by Ugh
The President is horrible. His Attorney General is horrible. His press secretary is horrible. ICE is horrible. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are horrible. The GOP is horrible.
Also, too, horribly racist. The GOP is the party of Sarah Palin on her worst day now.
I mean, fnck.
Open thread………………….
Update the First: Big Business continues to be horrible too.
Update Boogaloo: The American appetite for cruelty continues to amaze.
Read that one of course, and alluded to it in the other thread.
“Most of the women I know are as heartsick about the obscene actions taking place at the borders as I am. I think a year ago we would have been out on the streets, were the government stealing the children of asylum-seekers and refugees and sending them halfway across the country or stacking them up like lumber in detention facilities. But today, I worry, we are horrified but numb. We want to be told what to do.”
I don’t have that authoritarian mindset.
Read that one of course, and alluded to it in the other thread.
“Most of the women I know are as heartsick about the obscene actions taking place at the borders as I am. I think a year ago we would have been out on the streets, were the government stealing the children of asylum-seekers and refugees and sending them halfway across the country or stacking them up like lumber in detention facilities. But today, I worry, we are horrified but numb. We want to be told what to do.”
I don’t have that authoritarian mindset.
I don’t think Sessions has had a new thought cross his mind since at least the ’80s.
I don’t think Sessions has had a new thought cross his mind since at least the ’80s.
I don’t have that authoritarian mindset.
I think it’s fair to say that nobody here has that authoritarian mindset. Not the people I agree with; not the people I disagree with.
Not that many (most? all?) of us wouldn’t mind getting to be the authoritarian, in order to deal with some of what we see are obvious problems. Definitely including you, Bob.
I don’t have that authoritarian mindset.
I think it’s fair to say that nobody here has that authoritarian mindset. Not the people I agree with; not the people I disagree with.
Not that many (most? all?) of us wouldn’t mind getting to be the authoritarian, in order to deal with some of what we see are obvious problems. Definitely including you, Bob.
As we are all aware, the Wall Street Journal has been one of Trump’s cheerleaders. So this may be notable:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-trump-a-how-to-guide-1516303402
And this is from one of his fans!
As we are all aware, the Wall Street Journal has been one of Trump’s cheerleaders. So this may be notable:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/talking-to-trump-a-how-to-guide-1516303402
And this is from one of his fans!
“I don’t think Sessions has had a new thought cross his mind since at least the 1880s.”
FIFY
“I don’t think Sessions has had a new thought cross his mind since at least the 1880s.”
FIFY
Snarki, you took the words right out of my…keyboard? You could even say the 1780s.
And quibbling snarkily, or snarking quibblingly, I don’t think he’s actually ever had a “new” thought at all. It’s all the same old racist, bigoted, white supremacist shit it’s always been.
Snarki, you took the words right out of my…keyboard? You could even say the 1780s.
And quibbling snarkily, or snarking quibblingly, I don’t think he’s actually ever had a “new” thought at all. It’s all the same old racist, bigoted, white supremacist shit it’s always been.
Janie, I think you have to admit that Sessions doesn’t limit his bigotry to racism. He’s strong on that, but his range is definitely broader. Given time, for example, look for him to take a shot at rolling back women’s suffrage — not a top priority, but certainly something worth doing as opportunity presents.
Janie, I think you have to admit that Sessions doesn’t limit his bigotry to racism. He’s strong on that, but his range is definitely broader. Given time, for example, look for him to take a shot at rolling back women’s suffrage — not a top priority, but certainly something worth doing as opportunity presents.
Janie, I think you have to admit that Sessions doesn’t limit his bigotry to racism
“Who’s a denyin’ on it, Betsy Prig?”
(If it’s random movie quotes that pop into ugh’s head [see his 6/7 post], it’s random literary references that pop into mine. And miraculously enough in this case, Google knows.)
Janie, I think you have to admit that Sessions doesn’t limit his bigotry to racism
“Who’s a denyin’ on it, Betsy Prig?”
(If it’s random movie quotes that pop into ugh’s head [see his 6/7 post], it’s random literary references that pop into mine. And miraculously enough in this case, Google knows.)
I thought Boo Radley done lacerated Session’s racist confederate and purely republican spleen with a shiv in the woods in To Kill A Mockingbird once and for all.
It never fucking stops in pigfucking republican America.
Offing Clinton seems a sideshow, but if it shows the vermin murderous subhuman right that we mean business, then proceed. Both sides, they say. Ok, then, right-wing cucks, it’ll be both sides if that makes you feel better when slaughter comes your way like a zombie tidal wave.
Bannon and company used the term “cuck” to describe those on the left and the moderate right whose women succumbed to the big black Obama cock.
Mp was quoted the other day by Mila Brysinski spell it yourselves as regretting that living in the White House prevents him from watching porn.
Probably the cuckolding mattress pissing variety.
This presentation of shitfuck racism in the year of our Lord 2018 will be avenged with savage, unending violence.
Mp himself is reason for unending slaughter. We’ll skip the torture. It takes time, and mp wouldn’t be pleased with the expense to his cocksucking high-end taxpayers.
Heading for Brooklyn, as it happens, next Tuesday via subway from Manhatten to peruse old haunts.
Mp admires the servility rocket boy’s “people” accord the latter. I kind of like rocket boy’s butchering of his enemies, including family, at close range with anti-aircraft weaponry.
So stand up straight mp cucks when he addresses you as he did yesterday with his barrage of pigshit lies. Lick his balls.
I’m looking forward to that practice being adopted here, perhaps alongside the reflecting ponds in D.C, one republican after another, it will take years to finish the job, one dead fuck an hour. We’ll save mp for the last shell, maybe move the antiaircraft weapon a little closer.
I’m reading liberal Mark Lilla and conservative Patrick Deneen this trip.
All very well, but they have no idea what is required to kill this bug up the American ass.
I thought Boo Radley done lacerated Session’s racist confederate and purely republican spleen with a shiv in the woods in To Kill A Mockingbird once and for all.
It never fucking stops in pigfucking republican America.
Offing Clinton seems a sideshow, but if it shows the vermin murderous subhuman right that we mean business, then proceed. Both sides, they say. Ok, then, right-wing cucks, it’ll be both sides if that makes you feel better when slaughter comes your way like a zombie tidal wave.
Bannon and company used the term “cuck” to describe those on the left and the moderate right whose women succumbed to the big black Obama cock.
Mp was quoted the other day by Mila Brysinski spell it yourselves as regretting that living in the White House prevents him from watching porn.
Probably the cuckolding mattress pissing variety.
This presentation of shitfuck racism in the year of our Lord 2018 will be avenged with savage, unending violence.
Mp himself is reason for unending slaughter. We’ll skip the torture. It takes time, and mp wouldn’t be pleased with the expense to his cocksucking high-end taxpayers.
Heading for Brooklyn, as it happens, next Tuesday via subway from Manhatten to peruse old haunts.
Mp admires the servility rocket boy’s “people” accord the latter. I kind of like rocket boy’s butchering of his enemies, including family, at close range with anti-aircraft weaponry.
So stand up straight mp cucks when he addresses you as he did yesterday with his barrage of pigshit lies. Lick his balls.
I’m looking forward to that practice being adopted here, perhaps alongside the reflecting ponds in D.C, one republican after another, it will take years to finish the job, one dead fuck an hour. We’ll save mp for the last shell, maybe move the antiaircraft weapon a little closer.
I’m reading liberal Mark Lilla and conservative Patrick Deneen this trip.
All very well, but they have no idea what is required to kill this bug up the American ass.
Offing Clinton seems a sideshow, but if it shows the vermin murderous subhuman right that we mean business, then proceed.,
F you, Count. I know you don’t mean it, but we don’t need it.
Offing Clinton seems a sideshow, but if it shows the vermin murderous subhuman right that we mean business, then proceed.,
F you, Count. I know you don’t mean it, but we don’t need it.
So, I’m sitting in a cafe on the upper east side that has mp’s trademark feces name on it. Having a Guinness.
I’m such a hypocrite. But maybe it’s stalking instead.
Paul Simon is on the TV. There is no bomb in the baby carriage, but neither is there a baby in the baby carriage I have with me.
The 2016 election was stolen, as was 2000. Mp stood at the dais and requested that Russia fuck Clinton. It’s on tape.
Whether I fuck off or not, and maybe I will, the Republican Party needs to be shown resolute unending savagery from A to Z.
Don’t govern me. It will be a crime punishable by NRA supplied weaponry.
So, I’m sitting in a cafe on the upper east side that has mp’s trademark feces name on it. Having a Guinness.
I’m such a hypocrite. But maybe it’s stalking instead.
Paul Simon is on the TV. There is no bomb in the baby carriage, but neither is there a baby in the baby carriage I have with me.
The 2016 election was stolen, as was 2000. Mp stood at the dais and requested that Russia fuck Clinton. It’s on tape.
