Once upon a time in a long ago land a
group of people dared to imagine a world where everyone had the
freedom to live their lives as they chose. It was one of the most
significant and creative endeavors ever attempted. It is still a
work in progress today.
While we argue among ourselves and
focus on our divisions we miss the whole point of that endeavor, which was to create a better world for ourselves and those who would join
us, either as new citizens of our country, or as representatives of a
democratic set of ideals in their home countries.
It was to create hope for a world that
was in many places shrouded in darkness.
In 2008 J.K. Rowling gave the
commencement address at Harvard. Her words are a reminder of the power that is within all of us, if we only imagine.
Happy 4th of July everyone!
109 comments:
Imagination is right.
The Pilgrims did not come to America seeking "a world where everyone had the freedom to live their lives as they choose". They were seeking land in which their cramped version of Christianity could reign supreme, as the law of the land, to be imposed on non-believers by the force of their new State as necessary.
Neither did the Founding Fathers seek freedom for "everyone". The entrenchment of slavery in the Constitution speaks for itself. The exclusion of the actual Americans, the indigenous people, from membership in the new American nation was enshrined at Article 1 §§ 2 and 8 (later overruled by the 14th Amendment).
America did finally grow into a nation in which "people dared to imagine a world where everyone had the freedom to live their lives as they chose," but that was very much a development post Civil War.
(Remember this the next time a judge from out of the Federalist Society ruminates on being "an originalist" who thinks the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it would have meant to the Founding Fathers.)
America was imagined up, but our America was only clearly imagined after a bloody civil war, the remnants of which stalk us to this very day. But, you are right about still being very much a work in progress.
America did finally grow into a nation in which "people dared to imagine a world where everyone had the freedom to live their lives as they chose," but that was very much a development post Civil War.
I agree.
America as a place of equality is a dream, and still a work in progress. Yes, we had to fight a civil war that nearly tore us apart to actually start to achieve that dream. But if the founding fathers had tried to reach for that dream at the start the new nation would never have held together. We need to pick our battles when we have a chance of winning. As you pointed out not all people held the dream of equality and they would, and eventually did, fight tooth and nail to retain their control. They lost that battle back then, although they still raise their ugly, well coiffed, heads from time to time. It is up to those who really do hold the dream of equality to continue on with the fight.
David Ignatius writing in the Washington Post reminds us that women were also excluded from participation in the beginning; this in the process of assuring us that the the nation we have forged in this last century or so is strong enough to survive the blip that is Trump.
Still, 4 more years for Trump is my prediction at this point in time. Not that he's accomplished much about anything, he hasn't. But the field of Dems currently running is just such a batch of garbage I think Trump will remain POTUS.
If Oprah ran she would beat Trump hands down, no question about it. But Buttleak, Harris, Old Joe and the rest of that sorry pack - nope, sorry to say it, it'll be Trump until 2024. Tulsi might could beat him, but she will never be the apointee.
And I'm not even sure the Donald wants it all that much. But the guy that he is he will do everything he can not to lose. He hates losing and cannot stand being seen as a loser so he will go all out to win even if he hates the job.
"4 more years for Trump is my prediction at this point in time."
I think that's highly unlikely. Right now I'd predict a landslide against Trump for whomever the Democrats get around to nominating. And that's not just I'm so wanting him gone either--that's a reasoned prediction.
Authors here suggest that, post Rucho, the Democrats must now join the partisan gerrymandering game. I disagree. I still believe non-partisan redistricting is the way to go. But, they provide a view of how bad it can now get. (Gets that bad I'll be changing my mind about how to fight it, but I currently think that pressing for non-partisan redistricting is the way to go.)
Justin Amash.
Will he hurt Trump if he runs in 2020 as a Libertarian candidate? While he has worked with Democrats and is ardently anti-Trump would he pull votes from the Freedom Caucus and conservative elements? Or could he pull in some misguided Democratic voters?
6.4 magnitude earthquake in California and multiple after shocks.
There is always speculation on whether or not something like this is a prelude to the Big One.
"Will he hurt Trump if he runs in 2020 as a Libertarian candidate?"
Probably, probably marginally. It's widely believed that Ralph Nader's slice of the vote was enough to put Bush into office in 2000, when he lost to Gore. (I'm assuming you meant "runs for President in 2020". Amash could run for his current seat in the House as an independent or libertarian.)
Yes, I as talking about if he ran for President.
I did not catch any of the 4th of July celebration they put on in Washington. I kind of forgot about it. Once I heard Trump was going to speak I kind of tuned it out.
I don't know if they're rightly called "aftershocks" when the second earthquake is bigger than the first one.
It sounds like there have been around 700 aftershocks after the second earthquake of 7.1. Some of those aftershocks may not have been felt.
Lee: "Right now I'd predict a landslide against Trump for whomever the Democrats get around to nominating."
I dunno. I don't think "at least he/she is not Donald Trump" is going to cut it in the general election. We're talking about a batch of crazies here, egging eachother on to get even crazier during the primaries.
