be like spotting a saber-tooth tiger.
I agree that tyranny of the majority is an inherent problem with democracy, but I'm not sure that's entirely fixable
I think the best means to provide protection against tyranny of the majority is a cultural one - to make it the norm to respect other people. Changes to laws and regulations may help that cultural process, but they cannot be enough on their own. That's pretty clear in the US at the moment where Trump is ignoring laws (both domestic and international) and constitutional protections - for instance around the treatment of immigrants. Ultimately any rules can be ignored or removed if the prevailing culture permits that.
That is why the current political culture in the US is so dangerous to democracy. Trump is deliberately pushing an agenda of us and them - if you're not for 'us', you're one of 'them' and not worthy of any consideration. There's always been an element of that in the party political system (which I know you're not a great fan of), but the extent to which that agenda has been pushed in the last few years does seem different to me. It's not so long ago that the cultural norm for a President was that they should govern on behalf of the whole country. That norm has been so strong in the past that one of the 4 historical criticisms of a President by Congress I posted about yesterday was solely because a President was accused of favoring his own party. It seems to me that norm has now been pretty much destroyed. It's absolutely clear that no-one expects Trump to avoid taking sides (though in reality the only 'side' Trump really supports is himself) and there are increasing calls for Democrats to 'fight fire with fire' and follow the same extreme partisan approach to governing. In that situation I don't think either side wins - everyone, apart from a few of the current governing elite, would be worse off.
CNN is now bringing on " White Supremacist " Richard Spencer. Oy vey.
Yeah, another prime example of "liberal media bias", when CNN invites on an AVOWED white nationalist who has advocated for a "peaceful ethnic cleansing" and led a "Hail Trump" victory rally to offer his take on the current situation. This is why liberals laugh and scoff at the idea that the media is on their side.
There is bias sure but it's not liberal bias. It's establishment bias, pro-corporate bias. Fox News doctors every story on purpose. CNN doesn't do that.
Liberal Bias is a made up identity politics bullcrap made up by conservative double-think strategists.
CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever. Fact.
Say all you want about Trump but CNN is the lowest of the low, smutt, clickbait, opinionated dross.
Op pieces are NOT journalism. Opinions are not journalism. Colour commentary is not journalism. Unnamed sources are not journalism. One way panels are not journalism. Bigoted panelists are not journalists.
Fox is the same way, just wish people would stop defending these divisive forms of media. They are all owned by the same Elite. Wake up.
I hope you are not mispartying me with that comment. I suggest you check your Political Privilege.
"CNN are the biggest bigots and race baiters on the air ever". Fact? No, not fact.
Have you ever heard Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? And the rest? They do nothing but opinionize which is telling you how and what to think.
They claim that people are dirty, invaders, and race baiting and on and on. They whine about immigrants, millennials, Democrats endlessly. They tell you what to fear, what to hate, and repeat it until it comes out of your mouth.
They are 100% a wing of the Republican party. Theres' no difference between Fox and Trump. They feed each other. They employ each other.
CNN and Fox are not the same. CNN is fairly worthless or harmful in their own right but Fox is literally hate for profit propaganda.
Also I might even suggest that when talking about Liberals and Conservatives in the US, we should label then as "American Liberals" and "American Conservatives". Others around the world do not share these peoples views or forms of politics, it's unfriendly and may trigger some people.
The rest of us on planet earth just want to get along. We've actually have had enough of America and would be better without it honestly.
Keep fighting the good fight my friend. Just let me know how it turns out for you. I hope your dog wins.
That didn't use to be true but we're clearly watching the rapid decline of America as any kind of moral authority for anything. "Go back to your country" excused by lawmakers. That's like textbook obvious racism and workplace harrasment.
Had enough of America? Yeah I can see how we are wearing people's patience thin. We got Canadian Prime minister Trudeau needing to say that "here in Canada a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian." Every other world leader too had to be asked about the ignorance we are growing numb too here. And the stupid tarrifs ain't helping the image either. Nor is breaking our treaties and general ignorance and incompetence these days. Worse than usual. It was might embarrassing being an American under GW Bush this is worse.
You know the thought experiment : "What would I gave done in the early days of Nazi Germany, I wouldn't have let them round up my neighbors. I can't imagine how it happened there it could never happen here."
Well that's not so abstract anymore is it?
No, in general describing Fox News/Conservatives propaganda strategy.
Well it's good that he doesn't stand by those views but he does and will repeat them again. It would #bebest if he didn't begin this to begin with but he is a 70 something year old man and isn't going to charge his spots ever.