Whether I fuck off or not, and maybe I will, the Republican Party needs to be shown resolute unending savagery from A to Z.
Don’t govern me. It will be a crime punishable by NRA supplied weaponry.
Whether I fuck off or not, and maybe I will, the Republican Party needs to be shown resolute unending savagery from A to Z.
So, okay. I know [knew] people who have offed themselves. I knew them well and intimately. If you’re considering that, and I know that a lot of people that I love (and am angry at) do, please think again. It’s a selfish move. I know – we’re supposed to be compassionate and forgiving. But it’s a suicide bombing to people who love youl
I love my suicide people. But, no, I don’t forgive them.
Whether I fuck off or not, and maybe I will, the Republican Party needs to be shown resolute unending savagery from A to Z.
So, okay. I know [knew] people who have offed themselves. I knew them well and intimately. If you’re considering that, and I know that a lot of people that I love (and am angry at) do, please think again. It’s a selfish move. I know – we’re supposed to be compassionate and forgiving. But it’s a suicide bombing to people who love youl
I love my suicide people. But, no, I don’t forgive them.
Actually, I do forgive them. But it’s wrong, and don’t do it, and don’t talk about doing it.
Actually, I do forgive them. But it’s wrong, and don’t do it, and don’t talk about doing it.
And call the suicide line: 1-800-273-8255
And call the suicide line: 1-800-273-8255
Sapient, get a grip.
Abraham Lincoln was not a suicide. Jeff Sessions and mp of their day shot him in the head.
I’ll be alive to see them executed, whether it is accomplished through liberal rule of law or somehow accomplished via the preferred NRA republican way, via militia high school violence.
The fact that Mueller is a republican as is Rosenstein, this a reminder to Marty, is a little window for America to possibly survive in some agonizing, uneasy jerry-rigged version of itself, that bedtime story we tell each other.
I’ m living thru this. But thanks.
Sapient, get a grip.
Abraham Lincoln was not a suicide. Jeff Sessions and mp of their day shot him in the head.
I’ll be alive to see them executed, whether it is accomplished through liberal rule of law or somehow accomplished via the preferred NRA republican way, via militia high school violence.
The fact that Mueller is a republican as is Rosenstein, this a reminder to Marty, is a little window for America to possibly survive in some agonizing, uneasy jerry-rigged version of itself, that bedtime story we tell each other.
I’ m living thru this. But thanks.
Mp told the Japanese premier that he was going to ship 25 million Mexicans to Japan.
Fine. Japan should train them to be karaoke kamikazi pilots to attack and nuke 25 million sadistic vermin subhuman republicans in the American Nazi homeland.
Target Washington D.C.
America is a disgrace.
Kill it.
Mp told the Japanese premier that he was going to ship 25 million Mexicans to Japan.
Fine. Japan should train them to be karaoke kamikazi pilots to attack and nuke 25 million sadistic vermin subhuman republicans in the American Nazi homeland.
Target Washington D.C.
America is a disgrace.
Kill it.
dude, too much. thanks!
dude, too much. thanks!
Showing my secret true colors, I must announce my raw screaming fury at the total loss of the Glasgow School of Art Library in a second recent fire. This is one of the treasures of humankind, its glory, its only excuse or redeeming act, more irreplaceable because really not restorable, than the Mona Lisa, Parthenon, Taj Mahal.
Sprinklers would spoil the design? Can’t afford three night watchpersons, four dogs and a parakeet? Ask for volunteers. Alarms gauche?
Scotland has proven itself totally incapable of self-governance and should be reabsorbed into Britain with loss of all autonomy. I am still considering what collective punishment is appropriate for the Scots. There is no shame great enough, no pain adequate. Considering depopulation and transport.
You have no idea how serious I am.
Showing my secret true colors, I must announce my raw screaming fury at the total loss of the Glasgow School of Art Library in a second recent fire. This is one of the treasures of humankind, its glory, its only excuse or redeeming act, more irreplaceable because really not restorable, than the Mona Lisa, Parthenon, Taj Mahal.
Sprinklers would spoil the design? Can’t afford three night watchpersons, four dogs and a parakeet? Ask for volunteers. Alarms gauche?
Scotland has proven itself totally incapable of self-governance and should be reabsorbed into Britain with loss of all autonomy. I am still considering what collective punishment is appropriate for the Scots. There is no shame great enough, no pain adequate. Considering depopulation and transport.
You have no idea how serious I am.
“I am still considering what collective punishment is appropriate for the Scots. There is no shame great enough, no pain adequate”
Haggis.
“I am still considering what collective punishment is appropriate for the Scots. There is no shame great enough, no pain adequate”
Haggis.
Big Business continues to be horrible too.
Big business continues to be wonderful too. At least from my point of view.
“Stunningly, the EU flinched. ‘A campaign backed by French retailer Carrefour that called on the European Union to abandon restrictions on the sale of many different types of organic fruit and vegetable seed has apparently achieved a major breakthrough, following a decision by European agriculture ministers to relax EU-wide regulations that had been in place since 1981,’ FruitNet reported.”
A French Grocer Protested Stupid EU Food Regulations and Won: Carrefour used artful civil disobedience and smart marketing to challenge ridiculous regulations.
Big Business continues to be horrible too.
Big business continues to be wonderful too. At least from my point of view.
“Stunningly, the EU flinched. ‘A campaign backed by French retailer Carrefour that called on the European Union to abandon restrictions on the sale of many different types of organic fruit and vegetable seed has apparently achieved a major breakthrough, following a decision by European agriculture ministers to relax EU-wide regulations that had been in place since 1981,’ FruitNet reported.”
A French Grocer Protested Stupid EU Food Regulations and Won: Carrefour used artful civil disobedience and smart marketing to challenge ridiculous regulations.
OTOH, Zinke/Pruitt/Perry don’t seem to have done anything new to screw up the environment and/or electricity this past week. Granted that’s a pretty narrow window, but it’s the narrow window I have chosen to worry about. There are lots of people worrying about the other things :^)
OTOH, Zinke/Pruitt/Perry don’t seem to have done anything new to screw up the environment and/or electricity this past week. Granted that’s a pretty narrow window, but it’s the narrow window I have chosen to worry about. There are lots of people worrying about the other things :^)
Netflix Binge Factory …content is queen. Sales, ratings, reputation nothing matters except quantity of content.
Anime industry watchers are looking at Japan as canary in he coalmine. 10 years ago, they were producing say 50 new projects in a season. Now they are pushing out hundreds, maybe 500 per quarterly season. They are outsourcing to neighbors (and help build indigenous producers) and still working animators to literal death at their desks and still putting out product that is unfinished and barely watchable and then cleaning it up for the DVD release, which is where the studios make their money.
Because they can sell anything and everything to streaming services. As much as they can put out.
One hit pays for ten flops.
Not only can no one keep up and we know we are missing great stuff, but the drop in quality, both story and presentation, makes us feel something like suckers.
Yet it is the cross-fertilization and unlimited opportunity that enables a few to gather resources (mainly artists exhausted with hack work and needing self-respect) and create a few modern masterpieces. Maybe more, maybe less than 15 years ago.
So much more. We are drowning in an ocean of shit with embedded diamonds, and people are withdrawing to niches where at least our very limited expertise can let us pretend we are actually discriminating.
Like hyperpartisan and divisive political affiliations or nomadic consumption.
This is Marx’s prediction of overproduction breaking and burying the system. And the need of capital to continually reduce real wages and hyperexploit labour. We are finally seeing what it looks like.
Anxiety, gluttony, and obesity.
Netflix Binge Factory …content is queen. Sales, ratings, reputation nothing matters except quantity of content.
Anime industry watchers are looking at Japan as canary in he coalmine. 10 years ago, they were producing say 50 new projects in a season. Now they are pushing out hundreds, maybe 500 per quarterly season. They are outsourcing to neighbors (and help build indigenous producers) and still working animators to literal death at their desks and still putting out product that is unfinished and barely watchable and then cleaning it up for the DVD release, which is where the studios make their money.
Because they can sell anything and everything to streaming services. As much as they can put out.
One hit pays for ten flops.
Not only can no one keep up and we know we are missing great stuff, but the drop in quality, both story and presentation, makes us feel something like suckers.
Yet it is the cross-fertilization and unlimited opportunity that enables a few to gather resources (mainly artists exhausted with hack work and needing self-respect) and create a few modern masterpieces. Maybe more, maybe less than 15 years ago.
So much more. We are drowning in an ocean of shit with embedded diamonds, and people are withdrawing to niches where at least our very limited expertise can let us pretend we are actually discriminating.
Like hyperpartisan and divisive political affiliations or nomadic consumption.
This is Marx’s prediction of overproduction breaking and burying the system. And the need of capital to continually reduce real wages and hyperexploit labour. We are finally seeing what it looks like.
Anxiety, gluttony, and obesity.