Did you see during the first debate that every single one of them wants to give free healthcare to illegal aliens? I mean seriously, that is just batshit nuts. The American taxpayer is just supposed to foot the healthcare bill for anyone on earth who just manages to stride across yall's wall-less border? I refuse to believe that can be a popular policy.
And whatever the cause, Trump or not, the economy is doing fine. Both on Wallstreet and Mainstreet. Jobs are up, unemployment down. Then there comes some leftist lunatic with a backpack full of taxes and regulations and runs solely on not being Bad Orange Man and infinity immigration?
I just don't see it happening.
Lee: "And that's not just I'm so wanting him gone either--that's a reasoned prediction."
Yes, but you kinda live in a bubble and need to consider the fact that the polls you hear about in the news that you watch or read might very well be fake polls presented to you by fake news. You know, like last time around.
"Did you see during the first debate that every single one
of them wants to give free healthcare to illegal aliens?"
No. I saw where they'd expand ObamaCare to cover illegal aliens. But, ObamaCare's not free--it's purchased on government "exchanges".
"…the economy is doing fine."
Yep, and the historical examples all say Trump should get reëlected handily with the economic situation being what it is. But, they also say his job approval rating should be ten points higher than it is with the economic situation being what it is.
"You know, like last time around."
The polls actually had it about right last time. They showed Hillary winning by 2-4%. She won the popular vote by 2% plus a little. That's fairly accurate polling. (Your sources are seemingly careful to conceal this basic truth from you.)
It was the analysis that broke down last time. The guys making the predictions didn't allow for the fact that Hillary would win the popular vote by 2%+ but lose the electoral vote. (Maybe they just didn't wanna see it, as you suggest.)
But, we've now had two Republicans in a row elected President with a minority of the popular vote. Turns out Bush wasn't just a once in ten times fluke. (Now, 2%+; that's a fluke.) But, now it's happened twice in a row. I think the guys making the predications have finally learned to allow for the systemic advantage Republicans enjoy.
We have some budget bills coming due next few months. I'm reading that the Trump administration will run out of money to spend in mid-September and need to have the debt limit raised. Then late September-early October the government financing bills expire (shutdown the government stuff). Looks like this year the two will not come due at the same time, but the debt limit will have to be raised first.
This may actually make it easier to raise the debt limit. They'll be able to tell their people that the more important fights come later in the process--when the appropriations are actually approved. (The Republicans' deficit hawks have turned out to be shadow hawks after all.)
Don't mean it's gonna make it easier to get a budget approved, so we may wind up with the debt ceiling raised and the government shut down anyway on account of they can't agree what to spend the borrowed money on.
Lee: "But, ObamaCare's not free--it's purchased on government "exchanges"."
Blahdiblah, in the end the taxpayer pays, right? Or is the money just conjured up in some lefty-loonie imaginary fantasy land? They tried that once, and it was called the Soviet Union and didn't end well.
Nothing is for free, and you have a whole batch of left-wing nutjobs all promising free healthcare for infinity immigrants.
No borders, abolish ICE, let erryone in and give infinity gibs to keep 'em happy. Don't tax the multinational coorporations (donors) but tax evil whypiple holding jobs and trying to maintain small businesses.
OK, let's see where that gets ya.'
"Blahdiblah, in the end the taxpayer pays, right?"
In the beginning and in the end, the customer pays. They purchase the policies (or don't--Trump dropped the penalty for not purchasing policies to $0).
Some customers get government subsidies to assist them with paying for the policy. I didn't notice anybody raising their hand in response to a question about whether they'd extend the subsidies to cover illegal immigrants (on account of that question was not asked).
Lee: "It was the analysis that broke down last time. The guys making the predictions didn't allow for the fact that Hillary would win the popular vote by 2%+ but lose the electoral vote."
I call bullshit!
Erryone knew Trump had no chance to win the popular vote. He didn't even campaign in NY and Cali because he knew those very populous states were a no go.
BUT: the polls had him losing in basically all of the swing states that he won to carry the election. That had nothing to do with the popular vote. The polls were wrong, and most likely because they were fake polls to begin with. Presented to you by fake news outlets.
"…and you have a whole batch of left-wing nutjobs all
promising free healthcare for infinity immigrants."
I think we only had the one--Bernie Sanders. There were several advocating "Medicare for All" but most of them meant that non-Medicare patients should be able to "buy in" to Medicare coverage--not free. (Couple of them may have hoped it would be assumed they meant "free" when they never said any such thing, leaving them deniability later.)
"…the polls had him losing in basically all of the
swing states that he won to carry the election."
That would be a grand total of three (3) out of fifty (50). And, he won those three by a grand total of 77,000 votes for the three of them. That's about enough people to fill up a mid-sized college stadium.
And, the truth of the matter is, state-wide polls have never been as accurate as national polls, on account of they just don't do enough of them to get a good handle on the idiosyncrasies of the individual states. Even so, what they missed wasn't Trump's basic level of support; what they missed was that Hillary's voters just didn't turn out to vote. (She spent a whole lot of money on what turned out to be a very poorly run 'get-out-the-vote' program.)