Of course he stands by them. His daughter in-law was LITERALLY warming the crowd up to say this before he even took the stage. I don't like to keep repeating myself, but THIS is why the lies about the inauguration size were not trivial. It was laying the groundwork for training people to not believe their own eyes and ears. The very first thing a cult does is convince you that everyone else in your life is lying to you. I'm positive you could convince a significant portion of that audience last night the entire thing never even happend. That is how far gone this is. I don't think we've seen even a 1/3rd of how bad these rallies are going to get next spring and summer.
Why look in Puerto Rico for corruption when there's so much in Washington? Was Trump sending Barr's FBI after his perceived political enemies again?
With his demands for personal loyalty and Barr's track record it's tough to take anything the justice department does as legitimate.
*laugh* Okay--locals are calling the document dump "RickyLeaks".
It has everything to do with him because he has Barr handpicked because he's loyal to Trump personally - not to the country.
Barr, loyal to Trump, decides where to do anything.
Last night at the white supremacist presidential rally he did attack Puerto Rico and Mayor Cruz. No slight no matter how minor is above him. His heart is filled with hate, it's the only thing fueling him in his old age.
There isn't a bigger William Barr critic on Earth than me, but there are tangible matters he is clearly influencing and I don't think this Puerto Rico FBI probe is one of them. Trump doesn't need a corruption probe to convince his supporters it was justified to abandon them after the hurricane, all he needs for that is their brown skin and the desire to make sure they "stay where they come from".
The only thing that would have made it better was if he didn't disavow it, but we've come to expect him to be only half-baked in that regard. His supporters said it because they meant it. They meant it, and it is the correct response. He should care as little to defend himself from the foaming-at-the-mouth hordes as they care about the concept of confirmation bias.
A few spicy comments could probably help him electorally anyway, if they are wisely timed.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/453441-trump-sees-support-from-republicans-rise-after-go-back-tweets
You believe American citizens should be shipped back to "where they came from" based on criticism or policy differences. This doesn't surprise me an OUNCE. Will rail to hell and back about censorship by private companies, but will openly advocate expulsion from the country for not being right-wing enough. Of course, you'll say it's all about the "luls", that it's just A+ trolling. It's not, and what's more, is you KNOW it isn't. You believe immigrant citizens who "complain" should go back where they came from, and that the President of the United States should advocate this. I once defended you in an argument you had with @ThacoBell when you were called disingenuous. I'll be damned if I'll ever make that mistake again. If I get a suspension or ban for this comment, so be it.
It feels a tad too ironic to try defending myself after I said Trump shouldn't defend himself, but i'm not a public figure, so i'll bite. I think it's defendable both literally and figuratively, although I believe they mean figuratively, as in the oft-repreated phrase among boomercons that "if you don't like this country, leave.". Not deportation by law or anything.
But in regards to literally, there is evidence that Omar committed migration fraud via marriages. At least, that is the theory anyway, because she simply isn't answering any questions about it. Politifact, surprisingly, did a write up here, so you can judge for yourself. While I make no claims as to the truth of this, although it seems obvious to me that *something* weird is going on there, it's been a popular story on the right for awhile, so it wouldn't surprise me that most people who care enough to go to a rally would know this stuff. I don't care if you are a Congressperson or a farm worker, your citizenship should be revoked and you should have to reapply, after a certain time period for a penalty, if you commit fraud. You should, quite literally, be deported.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jul/18/did-ilhan-omar-marry-her-brother-her-hometown-news/
As for figuratively, the only objections I can really see are the BlueCheck JournoWoke charges of closet racism. The concept of "go back to your original country if you don't like the one you moved to" is racially neutral. This is a meaningful and coherent statement independent of race. In fact, it doesn't even imply it. So is "the country you originally came from sucks, and this one is great". You can, in fact, apply this concept to the whole of his statements.
To say these statements are inherently racist, as virtually every shrieking journo i've seen has done, requires motive-seeking on their part beyond the content of the statements themselves, which is why I said they care so little of confirmation bias. They think it is because they believe, very strongly, that he is, and there is virtually no convincing them otherwise, and no reason to really try.
Also, do some CURSORY research before you talk about her citizenship. She became a citizen at 17. Even if these stories were 110% true, they start when she is 19. There is NO crime she would have committed that can possibly be dealt with by deportation. What in the everloving hell are you even talking about?? It took me all of 5 minutes to research what WOULD be cause for revoking the citizenship of a naturalized citizen. But then again, it's probably easier to just take it straight from Steven Crowder's mouth:
Naturalized citizens cannot lose their citizenship except in rare cases and quite limited circumstances:
1.) If your citizenship was derived through military service, it can be revoked upon a dishonorable discharge after a general court-martial.