So, the answer to what everyone will be doing after the robots take all the jobs: Creating/watching Netflix content.
My rule of thumb for watching streaming content is a greater than 6.0 IMDb rating for movies and a 7.5 for series. Main exceptions are the occasional brain-dead action movie.
So, the answer to what everyone will be doing after the robots take all the jobs: Creating/watching Netflix content.
My rule of thumb for watching streaming content is a greater than 6.0 IMDb rating for movies and a 7.5 for series. Main exceptions are the occasional brain-dead action movie.
So, the answer to what everyone will be doing after the robots take all the jobs: Creating/watching Netflix content.
F*ck that. I’ll write and read. But I’m old…
So, the answer to what everyone will be doing after the robots take all the jobs: Creating/watching Netflix content.
F*ck that. I’ll write and read. But I’m old…
Find reviewers you trust for genres you’re interested in, and it’s not so tough to navigate the ocean of dross, Bob.
An interesting development is crowd sourced subtitling, which provides its own form of discriminating – cf Rakuten Viki:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44453310
Find reviewers you trust for genres you’re interested in, and it’s not so tough to navigate the ocean of dross, Bob.
An interesting development is crowd sourced subtitling, which provides its own form of discriminating – cf Rakuten Viki:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44453310
Very interesting post, and comments, over at emptywheel:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/16/before-january-trump-suggested-manafort-could-flip-on-him-since-then-trump-learned-mueller-wanted-to-know-about-manaforts-requests-to-russia-for-help/
Very interesting post, and comments, over at emptywheel:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/16/before-january-trump-suggested-manafort-could-flip-on-him-since-then-trump-learned-mueller-wanted-to-know-about-manaforts-requests-to-russia-for-help/
F*ck that. I’ll write and read. But I’m old…
I’m with you on all counts. 🙂
But having heard some stories lately from a young friend who words in the world of intelligent vehicles, I’m even less worried than I was before about the imminence of idleness-for-all.
F*ck that. I’ll write and read. But I’m old…
I’m with you on all counts. 🙂
But having heard some stories lately from a young friend who words in the world of intelligent vehicles, I’m even less worried than I was before about the imminence of idleness-for-all.
works, not words
works, not words
Those of us who remain interested in the world around us should have few problems. It’s the people who have nothing, outside maybe their jobs, who are at risk. And they’re at risk whether they leave those jobs at retirement or get laid off long term earlier.
Those of us who remain interested in the world around us should have few problems. It’s the people who have nothing, outside maybe their jobs, who are at risk. And they’re at risk whether they leave those jobs at retirement or get laid off long term earlier.
Modern gizmo still needs tweaking.
Mass shootings now so common that they don’t even get the big headlines any more.
Mood for a beautiful summer weekend: chainsaw noise, burning brush pile smoke, lawnmower noise, weed whacker noise, motorcycle noise, scissor-jack engine noise (don’t ask), second lawnmower noise.
I need to move further into the woods.
Yes, these are first world problems. Along with the high tree and grass pollen counts and the plague of Lyme disease-carrying ticks…
Actually, on second thought, Lyme disease is no one’s minor problem at this point.
Modern gizmo still needs tweaking.
Mass shootings now so common that they don’t even get the big headlines any more.
Mood for a beautiful summer weekend: chainsaw noise, burning brush pile smoke, lawnmower noise, weed whacker noise, motorcycle noise, scissor-jack engine noise (don’t ask), second lawnmower noise.
I need to move further into the woods.
Yes, these are first world problems. Along with the high tree and grass pollen counts and the plague of Lyme disease-carrying ticks…
Actually, on second thought, Lyme disease is no one’s minor problem at this point.
I find myself seeing the (extremely local) upside to climate change: we keep having beautiful summer days with highs in the mid-70s — as opposed to the 90s and up, which would be more usual. Yes, the rain/snow fall levels on which our water supplies depend have been down consistently. But at least there seems to be some up side.
And no, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be doing something to deal with global warming. A few local pluses don’t offset far more widespread disasters in the offing.
I find myself seeing the (extremely local) upside to climate change: we keep having beautiful summer days with highs in the mid-70s — as opposed to the 90s and up, which would be more usual. Yes, the rain/snow fall levels on which our water supplies depend have been down consistently. But at least there seems to be some up side.
And no, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be doing something to deal with global warming. A few local pluses don’t offset far more widespread disasters in the offing.
Very locally, I think it’s still far too soon to tell what the effects of climate change will be in any given neighborhood. But anecdotally, where I live is in an pocket that has been, on average, cooler lately rather than warmer. Yet again, the winters haven’t been cold enough to keep the ticks down, or to keep the ground as well watered with snowmelt as it “should” be.
As wj says, there is scant consolation in small and seemingly positive local effects if the whole food chain is at risk.
Very locally, I think it’s still far too soon to tell what the effects of climate change will be in any given neighborhood. But anecdotally, where I live is in an pocket that has been, on average, cooler lately rather than warmer. Yet again, the winters haven’t been cold enough to keep the ticks down, or to keep the ground as well watered with snowmelt as it “should” be.
As wj says, there is scant consolation in small and seemingly positive local effects if the whole food chain is at risk.
Still need tweaking…
Indeed. But plans are in train:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Battery-wars-Japan-teams-up-for-next-gen-electric-cars
Still need tweaking…
Indeed. But plans are in train:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-Trends/Battery-wars-Japan-teams-up-for-next-gen-electric-cars
In the Dallas area, the winter wasn’t particularly cold, but there was a long stretch through January and February where it was continuously cold with no intermittent warm days that the area usually has. The ornamental pear trees, that sometimes bloom as early as the first of February, didn’t bloom until March first. There haven’t been many insects so far. Not even mosquitoes. I didn’t hear the first cicada until June 8th. They usually appear about June first. Could be just a swarm behavior difference.
For the US, one source said that April was one of the coldest on record and May was the hottest on record.
A benefit of the increasing CO2 levels in recent decades is that the planet as a whole seems to be getting greener.
In the Dallas area, the winter wasn’t particularly cold, but there was a long stretch through January and February where it was continuously cold with no intermittent warm days that the area usually has. The ornamental pear trees, that sometimes bloom as early as the first of February, didn’t bloom until March first. There haven’t been many insects so far. Not even mosquitoes. I didn’t hear the first cicada until June 8th. They usually appear about June first. Could be just a swarm behavior difference.
For the US, one source said that April was one of the coldest on record and May was the hottest on record.
A benefit of the increasing CO2 levels in recent decades is that the planet as a whole seems to be getting greener.
Dr S, condolences on the loss of your family member. It’s a situation where I never know what to say. Sadly, this is the best I can do.
Dr S, condolences on the loss of your family member. It’s a situation where I never know what to say. Sadly, this is the best I can do.
climate change is going to be great news for some parties. extinction for one species clears the field for another. there will be upsides.
and humans have lived on the planet when its been both warmer (or at least as warm) and colder than it is now. our big brains help us adapt.
what hasn’t been the case up to now is 7 billion people, many of whom live in already marginal circumstances, responding to widespread changes to, or loss of, resources that provide their means of existence.
the EU has had to absorb millions of refugees from war zones, and that has stressed alliances that have kept that continent mostly peaceful and prosperous. suddenly fascism looks good again.
the US finds itself unable to respond to tens of thousands of migrants trying to escape violence and disorder in a humane and sensible way. suddenly putting kids in camps by the hundreds or thousands looks good.
what happens when, not thousands or a few million, but tens or hundreds of millions of people find it necessary to relocate? because the water has dried up (see also darfur), or the rains don’t come, or their home is underwater?
163 million people live bangladesh.
how fast could that happen? the younger dryas was likely a “local” effect (northern hemisphere, worst in northern europe), caused by freshwater runoff into the north atlantic as glaciers melted. temperature changes were extremely abrupt, as much as 10C in a decade.
whatever we decide to do going forward, some degree of change is already baked in. and we’re not really doing that much going forward anyway, least of all the US.
so some places will see pleasant changes, but there may also be changes that are catastrophic. at least at a regional or local level.
i’m not even getting into stuff like intensively built-up urban waterfronts dealing with (very expensive) water level rise. urban coastal elites better learn how to swim.
i’m also not getting into large scale extinctions due to loss of habitat. we’re not the only species being affected.
as far as i can tell, nobody is doing a damned thing of significance to prepare. at a very local level – individual coastal cities – some planning has started. what are our plans for dealing with 10x the refugee flow that we already see? or increased ranges of tropical diseases? or loss of land that can be farmed in any but the most capital-intensive way, due to changes in weather patterns and/or insect populations and/or whatever else?
what i think is that however the actual climate changes play out, they will find us utterly unpepared and responding in purely reactive ways. and that is not going to be very pretty.
climate change is going to be great news for some parties. extinction for one species clears the field for another. there will be upsides.
and humans have lived on the planet when its been both warmer (or at least as warm) and colder than it is now. our big brains help us adapt.
what hasn’t been the case up to now is 7 billion people, many of whom live in already marginal circumstances, responding to widespread changes to, or loss of, resources that provide their means of existence.
the EU has had to absorb millions of refugees from war zones, and that has stressed alliances that have kept that continent mostly peaceful and prosperous. suddenly fascism looks good again.
the US finds itself unable to respond to tens of thousands of migrants trying to escape violence and disorder in a humane and sensible way. suddenly putting kids in camps by the hundreds or thousands looks good.
what happens when, not thousands or a few million, but tens or hundreds of millions of people find it necessary to relocate? because the water has dried up (see also darfur), or the rains don’t come, or their home is underwater?