Looking at your rant there (@ 12:09:00 pm ↑↑), I'm gonna havta guess you've been watching FoxNews (or the Swedish equivalent) exclusively.
I think you're maybe in for a real surprise when the real world invades your space come election day.
But look at the candidates!
I mean I could see Sleepy Joe 20 years ago when he was less sleepy. But now? No.
And Pocahontas? I mean, are you for real? Do you really think that wagon-burning white woman wannabe Indian is ever gonna get elected Preznit?
Buttleak is excused on his last name alone, and he's a complete doofus to boot.
Harris. I mean I can't see many whites voting for a woman with such a visceral hatred of them except maybe Lynnette and a few other cat-ladies. In 20 years when Merica is majority brown, maybe, but not today.
I get that Trunmp is not well liked, outside the Boomer Breitbart circle that is not in majority. He SHOULD be easy to beat.
If you had a Bill Clinton or an Obama then it would be a no-brainer. Trump would lose. But what you've got is a pack of rabid communists or straight out idiots. I mean Bernie is the sanest of the front runners, and Tulsi the only really sane person at all - and that's why she's running last probably.
You need to pull a rabbit outta a hat or you're stuck with Trump.
Lee: " That's about enough people to fill up a mid-sized college stadium."
And oh boy did he, Trump, fill those stadiums! While crooked Hillary wabbled up and down the stairs of her airplane, sometimes fainting, to get to her lobster dinners with wallstreet donors.
Bootigieg's last name is no worse for politics than Obama--Barack Hussien Obama, as you may recall.
The rest of your rants are likewise off target.
"And oh boy did he, Trump, fill those stadiums!"
And yet he still lost the election by 2%+ (won the electoral college, but lost the election)
That's happened exactly that one time. There is precedent for a minority President, (used to happen 'bout one time outta ten) but, up until the fluke that is Trump, those all came in at less than 1% differential.
Lynnette, can you PLEASE turn off the spam filter on this blog. There are four people on earth even visiting here. You, me, Lee and maybe Pete.
Still when I aim to post a comment I get these spam filters saying "select the number of images with cars" and I do so and it comes back:
"select the number of images with cars"
"select the number of images with cars"
"select the number of images with cars"
"select the number of images with bicycles"
"select the number of images with bicycles"
"select the number of images with bicycles"
"select the number of images with traffic signs"
"select the number of images with traffic signs"
"select the number of images with traffic signs"
"select the number of images with traffic signs"
"select the number of images with traffic cars"
It's just soooo tiresome.
I don't bother to select anything. I just ignore it all and hit the "Publish…" button, and it goes through.
(You may need to allow the "Blogger" cookie and Blogger javascript.)
Lee: I'm gonna havta guess you've been watching FoxNews (or the Swedish equivalent) exclusively."
I don't watch TV news, ever. TV news is for boomers and idiots. People who can't even be bothered to read their news but let themselves be spoonfed by the boob tube are not to be taken seriously.
"I don't watch TV news, ever."
Hmmmm… And yet you somehow seem to get some important, and fairly basic facts wrong anyway.
"Erryone knew Trump had no chance to win the popular vote."
By the way, Trump still claims that he did win the popular vote, on account of… Not everybody knew that, some (like Trump) still refuse to admit it.
You think so Lee. It's kinda funny actually that I, from the other side of the Atlantic, seems to have a better reading of the pulse of everyday America than you do.
Trump will win in 2020. And he'll do so because of the backlash against him prompteed the Dems to field insane left wingers in thge presidential race. If they had found a sane centrist he/she would have beaten Trump. But nope, your best hope today is sleepy Jow, and he's just too sleepy to even snooze his wayb through the generals. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
If Oprah or Michell Obama entered the race at a late stage that could be a game changer. But as it stands today Trump wins.
I don't think the "Sleepy Joe" moniker is gonna stick. Remember that prediction! It'll be an important indicator that you are, in fact, not getting a "better reading".
(Don't mean Trump will give up on it easy--he hates to admit to missing those shots, but I think this one's definitely gonna prove to be a miss. "Nervous Nancy" didn't ring true either, just for what it's worth.)
And then, of course, there's the problem of Trump never did get his Great Wall. That's now tied up in the federal courts waiting the Supreme Trumpkins to swat that down for final (they may wait until after Trump loses the 2020 election, but ain't much chance they'll actually let him do that "executive order" nonsense).
Lee: "Don't mean Trump will give up on it easy--he hates to admit to missing those shots, but I think this one's definitely gonna prove to be a miss.
Won't be a miss, cause he'll hammer it down. Biden's got NO chance against the Donald. None whatsoever. If that's the sleepy snoozer you got your hopes pinned on then prepare for loss.
Hmmm...I think the spam filter is a Blogger thing. I looked and there isn't an option in settings to turn it off. I'm logged in on this computer so I don't see the filtering.
Testing
I see what you mean. It's the Anonymous choice that brings that up.
If you have a Google account and post under that you shouldn't have a problem.
Congratulations to the US women's soccer team for winning the World Cup!
(I suspect another sports team that will not be visiting the White House.)