2.) Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 5 years of naturalization, the U.S. government proved you joined a subversive group. Such groups include Al Qaeda and the Nazi Party, for example.
3.) Your citizenship could be revoked if, within 10 years of naturalization, you refused to testify before a U.S. congressional committee investigating your involvement in an allegedly subversive act. Subversive acts include trying to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the government.
4.) If you lied or concealed relevant facts in order to obtain U.S. citizenship, your citizenship could be revoked. This is called illegally procuring citizenship.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Unless you know about a time-machine that can teleport people between between the ages of 17 and 19, even assuming EVERY fever-swamp theory from Townhall.com is correct, what you claimed about her is simply flat-out dead wrong. All it would have required is a.) looking at her Wikipedia page to find out when she became a citizen and b.) doing a Google search of "having your citizenship stripped" to find out what the circumstances of that are. But who has time for that shit, right?? And even though I shouldn't even dignify the claims with hypotheticals, again, even if she was 100% guilty of what she is being accused of in right-wing circles, she would have only, at an absolute MAXIMUM helped someone ELSE illegally procure citizenship. Which, you will notice, is nowhere on the list of the 4 things that would revoke someone's citizenship and be cause for deportation. I would have honestly hoped this would have been even SLIGHTLY harder to debunk, because this was just shooting fish in barrel. But I suppose it's only fitting that the prevailing motive and theory about this on the right would literally require the collapse of the time/space continuum to fall into place.
Why you're wrong:
A - Federal statutes specifically reference that saying "Go back to where to came from" is a form of discrimination. So no; It's more than just journalists. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-law-go-back-came-from-discrimination_n_5d2e815de4b085eda5a390cc
B - Trump explicitly said that where they came from were on the verge of failure in his tweets. So the idea that it's somehow a neutral statement is patently absurd. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/14/741630889/congresswomen-denounce-trump-tweets-telling-them-to-go-back-to-their-home-countr
C - Trump was one of the key pushers of the concept of Birtherism, which was a fundamentally racist concept that Obama had been born in Kenya. He has now told 4 separate people (of color) to "Go back to where you came from". Three of them were born in the United States. The other migrated when she was 2. This looks and sounds a lot like birtherism 2.0
D - Evidence that more than just journalists think his statements are racist:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/trump-tweet-response-2019
Also. Just a reminder. You're the one who complained about how politifact isnt a source worth using. Now you're using it (again) to support your arguments but refuse to acknowledge it when others do.
Just a little rebuttal of your point C. Two of those people are not really 'people of color' and one is marginal. People of color has traditionally been reserved for African heritaged people (not even really North African, thus Somalia is debatable) and I really think it's counter-productive to extend this to other ethnicities where it doesnt apply. I realize that this is just my opinion but I'm sorry, when did Latinos and Middle Easterners become 'people of color'? I think it's race-baiting to the extreme to group all four of them together as one...
Edit: I can't prove this, but if one of the 'Squad' was Chinese or Vietnamese, I still think Trump would have said the same damned thing. Would Asians then be considered ' people of color' in order to make the same case?
From left to right - Brown, light brown, white, tan. Am I missing something???
You SPECIFICALLY posted the article with the caveat you believed she should be deported IF it were true. So we get the Sarah Palin defense, where pointing out a blatant inaccuracy is viewed as some kind of dirty pool. I poured concrete around the goalposts this time, you won't find them so easy to shift as you might be used to. If we're gonna have this debate, you should know by now I'm not the same kind of easy pickings a 20-year old gender studies major who spends slightly too much time worrying about pronouns is. That said, this is getting too heated, and I'm logging off for the night before I get in any more trouble than I already have.
But for the record, let me state why so many on the left are coming to her defense, and are bigger fans of her than even AOC. 1.) She was the ONLY person who was willing to call Elliott Abrams out for what he was when he appeared before the House committee, which is a war criminal who is directly responsible for many of the problems in South America that have caused the refugee influx. 2.) She is standing on a frickin' ISLAND as the only person in either party willing to actually call out our absurd defense funding and, for all intents and purposes, fealty to the nation of Israel. She is doing so DESPITE knowing that as a Muslim she is not only going to get raked over the coals for doing so, but is likely putting her own life in danger given the climate Trump is creating (where last night he basically painted her as an honorary member of Al Qaeda). In the crudest terms, she has more balls than every male House Democrat combined.