163 million people live bangladesh.
how fast could that happen? the younger dryas was likely a “local” effect (northern hemisphere, worst in northern europe), caused by freshwater runoff into the north atlantic as glaciers melted. temperature changes were extremely abrupt, as much as 10C in a decade.
whatever we decide to do going forward, some degree of change is already baked in. and we’re not really doing that much going forward anyway, least of all the US.
so some places will see pleasant changes, but there may also be changes that are catastrophic. at least at a regional or local level.
i’m not even getting into stuff like intensively built-up urban waterfronts dealing with (very expensive) water level rise. urban coastal elites better learn how to swim.
i’m also not getting into large scale extinctions due to loss of habitat. we’re not the only species being affected.
as far as i can tell, nobody is doing a damned thing of significance to prepare. at a very local level – individual coastal cities – some planning has started. what are our plans for dealing with 10x the refugee flow that we already see? or increased ranges of tropical diseases? or loss of land that can be farmed in any but the most capital-intensive way, due to changes in weather patterns and/or insect populations and/or whatever else?
what i think is that however the actual climate changes play out, they will find us utterly unpepared and responding in purely reactive ways. and that is not going to be very pretty.
A benefit of the increasing CO2 levels in recent decades is that the planet as a whole seems to be getting greener.
don’t forget, plants aren’t just tuned to temperature. they’re also tuned to growing season length and amount of sunlight – and those are tied to latitude. so, as things get hotter, don’t expect you can just shift crops towards the poles, chasing the temperatures they prefer. some will be OK with it, some won’t.
A benefit of the increasing CO2 levels in recent decades is that the planet as a whole seems to be getting greener.
don’t forget, plants aren’t just tuned to temperature. they’re also tuned to growing season length and amount of sunlight – and those are tied to latitude. so, as things get hotter, don’t expect you can just shift crops towards the poles, chasing the temperatures they prefer. some will be OK with it, some won’t.
And lines of latitude, which are circles, get smaller and smaller as you get closer to the poles, meaning less and less land mass (despite what the distortions of 2-D maps might have you believe).
And lines of latitude, which are circles, get smaller and smaller as you get closer to the poles, meaning less and less land mass (despite what the distortions of 2-D maps might have you believe).
I’m an old, 67 now, so I may not live to see the extreme changes I expect. Or maybe I will… we shall see how fast it happens.
cleek, nice to see you here… pleasant surprise.
I’m an old, 67 now, so I may not live to see the extreme changes I expect. Or maybe I will… we shall see how fast it happens.
cleek, nice to see you here… pleasant surprise.
there may also be changes that are catastrophic
To take only the most obvious major catastrophe: Bangladesh. 150 million people living in mostly marginal circumstances . . . on land which is likely to be flooded by rising sea levels. Whether it is “merely” 10% of the available farm land, or more, it will be bad. And there isn’t exactly a lot of open space in neighboring countries for them to move to.
there may also be changes that are catastrophic
To take only the most obvious major catastrophe: Bangladesh. 150 million people living in mostly marginal circumstances . . . on land which is likely to be flooded by rising sea levels. Whether it is “merely” 10% of the available farm land, or more, it will be bad. And there isn’t exactly a lot of open space in neighboring countries for them to move to.
I’m working on a process to convert Limbaugh, Imhofe, mp, Pruitt, and millions of other American conservative ratfuckers who, as we speak, are engaged in the republican book burning of destroying weather data, preventing any further gathering of such data, and denying weather scientists their first amendment rights by forbidding them the mention or publication of climate change analyses or even the words “climate change” into food pellets for the surviving decent human beings in this benighted world.
One impediment early in the process is the separation of the lead fragments from the dead ratfucker meat, but this is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that much of the product has been ground up with the initial application of machetes.
Of course, there is the problem too that discriminating diners may turn their nose up at the prospect of consuming ratfucker meat.
Well, more for the rats then.
Blaise Pascal didn’t have that problem in the punishment he posited for those who lost HIS wager, allowing God to sort that out in eternity’s good time.
We can’t afford to not act in this life, in the here and the now.
Bangladesh, for it’s part, must begin building a defensive nuclear capability, to be launched in increments at the concentrated areas of America infested by the reds …… say one nuclear warhead per inch of sea water rise encroachment into the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta.
I’m working on a process to convert Limbaugh, Imhofe, mp, Pruitt, and millions of other American conservative ratfuckers who, as we speak, are engaged in the republican book burning of destroying weather data, preventing any further gathering of such data, and denying weather scientists their first amendment rights by forbidding them the mention or publication of climate change analyses or even the words “climate change” into food pellets for the surviving decent human beings in this benighted world.
One impediment early in the process is the separation of the lead fragments from the dead ratfucker meat, but this is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that much of the product has been ground up with the initial application of machetes.
Of course, there is the problem too that discriminating diners may turn their nose up at the prospect of consuming ratfucker meat.
Well, more for the rats then.
Blaise Pascal didn’t have that problem in the punishment he posited for those who lost HIS wager, allowing God to sort that out in eternity’s good time.
We can’t afford to not act in this life, in the here and the now.
Bangladesh, for it’s part, must begin building a defensive nuclear capability, to be launched in increments at the concentrated areas of America infested by the reds …… say one nuclear warhead per inch of sea water rise encroachment into the Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta.
cleek, nice to see you here… pleasant surprise.
ditto!
cleek, nice to see you here… pleasant surprise.
ditto!
From the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up file
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/18/1772955/-Republicans-have-a-more-favorable-view-of-North-Korean-dictator-than-of-Democratic-opposition-leader
I weep for my party.
From the You Can’t Make This Stuff Up file
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/18/1772955/-Republicans-have-a-more-favorable-view-of-North-Korean-dictator-than-of-Democratic-opposition-leader
I weep for my party.
Republicans have a more favorable view of North Korean dictator than of Democratic opposition leader
Real Americans ™ have always loved North Korea.
Republicans have a more favorable view of North Korean dictator than of Democratic opposition leader
Real Americans ™ have always loved North Korea.
At least Iran is still in the Axis of Evil.
At least Iran is still in the Axis of Evil.
At least Iran is still in the Axis of Evil.
Of course. After all, they were always by far the least deserving of inclusion. (It deserves to be kept in mind that, when the US was ramping up to invade Afghanistan, Iran volunteered to provide us with open transit to get there. We didn’t even deign to reply. Apparently preferring to pay vast sums to Pakistan, . . . which was helping fund the Taliban.)
At least Iran is still in the Axis of Evil.
Of course. After all, they were always by far the least deserving of inclusion. (It deserves to be kept in mind that, when the US was ramping up to invade Afghanistan, Iran volunteered to provide us with open transit to get there. We didn’t even deign to reply. Apparently preferring to pay vast sums to Pakistan, . . . which was helping fund the Taliban.)
Well, more for the rats then.
this is the motto for a world I have not yet had the misfortune to live in.
but I’m saving it, just in case.
Well, more for the rats then.
this is the motto for a world I have not yet had the misfortune to live in.
but I’m saving it, just in case.
wj,
Don’t weep. It’s not your party any more. McConnell and Ryan turned it over to He, Trump long ago. Let the Martys of the world keep it.
At this point, voting for ANY Republican, at ANY level, is straight-up complicity with Sado-Capitalism’s enablers. Yes, even Charlie Baker or Susan Collins.
Make America Decent Again. Vote the GOP out of power and then, maybe, you can tow it into drydock and salvage any useful bits out of the rat shit.
–TP
wj,
Don’t weep. It’s not your party any more. McConnell and Ryan turned it over to He, Trump long ago. Let the Martys of the world keep it.
At this point, voting for ANY Republican, at ANY level, is straight-up complicity with Sado-Capitalism’s enablers. Yes, even Charlie Baker or Susan Collins.
Make America Decent Again. Vote the GOP out of power and then, maybe, you can tow it into drydock and salvage any useful bits out of the rat shit.
–TP
At this point, voting for ANY Republican, at ANY level, is straight-up complicity with Sado-Capitalism’s enablers. Yes, even Charlie Baker or Susan Collins.