Seems to be the "Blogger profile" that hangs it up for me. I removed the Blogger cookie and it wouldn't let me post (even though I left the Google cookies on there).
Jeh Johnson Director of Homeland Security under Obama, writing in the Washington Post on the need to resume efforts to improve the situation in the "Northern Triangle" area from which the current crop of refugees originate.
First, high volumes of illegal immigration on our Southern border (and the tragic overcrowding at holding centers that follows) cannot be truly solved unless we make the long-term investment to reduce poverty and violence in Central America. Congress and the Obama administration began with an investment of $750 million in 2016, but the yearly investment has decreased since, and Trump has now suspended it altogether. This is the exact wrong thing to do. State and Homeland Security officials have told me the modest assistance so far was starting to make a difference.
Doing the wrong thing is something Trump is good at.
The Ambassador from the UK who called him and his administration "inept" was merely being factual.
"The Ambassador from the UK who called [Trump] and his
administration 'inept' was merely being factual."
Theory running in first place is that those cables were leaked to allow the new British Prime Minister (assumed to be Boris Johnson) to recall the current Ambassador and appoint a new one who'll be loyally pro-Brexit. (Johnson is of the same party as the outgoing Theresa May, and so replacement of the Ambassador was not a "given" as it would have been if a competing party were to win the election.)
William Barr, our Attorney General, has said that there is a legal way to include the citizenship question near and dear to Trump's heart on the 2020 census form. Mr. Barr has not enlightened anybody as to what that might be.
Nevertheless, Trump is expected to issue a "memorandum" instructing the Commerce Department to add the census question to the forms that may or may not already be running off the printing presses. ABCNews There is no hint yet whether or not Barr will share his new idea with any of the lesser federal courts. But, presumably, whatever is Barr's Big Idea will have to be shared with the Supreme Court when this question manages to get back before them. (And it will get back there if they try to put that question on the 2020 census again.)
I am thinking that if for some reason that question gets on the census I will consider not answering it on the basis of the Supreme Court's verdict, which I feel is the definitive judgement.
(And because Trump's motive for putting it on the form is political. And because he's a jerk.)
Then they'll send somebody to your house to ask in person.
(At this point I think they're just engaging in the show to keep Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson happy.)
In a move most of the media apparently did not see coming, the Federal Fifth District Court of Appeals is apparently on the brink of declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety. CBSNews
This is gonna be great fun, coming right in the beginning of the Presidential campaign.
Lynnette: "If you have a Google account and post under that you shouldn't have a problem."
No I won't be doing that. I guess I would still be quite easy to identify but more and more i get a kinda quaesy feeling about all this personal information these completely unregulated private coorporations gather about each and every one of us.
If I was truly paranoid I would use Tor and the Brave browser going through a VPN tunnle on a Linux PC, but I don't do that. I still use a Windows and Google Chrome but I won't be registering for anything. I mean, if the NSA has issues with me then I'm fucked anyway (not likely, I'm far from that important), but I don't want any fucker of a leftist journo to be able to pinpoint me and dig upp whatever I've ever said online.
well, onto more interesting things:
This whole Epsteine pedo-sex-ring thingy, what do ya'll think of that? I hope for massive fallout BC I think many, many in the top tier are just psychopathic degenerates.
Kinda like in the Catholic church. Where pedo boy-fuckers in high positions covered for their ilk in lower positions. And where pedo boy-fuckers were elevated because of their buggery tendencies.
It would be so-so-so sweet if Epstein just blew the lid on all of his former party friends. And yes I say that even if Trump was one of them.
But I have to say, I don't really see Trump as being in the pedo crowd. He for sure would've fucked hookers but they would be nubile women of legal age, is my reading of the Donald.
Bill though... I am very keen to know about his 27 rides on Lolita Airways and his visits to the Island he claim never to have visited....
I hope this whole thing blows right the fuck up!
"…even if Trump was one of them."
Won't matter to the dedicated Trumpkins. They'll either maintain denial as am article of faith, or they'll accept it and move on, still dedicated to Trump.
In a move most of the media apparently did not see coming, the Federal Fifth District Court of Appeals is apparently on the brink of declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional in its entirety. CBSNews
This is gonna be great fun, coming right in the beginning of the Presidential campaign.
I don't think I'd want to be allied with the politician who takes away health insurance for a large number of Americans. I'm also thinking that if a large number of Americans find themselves without health insurance they may start to rethink universal health insurance.
Yeah, this will be great fun right before the start of the Presidential campaign.
I don't want any fucker of a leftist journo to be able to pinpoint me and dig upp whatever I've ever said online.
I don't think you have to worry, Marcus. Journalists, left or right wing, have bigger fish to fry.
Well, the Iranians tried to snatch a British oil tanker. I think in some places that would be called piracy. Unfortunately for them there was a British warship in the area that intervened.
They really are jumping up and down in an effort to garner attention from...someone.
Trump screwin' with their Ambassador. The Iranians screwin' with their oil tankers. Bad week for the Brits. Enemies all around.