I have to disagree. I can see an argument when it comes to Congress. After all, it’s pretty urgent to change the guys who control what even gets a vote: the Speaker and Majority Leader.
But at the state and local level? How else do you propose to get the GOP turned around? Or is there a (secret) realistic plan to create a new alternate national party?
At this point, voting for ANY Republican, at ANY level, is straight-up complicity with Sado-Capitalism’s enablers. Yes, even Charlie Baker or Susan Collins.
I have to disagree. I can see an argument when it comes to Congress. After all, it’s pretty urgent to change the guys who control what even gets a vote: the Speaker and Majority Leader.
But at the state and local level? How else do you propose to get the GOP turned around? Or is there a (secret) realistic plan to create a new alternate national party?
No secret, wj.
Defeat Republicans at every level until the RWNJ contingent gets the message that their heyday is over. That’s my proposition.
Is there a “reasonable” Republican running for local office, somewhere, who is “reasonable” for any reason other than his or her rejection of current GOP dogma?
–TP
No secret, wj.
Defeat Republicans at every level until the RWNJ contingent gets the message that their heyday is over. That’s my proposition.
Is there a “reasonable” Republican running for local office, somewhere, who is “reasonable” for any reason other than his or her rejection of current GOP dogma?
–TP
Yes, actually.
Catherine Baker, 16th Assembly District, California:
https://ad16.asmrc.org/
And a quick overview of her position on the issues:
http://www.bakerforassembly.com/
Just one other little bit of information: she routinely holds joint town-hall meetings in the district with our state senator, who is a Democrat. In other words, she’s far more interested in serving the people of her district than in partisanship.
Yes, actually.
Catherine Baker, 16th Assembly District, California:
https://ad16.asmrc.org/
And a quick overview of her position on the issues:
http://www.bakerforassembly.com/
Just one other little bit of information: she routinely holds joint town-hall meetings in the district with our state senator, who is a Democrat. In other words, she’s far more interested in serving the people of her district than in partisanship.
No, wj, I don’t buy it.
Baker may be a fine person and whatnot, but at this point once you accept the Republican label you need to lose, IMO.
Call it collateral damage if you like, but the Republican Party needs to be wiped out at all levels.
No, wj, I don’t buy it.
Baker may be a fine person and whatnot, but at this point once you accept the Republican label you need to lose, IMO.
Call it collateral damage if you like, but the Republican Party needs to be wiped out at all levels.
Both parties aren’t doing so well when less than a third of voters identify as Democrat and about a quarter identify as Republican.
Both parties aren’t doing so well when less than a third of voters identify as Democrat and about a quarter identify as Republican.
Both parties aren’t doing so well when less than a third of voters identify as Democrat and about a quarter identify as Republican.
Not sure whether a link has been provided (upthread?), but “identify as” bears a heavy burden these days,
I “identify as” a Democrat. Lots of people have been persuaded, for whatever reason (despite evidence), that they should evaluate candidates based on “the best person”. It’s their civic duty, they think, to give all persons running a fair chance.
It doesn’t mean much because they’ll still vote on “the issues” or their tribe.
Both parties aren’t doing so well when less than a third of voters identify as Democrat and about a quarter identify as Republican.
Not sure whether a link has been provided (upthread?), but “identify as” bears a heavy burden these days,
I “identify as” a Democrat. Lots of people have been persuaded, for whatever reason (despite evidence), that they should evaluate candidates based on “the best person”. It’s their civic duty, they think, to give all persons running a fair chance.
It doesn’t mean much because they’ll still vote on “the issues” or their tribe.
My comment was base on what I remembered from a chart that was a couple years old. There’s been some convergence recently.
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Last year, 42% of Americans, on average, identified as political independents, erasing the decline to 39% seen in the 2016 presidential election year. Independent identification is just one percentage point below the high of 43% in 2014. Twenty-nine percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.”
Americans’ Identification as Independents Back Up in 2017
My comment was base on what I remembered from a chart that was a couple years old. There’s been some convergence recently.
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Last year, 42% of Americans, on average, identified as political independents, erasing the decline to 39% seen in the 2016 presidential election year. Independent identification is just one percentage point below the high of 43% in 2014. Twenty-nine percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.”
Americans’ Identification as Independents Back Up in 2017
The “27% crazification factor” has been well-known for over a decade now.
The first “issue” any legislator gets to vote on is: who shall be Speaker? who shall be Majority Leader? IOW, who gets to decide what legislation gets voted on, and NOT voted on?
To be a Republican legislator is to vote for the likes of Ryan and McConnell. Period. Except maybe in California, where the GOP (at the state level) has begun to show signs of sanity — the result of getting hit upside the head the way the national GOP needs to be.
Next time McKinney or Marty pop in, somebody needs to ask each of them: do you intend to vote, in November, for congressmen and senators who will vote for McConnell and (probably) McCarthy? If yes, their protestations of disdain for He, Trump are no more than a fig leaf
–TP
The “27% crazification factor” has been well-known for over a decade now.
The first “issue” any legislator gets to vote on is: who shall be Speaker? who shall be Majority Leader? IOW, who gets to decide what legislation gets voted on, and NOT voted on?
To be a Republican legislator is to vote for the likes of Ryan and McConnell. Period. Except maybe in California, where the GOP (at the state level) has begun to show signs of sanity — the result of getting hit upside the head the way the national GOP needs to be.
Next time McKinney or Marty pop in, somebody needs to ask each of them: do you intend to vote, in November, for congressmen and senators who will vote for McConnell and (probably) McCarthy? If yes, their protestations of disdain for He, Trump are no more than a fig leaf
–TP
the Republican Party needs to be wiped out at all levels.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think our system of government works well without an alternative “party of government”. (Feel free to provide evidence otherwise. But that’s my take.)
So, that being the case, either
a) we need the Republican Party to get hauled back to sanity, or
b) we need a new alternative party.
For a), we need to keep electing any sane Republicans who appear. Think of it as implementing survival of the fittest — which necessitates that the fit actually do survive. By all means vote out the nut cases at every level. And, as I said, I can see the current necessity of voting even relatively sane Republicans down in Congressional races. But otherwise, no.
For b), we need some sign of said new party. Which could certainly appear. But until and unless it does, we would be fools to foreclose option a).
the Republican Party needs to be wiped out at all levels.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think our system of government works well without an alternative “party of government”. (Feel free to provide evidence otherwise. But that’s my take.)
So, that being the case, either
a) we need the Republican Party to get hauled back to sanity, or
b) we need a new alternative party.
For a), we need to keep electing any sane Republicans who appear. Think of it as implementing survival of the fittest — which necessitates that the fit actually do survive. By all means vote out the nut cases at every level. And, as I said, I can see the current necessity of voting even relatively sane Republicans down in Congressional races. But otherwise, no.
For b), we need some sign of said new party. Which could certainly appear. But until and unless it does, we would be fools to foreclose option a).
wj,
You seem to labor under the delusion that if Democrats won 100% of the seats in any legislature on Tuesday, they would NOT split into two different parties by Wednesday:)
–TP
wj,
You seem to labor under the delusion that if Democrats won 100% of the seats in any legislature on Tuesday, they would NOT split into two different parties by Wednesday:)
–TP
What TP said. 🙂
What worries me is that it’s going to happen without the precondition.
What TP said. 🙂
What worries me is that it’s going to happen without the precondition.
Tony is correct on all counts.
There is, in effect, no such thing as a “moderate, sensible” Republican in Congress.
There are moderate sensible people in Congress who are Republicans, but once they put on the GOP badge they are empowering an odious President and an insane right-wing agenda. They are simply cowards.
Tony is correct on all counts.
There is, in effect, no such thing as a “moderate, sensible” Republican in Congress.
There are moderate sensible people in Congress who are Republicans, but once they put on the GOP badge they are empowering an odious President and an insane right-wing agenda. They are simply cowards.
When people discuss who could be considered a “good Republican”, at least at the national level, it always seems to be limited to ones like Lincoln, TR, Ike. All safely dead.
The inevitable conclusion is “the only good Republican is a dead Republican”.
I’m sure Count could get behind that idea.
When people discuss who could be considered a “good Republican”, at least at the national level, it always seems to be limited to ones like Lincoln, TR, Ike. All safely dead.
The inevitable conclusion is “the only good Republican is a dead Republican”.
I’m sure Count could get behind that idea.
i have no doubt that there are moderate sensible Republicans at (nearly) all levels of government. the problem is that they are too concerned about their electoral prospects to buck Trump on anything.
the problem is the GOP base. it demands stupid representatives and punishes anyone who tries to be smart.
i have no doubt that there are moderate sensible Republicans at (nearly) all levels of government. the problem is that they are too concerned about their electoral prospects to buck Trump on anything.
the problem is the GOP base. it demands stupid representatives and punishes anyone who tries to be smart.
Apparently wj is not familiar with the history of the US version of the Whig Party.
Apparently wj is not familiar with the history of the US version of the Whig Party.
What worries me is that it’s going to happen without the precondition.
It didn’t happen when TR ran the “Bull Moose” campaign. It didn’t happen when Henry Wallace ran in ’48. The Know Nothings were sucked up into the Borg. The Strom Thurmond Democrats morphed into the Strom Thurman Republicans.
Contra wj, the two major parties are sorting out into two distinctly ideological poles. The GOP base has taken over their party. The Democratic “left” is, um….torn, and still under the spell of idiosyncratic 3rd party suicide runs that have helped to elect two GOP minority presidents who never should have been able to take the Oath of Office. Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm!
Knowing the “Left” as I do, I assess this possibility as “somewhat unlikely”.
Time will tell……
What worries me is that it’s going to happen without the precondition.
It didn’t happen when TR ran the “Bull Moose” campaign. It didn’t happen when Henry Wallace ran in ’48. The Know Nothings were sucked up into the Borg. The Strom Thurmond Democrats morphed into the Strom Thurman Republicans.
Contra wj, the two major parties are sorting out into two distinctly ideological poles. The GOP base has taken over their party. The Democratic “left” is, um….torn, and still under the spell of idiosyncratic 3rd party suicide runs that have helped to elect two GOP minority presidents who never should have been able to take the Oath of Office. Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm!
Knowing the “Left” as I do, I assess this possibility as “somewhat unlikely”.
Time will tell……
the problem is that they are too concerned about their electoral prospects to buck Trump on anything.
F their electoral prospects.
Are they going to go hungry if they don’t reelected? I doubt it. And some – I’m looking at you, Sen.Flake – aren’t running. Others – Hey! you! Collins, Sasse! – aren’t up this year. (And is Collins in any danger anyway?)
So show some guts. Stop talking and condemning and bemoaning and do something. Caucus with the Democrats, for example. Or something else.
the problem is that they are too concerned about their electoral prospects to buck Trump on anything.
F their electoral prospects.
Are they going to go hungry if they don’t reelected? I doubt it. And some – I’m looking at you, Sen.Flake – aren’t running. Others – Hey! you! Collins, Sasse! – aren’t up this year. (And is Collins in any danger anyway?)
So show some guts. Stop talking and condemning and bemoaning and do something. Caucus with the Democrats, for example. Or something else.
Oh yeah. I forgot. Add a retiring Corker to the list. And what the hell happened to Lamar Alexander? He used to be a decent intelligent guy. I even voted for him for Governor when I lived in TN.
Alexander is 78 and his term ends in two years. Is he worried about re-election? Really?
Oh yeah. I forgot. Add a retiring Corker to the list. And what the hell happened to Lamar Alexander? He used to be a decent intelligent guy. I even voted for him for Governor when I lived in TN.
Alexander is 78 and his term ends in two years. Is he worried about re-election? Really?
Apparently wj is not familiar with the history of the US version of the Whig Party.
Actually, I am. But while I could see a historical analogy of the Whigs and the current GOP, what I’m not seeing, at least yet, is a current manifestation of the mid-1800s Republican Party.
And you will note that I have not argued for voting even for what I could consider sensible Republicans for Congress. Precisely because I have yet to see one in Congress who also has the courage to denounce Trump for what he is.
But that still doesn’t address why one couldn’t support them locally. It’s not like my state legislator is going to be in much of a position to act on national issues. (AND, I would note, my Republican state legislator has been voting to do things like California-based greenhouse gas restrictions, etc. that are directly contrary to Trump policies.)
Apparently wj is not familiar with the history of the US version of the Whig Party.
Actually, I am. But while I could see a historical analogy of the Whigs and the current GOP, what I’m not seeing, at least yet, is a current manifestation of the mid-1800s Republican Party.
And you will note that I have not argued for voting even for what I could consider sensible Republicans for Congress. Precisely because I have yet to see one in Congress who also has the courage to denounce Trump for what he is.
But that still doesn’t address why one couldn’t support them locally. It’s not like my state legislator is going to be in much of a position to act on national issues. (AND, I would note, my Republican state legislator has been voting to do things like California-based greenhouse gas restrictions, etc. that are directly contrary to Trump policies.)
seems on topic.
seems on topic.
Oddly, there is still the notion that policy isn’t driving the GOP to support Trump.
It is hard to find a policy, not a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border like they have been for a few decades, but a real underlying policy where Trump doesn’t represent the long held GOP podition.
He’s a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that. He still supports GOP policies almost down the line. The Democrats are not an acceptable alternative, as they weren’t in the election.
Oddly, there is still the notion that policy isn’t driving the GOP to support Trump.
It is hard to find a policy, not a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border like they have been for a few decades, but a real underlying policy where Trump doesn’t represent the long held GOP podition.
He’s a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that. He still supports GOP policies almost down the line. The Democrats are not an acceptable alternative, as they weren’t in the election.
“With Trump at the helm, Schmidt said the GOP has become “corrupt, indecent and immoral,” with the exception of just a few Republican governors.”
Trump is an effect, not a cause.
“With Trump at the helm, Schmidt said the GOP has become “corrupt, indecent and immoral,” with the exception of just a few Republican governors.”
Trump is an effect, not a cause.
kids separated at the border like they have been for a few
decadesweeksFixed that for you. Everyone, even Trump, Sessions, et al., says that this is a NEW policy implemented by this administration.
There is disagreement over whether it is something required by the law or not — with damn few lawyers, even among Republicans in Congress agreeing that it is. But there is no disagreement over when it started being done. Until now….
kids separated at the border like they have been for a few
decadesweeksFixed that for you. Everyone, even Trump, Sessions, et al., says that this is a NEW policy implemented by this administration.
There is disagreement over whether it is something required by the law or not — with damn few lawyers, even among Republicans in Congress agreeing that it is. But there is no disagreement over when it started being done. Until now….
He’s a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that.
yup.
and may they all burn.
He’s a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that.
yup.
and may they all burn.
Actually, I am.
LOL…well, wj, my remark was in reply to the following assertion:
Here’s the thing. I don’t think our system of government works well without an alternative “party of government”.
The demise of the Whigs was tied to the issue over slavery. They could not survive with a foot in both camps. Nonetheless, a rival “governing party” was readily available.
Under our current institutional system, this will always be the case, and I find your concern somewhat self serving as you twist yourself into knots to not be a “Democrat”.
I tried to look up C. Baker’s political positions, but with little luck. If I had a chance to meet her, I would ask her, “Why the f@ck are you a Republican?”
What do you think she would say?
Have a good one!
Actually, I am.
LOL…well, wj, my remark was in reply to the following assertion:
Here’s the thing. I don’t think our system of government works well without an alternative “party of government”.
The demise of the Whigs was tied to the issue over slavery. They could not survive with a foot in both camps. Nonetheless, a rival “governing party” was readily available.
Under our current institutional system, this will always be the case, and I find your concern somewhat self serving as you twist yourself into knots to not be a “Democrat”.
I tried to look up C. Baker’s political positions, but with little luck. If I had a chance to meet her, I would ask her, “Why the f@ck are you a Republican?”
What do you think she would say?
Have a good one!
It is hard to find a policy, not a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border like they have been for a few decades, but a real underlying policy where Trump doesn’t represent the long held GOP podition.
Trump has no positions. Positions are handed to him by the GOP Congress and all he wants is to take the credit.
Where does he depart? I’d say immigration, trade, and foreign policy…..for staters.
It is hard to find a policy, not a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border like they have been for a few decades, but a real underlying policy where Trump doesn’t represent the long held GOP podition.
Trump has no positions. Positions are handed to him by the GOP Congress and all he wants is to take the credit.
Where does he depart? I’d say immigration, trade, and foreign policy…..for staters.
The demise of the Whigs was tied to the issue over slavery. They could not survive with a foot in both camps. Nonetheless, a rival “governing party” was readily available.
Under our current institutional system, this will always be the case
My recollection (history class was a while ago) is that the Republican Party was formed, and growing to a significant size, well before the demise of the Whigs. But I could be mistaken on that. I am sure that the Republicans didn’t form due to the Democrats splitting after the demise of the Whigs.
At the moment, I’m not seeing a “readily available” alternative party. If you see one, please point me to it.
The demise of the Whigs was tied to the issue over slavery. They could not survive with a foot in both camps. Nonetheless, a rival “governing party” was readily available.
Under our current institutional system, this will always be the case
My recollection (history class was a while ago) is that the Republican Party was formed, and growing to a significant size, well before the demise of the Whigs. But I could be mistaken on that. I am sure that the Republicans didn’t form due to the Democrats splitting after the demise of the Whigs.
At the moment, I’m not seeing a “readily available” alternative party. If you see one, please point me to it.
Well, folks, we’ve heard it from the horse’s mouth: He, Trump is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, but he’s a Republican dagnabbit! So take that libs!