Writer (name I don't recognize), writing in TheDailyBeast argues that Mueller was not merely timid, but negligent to the point of incompetence.
Lynnette: "I don't think you have to worry, Marcus. Journalists, left or right wing, have bigger fish to fry."
I'm not talking CNN or FOX here but our local rags. And they do like to hang folks in public for non-PC speach online. Admittedly I'm a small fish but even so I take some precations, no Facebook, no registration on sites I make comments.
We don't have the same freedom of speach as ya'll have (had?) and people do get fired from their jobs here, and sometimes even prosecuted, if they say non-PC stuff online. And during my history on this blog I've said some non-PC stuff.
On that subject: I think ya'll need an Internet "Bill Of Rights".
The big Internet kinda monopolies like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and of course their more powerful parent coorporations should be made by law to respect freedom of speach.
Yes they are private companies, but they only exist in a taxpayer paid infrastructure. Facebook exists on the Internet but the tax-payer paid for the cables and whatnot that is the backbone of the Internet.
So IMO Facebook should not be allowed to shut down any account if the person behind the account never said anything illegal. This great shuttening going on right now where people like Alex Jones are being de-platformed is really worrysome.
Matteo Salvini, the Greatest politician in Europe for several decades, even surpassing Orban in greatness, has singlehandedly decreased immigation into Italy by a whopping 97%.
People were fond of saying "it can't be done" but of course it could always be done, it was only ever a question of will.
We have "UN obligations", well break them, renegotiate them.
What can we do? They come in boats onto our shores? Well, deny those boats entry and prosecute the human smugglers running them ships. Salvini, the HERO, has done just that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48920235
What we really need to do is to start sinking those Soros sponsored human trafficing ships. And no, not with the migrants on them, but when they're en route to pick up new migrants. Every one on the ship at that point is a humen trafficker, and they deserve to drown, so we need to sink their ships.
Prolly we only have to sink one or two and the whole affair will be finished BC so called "humanitarians" are only really in it for the money and for likes in Social media and if there's a real possibility they have to pay the ultimate toll they will back the fuck down. Good deal to be had there.
"…we need to sink their ships."
Who's this "we" to whom you refer here? Who gonna be preëmptively sinking ships headed south across the Mediterranean?
Will Trump defy the Supreme Court?
In the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last month rejecting the Trump administration's reason for adding a citizenship question to the census as merely a pretext and "contrived," President Trump is contemplating the unthinkable: issuing an executive order instructing the Census Bureau to move forward with printing the forms including the citizenship question that the Supreme Court rejected.
I'll be back later to check the comments...
"Will Trump defy the Supreme Court?"
I suppose he might. I'm trying to think of an historical example of presidential defiance of the Court which would match a Trump order to include the question anyway. Best I can come up with is Andrew Jackson's refusal to enforce a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Cherokee (issued during their ongoing efforts to keep the State of Georgia from stealing all the Cherokee lands within the state.) But, even that wouldn't match this, which would be an overt act, rather than Jackson's omission--his failure to act.
Personally, I don't think he'll actually order the inclusion of the question on the census form itself, but will probably order a supplemental page to carry the question. (An effort to avoid having the Supreme Court hold him in contempt, the least concession he can think of, but a concession nonetheless. But, if he gets away with this one he'll just try again to see how far he can push it. The election is coming up, and he's already thinking about being how his favored world leaders have avoided their own term limits, Putin Xi, and then Trump--why not? Or so his thinking will likely go.)
And, in that imaginary land where FoxNews gathers its headlines: Trump is not backing down on his crusade to have an accounting of all illegal immigrants in the United States. He's now issued an "executive order" that all illegal immigrants who've already been counted, be deemed as having been counted. It is great and wondrous news throughout FoxNews land. Trump wins again!
We don't have the same freedom of speach as ya'll have (had?) and people do get fired from their jobs here, and sometimes even prosecuted, if they say non-PC stuff online. And during my history on this blog I've said some non-PC stuff.
A remnant of the wild wild west that was Zeyad's comments section.
I have always felt that readers can judge the merit of someone's commentary on their own. I have only deleted one person's comments, and that was only the one time.
[Lynnette]: Will Trump defy the Supreme Court?
[Lee]: I suppose he might.
It looks like he backed down. Someone probably warned him that the Democrats were waiting with baited breath for him to provide concrete proof to the American people that he really is a dictator wanna be.
"Someone probably warned him that the Democrats were waiting…"
The Republican Senate wasn't gonna convict him on that one. And he wasn't worried about the House Democrats voting to impeach and then having to watch Mitch McConnell and his cohorts just sit on it, vote to just ignore it. No, he wasn't worried about that.
He may have worried about Chief Justice Roberts slapping him down (making him look weak). He may have worried about the Democrats getting mileage out of it with the independents during his 2020 reëlection campaign.
Probably he was just counting on FoxNews telling his dedicated Trumpkins that he'd won another one--glory to the Dear Leader. And they came through for him there (Thu Jul 11, 09:36:00 pm ↑↑), so he was just banking his win.
Today is the day that Trump's immigrant expulsion program is supposed to hit the streets.