That He, Trump (crook, blowhard, misogynist, racist) was the sack of shit deliberately nominated for president by one of our major parties does not invalidate wj’s premise that we need two parties. But it dings it a bit.
BTW, anybody who types “a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border” while pretending to be disgusted by He, Trump is my idea of a Republican. Good job, Marty!
–TP
Well, folks, we’ve heard it from the horse’s mouth: He, Trump is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, but he’s a Republican dagnabbit! So take that libs!
That He, Trump (crook, blowhard, misogynist, racist) was the sack of shit deliberately nominated for president by one of our major parties does not invalidate wj’s premise that we need two parties. But it dings it a bit.
BTW, anybody who types “a flash in the pan problem like kids separated at the border” while pretending to be disgusted by He, Trump is my idea of a Republican. Good job, Marty!
–TP
Except we CBS interviewed an Obama HHS official today who confirmed the centers were opened under his watch.
Except we CBS interviewed an Obama HHS official today who confirmed the centers were opened under his watch.
Link, Marty?
Link, Marty?
There is disagreement over whether it is something required by the law or not
What is required by law is that kids can’t be held in criminal detention facilities. And, as of Flores, that they have to be held in the least restrictive accommodation possible.
The reason they have to be separated from their parents is that their parents are being held in facilities intended for criminal cases.
The reason that their parents are being held in facilities intended for criminal cases is that US policy under Sessions is that all attempts to enter the US without prior authorization and permission are to be treated as criminal cases.
To refresh all of our memories, per the US Code:
* entering the US other than through an authorized entry point – i.e., “sneaking in” – is a misdemeanor.
* attempting to enter the US other than through an authorized entry point is a civil offense.
* presenting yourself at an authorized entry point and request asylum is no offense at all
All of these cases are being as criminal offenses requiring the adults to be held in criminal facilities.
That *is not* required by law. And, doing so has not been the policy of the US for decades. To say otherwise is a lie. People who persist in saying otherwise are liars.
But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that.
That’s exactly right. And (R)’s will be required to own the fact that they support the regime of someone who is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Along with whatever damage to the nation those qualities incur. In order to get their way on policy.
It’s pick a side time. It’s either more important to preserve the basic integrity of the office of POTUS, and the executive in general, along with all of the public institutions that go along with it, or it’s more important to get your way on your favorite policies. Pick one, because you can’t have both.
Whichever one you pick, you will own.
There is disagreement over whether it is something required by the law or not
What is required by law is that kids can’t be held in criminal detention facilities. And, as of Flores, that they have to be held in the least restrictive accommodation possible.
The reason they have to be separated from their parents is that their parents are being held in facilities intended for criminal cases.
The reason that their parents are being held in facilities intended for criminal cases is that US policy under Sessions is that all attempts to enter the US without prior authorization and permission are to be treated as criminal cases.
To refresh all of our memories, per the US Code:
* entering the US other than through an authorized entry point – i.e., “sneaking in” – is a misdemeanor.
* attempting to enter the US other than through an authorized entry point is a civil offense.
* presenting yourself at an authorized entry point and request asylum is no offense at all
All of these cases are being as criminal offenses requiring the adults to be held in criminal facilities.
That *is not* required by law. And, doing so has not been the policy of the US for decades. To say otherwise is a lie. People who persist in saying otherwise are liars.
But no Republican is going to caucas with the Democrats based on that.
That’s exactly right. And (R)’s will be required to own the fact that they support the regime of someone who is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Along with whatever damage to the nation those qualities incur. In order to get their way on policy.
It’s pick a side time. It’s either more important to preserve the basic integrity of the office of POTUS, and the executive in general, along with all of the public institutions that go along with it, or it’s more important to get your way on your favorite policies. Pick one, because you can’t have both.
Whichever one you pick, you will own.
Except we CBS interviewed an Obama HHS official today who confirmed the centers were opened under his watch.
the centers were used to housed unaccompanied minors.
Trump’s policy is new. FFS, quit covering for him.
Except we CBS interviewed an Obama HHS official today who confirmed the centers were opened under his watch.
the centers were used to housed unaccompanied minors.
Trump’s policy is new. FFS, quit covering for him.
It’s pick a side time.
they picked their in 2016. Trump ran on this stuff: nationalism, xenophobia, and explicit and vocal disdain for laws that challenge the authority of the President to whatever the fuck he wants at any time.
nothing he’s doing has deviated from that.
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
It’s pick a side time.
they picked their in 2016. Trump ran on this stuff: nationalism, xenophobia, and explicit and vocal disdain for laws that challenge the authority of the President to whatever the fuck he wants at any time.
nothing he’s doing has deviated from that.
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
No Russell. Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense. CBS news confirmed this morning.
No Russell. Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense. CBS news confirmed this morning.
No Russell. Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense. CBS news confirmed this morning.
You’re not providing a link, Marty. It’s easy to do.
The fact is, they aren’t being allowed to present themselves at an entry point. You’re okay with letting people die when we can very easily accommodate them, and doing so would also help our own country. Many people who support this cruel policy call themselves pro-life.
No Russell. Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense. CBS news confirmed this morning.
You’re not providing a link, Marty. It’s easy to do.
The fact is, they aren’t being allowed to present themselves at an entry point. You’re okay with letting people die when we can very easily accommodate them, and doing so would also help our own country. Many people who support this cruel policy call themselves pro-life.
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
OMG win
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
OMG win
It might be worth noting that most illegal immigrants seem to be those who overstayed visas…
https://qz.com/988951/the-us-is-finally-telling-the-public-who-overstays-their-visas-the-most-and-its-not-mexicans/
So,much for ‘infesting’.
Also of note for Marty’s position is that even France’s Le Pen won’t defend Trump’s policy….
It might be worth noting that most illegal immigrants seem to be those who overstayed visas…
https://qz.com/988951/the-us-is-finally-telling-the-public-who-overstays-their-visas-the-most-and-its-not-mexicans/
So,much for ‘infesting’.
Also of note for Marty’s position is that even France’s Le Pen won’t defend Trump’s policy….
Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense.
What does that mean?
Presenting as what? Request for asylum? Attempted entry without a visa?
What does “not being treated as an offense” mean? People aren’t being held in a criminal facility? People aren’t being held at all? Adults are not being separated from children?
And what about the people who don’t “present at an entry point”, but who attempt to enter elsewhere?
And WTF does CBS know about it? Are they doing any investigation, or are they simply reporting what the feds are telling them?
You haven’t addressed any point made in my prior post.
Presenting at an entry point is not being treated as an offense.
What does that mean?
Presenting as what? Request for asylum? Attempted entry without a visa?
What does “not being treated as an offense” mean? People aren’t being held in a criminal facility? People aren’t being held at all? Adults are not being separated from children?
And what about the people who don’t “present at an entry point”, but who attempt to enter elsewhere?
And WTF does CBS know about it? Are they doing any investigation, or are they simply reporting what the feds are telling them?
You haven’t addressed any point made in my prior post.
This seems fairly thorough.
This seems fairly thorough.
It appears that the government is refusing entry to asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry. And then treats them as criminals when they get desperate and enter illegally.
It appears that the government is refusing entry to asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry. And then treats them as criminals when they get desperate and enter illegally.
russell: It’s pick a side time. It’s either more important to preserve the basic integrity of the office of POTUS, and the executive in general, along with all of the public institutions that go along with it, or it’s more important to get your way on your favorite policies. Pick one, because you can’t have both.
cleek: they picked their in 2016. Trump ran on this stuff
They picked when they refused to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
russell: It’s pick a side time. It’s either more important to preserve the basic integrity of the office of POTUS, and the executive in general, along with all of the public institutions that go along with it, or it’s more important to get your way on your favorite policies. Pick one, because you can’t have both.
cleek: they picked their in 2016. Trump ran on this stuff
They picked when they refused to consider Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
That is just as defensible as saying “Americans elected Trump. They are deplorable top to bottom.” Which I think pretty much everybody here (at least while Bob M is away) would dispute.
Now if you want to say “a majority of Republican voters…”, well that’s at least defensible. And if you want to say “the vast majority (or all, not to quibble) of Republicans in Congress…”, that too is defensible. But “top to bottom” is not.
this is the GOP. this is what they want. well, actually they want more of it, faster, harder and with less lube.
they’re deplorable, top to bottom.
That is just as defensible as saying “Americans elected Trump. They are deplorable top to bottom.” Which I think pretty much everybody here (at least while Bob M is away) would dispute.
Now if you want to say “a majority of Republican voters…”, well that’s at least defensible. And if you want to say “the vast majority (or all, not to quibble) of Republicans in Congress…”, that too is defensible. But “top to bottom” is not.
From NBC.
From NBC.
The founders seeming intended for the legislative branch to be a first among equals. But the House and the Senate have been abdicating their role and avoiding leadership and legislation on any number of serious problems, including immigration, for decades.