Everybody's forgotten that he promised to be exporting "millions" of illegal immigrants. Gonna be a couple thousand maybe.
Little misdirection and he wins the PR battle once again.
They seem to be giving the raids coverage on CNN, mentioning the 2,000 figure, but I doubt Trump's dedicated followers watch that channel.
Trump has revisited the birther argument. This time using it on some Democratic Congresswomen who he tweeted should go back to their country of origin. Never mind that only one wasn't born here.
"…Democratic Congresswomen who he tweeted should go back to
their country of origin."
This after he tried to "support" Nancy Pelosi against charges of racism (wholly unjustified charges by the way; that girl's gonna step in it too deep to just shake it off if she ain't careful). He's trying to inflame the tension amongst the Democratic House, but he screwed it up and all he did was remind them he's still out there, which banded them together again against the very idea of Trump.
Yeah, I saw that. Sometimes things are so obvious it's just hard to understand how Trump can't see. Is he really that blind? Or is he just so wrapped up in himself that he can't see how others will feel?
As for the feud going on between the Democrats, Pelosi is smart. AOC would do well to listen to her more, instead of talking so much. Activism in government may not get you exactly what you are looking for if it is handled unwisely.
"Or is he just so wrapped up in himself…"
That would be it.
"AOC would do well to listen to her more…"
AOC stands a good chance of being a one term wonder. She's apt to get primaried, and maybe lose it.
In the meantime, however, Trump has ratcheted up his rhetorical assault on ‛AOC’ and her ‛squad’. I think he may have misread this one. The Democrats think they've got him solid, lookin' like the racist he is. He thinks he can ramp up the rhetoric and yet avoid the label. I don't think so. (Not that it matters to his dedicated Trumpkins; they already know he's a racist--in fact that's part of his appeal to most of them.)
But, he needs to be able to ratchet it up another level tomorrow, because the Democrats are not backin' off of this one. Will he be able to do that? Does he have an even higher level he's willing to display in public?
"A small number of coordinated federal raids targeting undocu-
mented migrant parents and their children took place over the
weekend…
"Only a handful of arrests appeared to take place, and they were
reported in just a few cities. That was much different than the
nationwide show of force that had originally been planned…
"The plans for the operation were changed at the last minute
because of news reports that had tipped off immigrant communities
about what to expect, according to several current and former
Department of Homeland Security officials."
NewYorkTimes
Not to belabor the obvious, but "news reports that had tipped off immigrant communities" appears to be Trumpspeak for passing off the blame for public announcements the Trump administration had been trumpeting all last week.
(The dismal results of the ICE raids may have something to do with Trump's new crusade against the colored gals of ‛the squad’; change of subject, as it were.)
And, Trump IS trying his best to ratchet up the rhetorical war with the ‛squad’, and the Democrats in general. (Better to have that on the front pages than reviews of his latest round of immigrant raids.)
This morning's Trumptweets re: his rhetorical war with the ‛squad’. ↑↑
I'm starting to wonder if Trump hasn't put his finger on exactly what is wrong with America.
President Trump's critics may not like to admit it, but there's an element of truth in the racist tweets he sent this weekend.
Trump told four nonwhite Democratic congresswomen that they should "go back" to the "crime infested places" where they came from, even though three of the four were born in the US and the fourth is a naturalized citizen.
Critics pounced. But in some ways those four lawmakers -- Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley -- really do belong to another country.
In one America, people react with shock when a President issues vile racist tweets against women lawmakers. In the other America, people say nothing.
Sadly, there is an America who believes as Trump does. They are the same America that created the Japanese internment camps in WWII.
Also the same America which launched the last Iraq War (2003 to date). However, I thought the mess they'd made of that one had finally relegated them to permanent exile from the White House. George W. Bush himself speculated that he very likely would be the "last Republican President".
However, in what I still consider the death rally of that political tradition, they have brought forth Trump.
And Trump opens the morning with more rants about those Democratic Congresswomen. Trumptweets He's intent on making them the ‛face’ of the Democratic Party if he can.
Also the same America which launched the last Iraq War (2003 to date).
I think it's morphed into more than that. Say what you will about George W. and the Iraq War, but he has never exhibited the level of racist xenophobia or hatred of women that Trump and his followers have.
He's intent on making them the ‛face’ of the Democratic Party if he can.
Probably. It is his way of dividing us.
"Say what you will about George W. and the Iraq War…"
No, Dubya had a list of flaws, but racism was most definitely not among them. However, Cheney's American ‛Exceptionalism’ did have an element of bigotry woven into it.
Meantime, Representative Al Green (Democrat--Texas), has managed to force a vote on impeachment by a procedural technicality related to the vote to denounce Trump's racist Twitter feed, probably to be held this afternoon.
It's almost certainly gonna fail. Pelosi and her gang ain't there yet.
Trump's stadium audience began chanting "Send her back".
That might have been a step too far even for Trump had not his hard-core stadium supporters gone enthused with it.
It won't be any too far for him now.
The hard-core, dedicated Trumpkins may now be energized beyond even Trump's imagination.
(But, keep in mind that this movement got out of hand for the Republican "establishment" and they're hard pressed to keep abreast of it. And then it even got away from FoxNews, which now'days has to struggle to try to keep a façade out in front of it.)
"Europe ‘will become Muslim if refugees don’t go home’, Dalai Lama says"
https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/28/europe-will-become-muslim-if-refugees-dont-go-home-dalai-lama-says-10084745/
The US is likely en rout to become an Aztec hellscape where they sacrifice children to appease the sun-God and violent gangs roam the streets... oh wait...
"Nearly all of the members and associates of an MS-13 gang charged in the “medieval-style” slayings of seven people in California were in the country illegally, officials said. [...] Of the 22 defendants, 19 had entered the country illegally in the past three or four years, according to Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Los Angeles."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ms-13-gang-members-indicted-california-slayings-illegal-immigrants-killings
They are really just good boys though, dreamers who will enrich the USA with their vibrant culture and save yall's pensions. And to stop them at the border would have been another Holocaust, if Bad Orange Man did it at least.
"The US is likely en rout to become an Aztec hellscape where
they sacrifice children to appease the sun-God and violent gangs
roam the streets..."
'Cept, of course, that they got caught. Ain't likely they'll be en route to expanding their "Aztec hellscape" into North America until they get around that limiting characteristic.
140K new ones per week now Lee. Bound to be at least 1000 or so would-be or will-be gangbangers among them, probably WAY more. But I guess you're happy with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador emptying their populations into the US? It's bound to get VIBRANT!
"140K new ones per week now Lee."
Only in your dreams; that's a fantasy figure. And all reliable studies show that illegal immigrants, except for the fact that entering illegally is prosecuted as a misdemeanor now'days whereas it used to be considered a civil infraction…, except for the illegal entry, they're less likely to commit criminal offenses than are homegrown American citizens. They're less VIBRANT! than what we already got.
You need to get real before you can be effectively scary.
Lee: "And all reliable studies show that illegal immigrants, except for the fact that entering illegally is prosecuted as a misdemeanor now'days whereas it used to be considered a civil infraction…, except for the illegal entry, they're less likely to commit criminal offenses than are homegrown American citizens."
Yeah, the second generation is usually the worst when it comes to crime, followed closely by the third. I guess the initial immigrants often have a semblance of gratitude, or at least want to lay low for a while.
That said. I confess I'm not all that well read on YOUR immigrant situation. It's possible you still get vibrancy, cultural enrichment, and payers of future pensions through all this influx. I doubt it, but I'm not an american, I don't live in America and I haven't even visited for... about 12 years now. So maybe you DO handle this well, IDK.
I know WE don't. I know my aunt, who lives in a neighborhood that was used to be called "cane city" for all the elderly that lived there, doesn't dare go out past 4PM in winter and 6PM in summer because of all the "gangs" there now. And I know who them "gangs" are. Fucking hazaras who belong in the deserts or mountains of Afghanistan and now are here, reaving, raping and robbing.
Why in the greatest fuck of fucks should I care one iota for their plight when their presence here cause MY OWN KIN to sit cooped up in an apartment too afraid to go out? Tell me that.
I just want 'em all out. Is that hard to understand?
Lynnette:
"I have always felt that readers can judge the merit of someone's commentary on their own. I have only deleted one person's comments, and that was only the one time."
Prolly one of my rants.
A question for you, Lynnette and Lee:
Do you feel that the Dalai Lama is a hateful bigot for saying that Europe deserves and should stay European and that a massive influx of moslems and Africans is a threat to that and that most of the ones who do enter shoudl eventually be made to go back home?
BC that's what he says is: Europe is for Europeans (which really means, white people of christian background) and we should not take in massive numbers of arab moslems or africans (he seems to take both the religous/cultural aspect as well as the racial into this debate). And that if we do allow such people shelter for humanitarian reasons, then it should be aimed at being temporary and the goal should be for them to go back home.
That is what the Dalai Lama says. Plain and simple.
Do you agree with him? Or is he a hateful bigot?
I guess also, that if you disagree with the Dalai Lama that you encourage Han-Chinese immigration into Tibet, displacing the tibetian majority. I mean, them Han-Chinese not only bring vibrancy and a new culture inti Tibet but a boost in the Tibetian GDP. So it must be good for the tibetians, right?
"Yeah, the second generation is usually the worst when
it comes to crime…"
That is, perhaps, Sweden's experience. But, I been tellin' ya for years now that you're doin it wrong (‛you're' being plural in that instance--including the rest of Sweden, and not just you.) You do the integration wrong, you're gonna get bad results.
"That is what the Dalai Lama says. Plain and simple."
If the Dalia Lama had said all that ‛plain and simple’ you'd be quoting where he said that, not trying to expound on what he actually did say to make it mean what you want it to mean.
In a surprise bit of public backtracking, Donald Trump is now saying he "didn't agree" with the "Send her back!" chants that he smiled on during his last political stadium rally in North Carolina. Politico It appears he's been takin' a little heat from the congressional Republicans who've gotta run on the same ballot with him this next time.
However, Cheney's American ‛Exceptionalism’ did have an element of bigotry woven into it.
I wasn't ever really a Dick Cheney fan.
Trump's stadium audience began chanting "Send her back".
That might have been a step too far even for Trump had not his hard-core stadium supporters gone enthused with it.
In a surprise bit of public backtracking, Donald Trump is now saying he "didn't agree" with the "Send her back!" chants that he smiled on during his last political stadium rally in North Carolina.
He's backtracked before when it was expedient to do so. I think the real Trump is the one that was perfectly okay with his followers yelling "send her back".
They justify it by saying if you don't love America you can leave.
What they are really saying is if you don't envision an America based on their "exceptionalism" then you can leave.
What they don't understand is that the real American exceptionalism was all inclusive.
Back later...
I notice that the Trumpian disavowal of the "Send her back!" chant is getting limited play on FoxNews. It's limited to a brief mention on the sidebar of their main page---last entry, dead last entry at the bottom of the left sidebar. They ain't makin' a big deal of it over at FoxNews.
[Lynnette]: I have always felt that readers can judge the merit of someone's commentary on their own. I have only deleted one person's comments, and that was only the one time.
[Marcus]: Prolly one of my rants.
No, actually, it was Zeyad.
CBSNews tells us that Beto O'Rourk is dropping in the polls, cratering in fund raising and yet hiring campaign staff.
This strikes me as a probable example of a candidate having been captured by his own campaign. His campaign workers are working on getting paid in a hurry, before the money runs out. And if it runs out fast enough they can even hope to have time to sign on with a still running campaign before the widespread Democratic field drops down the real contenders.
All indications out of the White House are that Trump has been taught about the optics of the "Send her back!" chant and how it's not a good look, even for Trump.
I'm wondering though… Next time he gets on a stadium roll that seems to be be flagging, will he be able to resist going for it? Does he have even that minimal self-discipline?
This especially for Marcus: TheAtlantic, not an especially long piece by Atlantic standards.
It seems to me to be a fair reading of the polling indicators. Fair means it's obviously not a pro-Trump spin piece, but neither does the author seem as convinced as I am that Trump's lost too much of his already slim (but passionate) support base.
It should explain to Marcus why the sugar-high economy probably isn't enough to get Trump reëlected.
The relationship between the US and MS-13 is rather circular. They are our creation and it is we who exported their violence to their home countries via deportation. That they would attempt to come back to the US should come as no surprise. But to label all of the immigrants/migrants coming to the US as gang members or criminals is to turn a blind eye to the ordinary people who are just seeking a better life for their families. Lumping them all together is a cruel policy that our dear leader seems to have no problem with.
A little MS-13 history.
On a sweltering afternoon, an unmarked white jetliner taxies to a remote terminal at the international airport here and disgorges dozens of criminal deportees from the United States. Marshals release the handcuffed prisoners, who shuffle into a processing room.
Of the 70 passengers, at least four are members of Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, a gang formed two decades ago near MacArthur Park west of the Los Angeles skyline.
For one of them, Melvin “Joker” Cruz-Mendoza, the trip is nothing new. This is his fourth deportation -- the second this year.
Do you feel that the Dalai Lama is a hateful bigot for saying that Europe deserves and should stay European and that a massive influx of moslems and Africans is a threat to that and that most of the ones who do enter shoudl eventually be made to go back home?
To desire to preserve a culture, such as in Europe, is not bigoted. Everyone has a right to live as they choose, as long as that doesn't infringe on another's rights. Those who immigrate to Europe should respect the home culture. They do need to fit in when it comes to the basic value system of a society. But language, mode of dress, the name of the God they worship are superficial things that should not be reasons to "send them back" to their home country.
I would remind you, Marcus, that not too long ago Europe spawned an extreme governmental systemic oppression of innocent people that led to mass murder. No one is without blemish.
And, yes, that includes the United States. Native Americans can attest to that.
I'm wondering though… Next time he gets on a stadium roll that seems to be be flagging, will he be able to resist going for it? Does he have even that minimal self-discipline?
I don't think that Trump has ever met the term "self-discipline".
It should explain to Marcus why the sugar-high economy probably isn't enough to get Trump reëlected.
A sugar high can deflate at the most inopportune time.
"I don't think that Trump has ever met the term 'self-discipline'."
It further occurs to me that Mueller's public testimony is expected next week. Days full of headlines about how Trump is a racist could be an effective counter-programming strategy for him. (After all, Trump is a racist isn't really new knowledge; even his dedicated Trumpkins already know.)
All indications out of the White House are that Trump has been taught about the optics of the "Send her back!" chant and how it's not a good look, even for Trump.
I'm thinking you jumped to that conclusion too soon. It appears that Trump is now supporting all of those at the rally who were shouting send them back, saying they are true patriotic Americans.
"I'm wondering though…will he be able to resist going for it?"
Lee C. @ Fri Jul 19, 09:56:00 am ↑↑
Didn't take long to get an answer. I don't think he lasted a day.
Post a Comment