Trump is one of the symptoms of Congress’s failings.
The founders seeming intended for the legislative branch to be a first among equals. But the House and the Senate have been abdicating their role and avoiding leadership and legislation on any number of serious problems, including immigration, for decades.
Trump is one of the symptoms of Congress’s failings.
That is just as defensible as saying “Americans elected Trump. They are deplorable top to bottom.”
fewer than 19% of Americans voted for Trump. more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. Trump is not the choice of Americans, he’s the choice of Republicans.
But “top to bottom” is not.
oh, it’s close enough.
90% of Republicans currently approve of Trump. 90%. it’s his party now.
That is just as defensible as saying “Americans elected Trump. They are deplorable top to bottom.”
fewer than 19% of Americans voted for Trump. more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump. Trump is not the choice of Americans, he’s the choice of Republicans.
But “top to bottom” is not.
oh, it’s close enough.
90% of Republicans currently approve of Trump. 90%. it’s his party now.
This is just unutterably distressing and depressing, even before cleek’s horrifying 90% statistic. Sorry to state the obvious.
On another note, Corey “Womp womp” Lewandowski is the perfect exemplar of these people – on the spur of the moment and without any thought or self-censorship he perfectly demonstrated their moral bankruptcy and mass psychopathy. It took me a while to find out what womp womp meant, but when I did, I thought it should be this administration’s slogan.
This is just unutterably distressing and depressing, even before cleek’s horrifying 90% statistic. Sorry to state the obvious.
On another note, Corey “Womp womp” Lewandowski is the perfect exemplar of these people – on the spur of the moment and without any thought or self-censorship he perfectly demonstrated their moral bankruptcy and mass psychopathy. It took me a while to find out what womp womp meant, but when I did, I thought it should be this administration’s slogan.
My understanding, foreigner as I am, is that the US constitution divides power between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
The legislature is responsible for making law, the executive is responsible for running the country.
Arguably it doesn’t matter if a legislator is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, so long as he votes for good laws.
But it matters very much if the President, who heads the executive branch, is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Because the country relies on his knowledge, wisdom, probity, and competence in decision making and international diplomacy. Relying on Trump for those qualities is an obvious and potentially catastrophic blunder. There can be no justification for anyone, even a Republican, not to have done everything they can to keep him from power.
My understanding, foreigner as I am, is that the US constitution divides power between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
The legislature is responsible for making law, the executive is responsible for running the country.
Arguably it doesn’t matter if a legislator is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, so long as he votes for good laws.
But it matters very much if the President, who heads the executive branch, is a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Because the country relies on his knowledge, wisdom, probity, and competence in decision making and international diplomacy. Relying on Trump for those qualities is an obvious and potentially catastrophic blunder. There can be no justification for anyone, even a Republican, not to have done everything they can to keep him from power.
I realize that it can be tedious to have to actually look at individuals, rather than just saying “every member of X group is ______.” But doing the latter is indefensible, just as it is when applied to ethnic groups or genders or other groups you would leap to defend.
Come on guys. Is it really too hard to admit that some Republicans might actually be acceptable on every other grounds?
I realize that it can be tedious to have to actually look at individuals, rather than just saying “every member of X group is ______.” But doing the latter is indefensible, just as it is when applied to ethnic groups or genders or other groups you would leap to defend.
Come on guys. Is it really too hard to admit that some Republicans might actually be acceptable on every other grounds?
10% of Republicans might be fine, in exactly the same way 10% of the wheat in a bag of spoiled wheat might be fine.
the good news is that Republicans are not seeds. they can get out of the bag.
10% of Republicans might be fine, in exactly the same way 10% of the wheat in a bag of spoiled wheat might be fine.
the good news is that Republicans are not seeds. they can get out of the bag.
Pro Bono, minor nit: the POTUS runs the government, not the country.
–TP
Pro Bono, minor nit: the POTUS runs the government, not the country.
–TP
So, it seems the child-separation policy is temporarily suspended, whatever that means…
So, it seems the child-separation policy is temporarily suspended, whatever that means…
but that’s impossible ! it was “the law” ! his hands were tied !
but that’s impossible ! it was “the law” ! his hands were tied !
“every member of X group is ______.” But doing the latter is indefensible, just as it is when applied to ethnic groups or genders or other groups you would leap to defend.
Being a Republican is a choice.
Are there otherwise decent people who are Republicans? Yes, but not in their political activities. I’m not just talking Trump and Trumpists here. I’d guess, for example, there are a few decent people in Kansas who are Republican legislators. But they’ve made a giant mess.
The fundamental problem is that Republican policy ideas are terrible, so there is no excuse for supporting candidates who want to implement them.
“every member of X group is ______.” But doing the latter is indefensible, just as it is when applied to ethnic groups or genders or other groups you would leap to defend.
Being a Republican is a choice.
Are there otherwise decent people who are Republicans? Yes, but not in their political activities. I’m not just talking Trump and Trumpists here. I’d guess, for example, there are a few decent people in Kansas who are Republican legislators. But they’ve made a giant mess.
The fundamental problem is that Republican policy ideas are terrible, so there is no excuse for supporting candidates who want to implement them.
wj: “where am I going, and why am I in this basket of deplorables?”
GET OUT OF THE BASKET WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME.
wj: “where am I going, and why am I in this basket of deplorables?”
GET OUT OF THE BASKET WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME.
Slowly coming around to the view that the Count warned us…
Slowly coming around to the view that the Count warned us…
OK, Snarki, and go where?
As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with “no party preference.”
And what difference does the latter make? Only this: in a Presidential primary (but no others), as a “no preference” voter I don’t get a vote. For everything else, it makes zero difference. I can vote for anybody in every other race . . . and I do.
So I stay where I am, in an effort (obviously an unsuccessful one last time) to get a better nominee at the top of the ticket. Will that better nominee be someone you would support? Probably not. But given that your preferred candidate will not win every time, wouldn’t it be better to have an officeholder that you disagree with than one whole is a massive across the board disaster?
OK, Snarki, and go where?
As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with “no party preference.”
And what difference does the latter make? Only this: in a Presidential primary (but no others), as a “no preference” voter I don’t get a vote. For everything else, it makes zero difference. I can vote for anybody in every other race . . . and I do.
So I stay where I am, in an effort (obviously an unsuccessful one last time) to get a better nominee at the top of the ticket. Will that better nominee be someone you would support? Probably not. But given that your preferred candidate will not win every time, wouldn’t it be better to have an officeholder that you disagree with than one whole is a massive across the board disaster?
The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.
If the policy to prosecute all of the people caught illegally crossing the border is suspended thus reducing those families separated that’s awesome.
Despite the legitimate concerns in all this it does irk me that people generally concerned with facts just ignore them in this case.
The law that russell quotes above also defines any minor not accompanied by a US citizen or someone who is legally in the US as an unaccompanied minor. So saying the centers were built for unaccompanied minors is a meaningless distinction.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed. Hopefully that is suspended. Also, hopefully, Congress can address the definition of unaccompanied minors and we can apply enough resources to place all of those unaccompanied minors by DHS so the centers will be what they were originally for, 72 hour processing.
The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.
If the policy to prosecute all of the people caught illegally crossing the border is suspended thus reducing those families separated that’s awesome.
Despite the legitimate concerns in all this it does irk me that people generally concerned with facts just ignore them in this case.
The law that russell quotes above also defines any minor not accompanied by a US citizen or someone who is legally in the US as an unaccompanied minor. So saying the centers were built for unaccompanied minors is a meaningless distinction.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed. Hopefully that is suspended. Also, hopefully, Congress can address the definition of unaccompanied minors and we can apply enough resources to place all of those unaccompanied minors by DHS so the centers will be what they were originally for, 72 hour processing.
I did address one of your points directly russell, people presenting themselves at legal points of entry asking for asylum are not being treated as attempting illegal entry and are not being separated. Sorry my English wasn’t clear.
I did address one of your points directly russell, people presenting themselves at legal points of entry asking for asylum are not being treated as attempting illegal entry and are not being separated. Sorry my English wasn’t clear.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.
This is simply not true. People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children.
That’s a change. Indeed, it is a change that conflicts with US law. But there is it.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.
This is simply not true. People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children.
That’s a change. Indeed, it is a change that conflicts with US law. But there is it.
In all fairness to wj,
Non-Americans are entirely justified in lumping us all together and saying “You Americans must be insane for electing He, Trump”. We can reasonably point out that more of us voted for Hillary, but we can’t deny that OUR electoral system is what coughed him up. (With help from Putin, to be sure, but still.) Partly for sentimental reasons and partly for practical ones, we Americans resist giving up our status as Americans — not even to dissociate ourselves from a disgrace like He, Trump.
Our only hope for redemption is to Make America Decent Again. That requires making an ally of wj and a laughingstock of Marty.
BTW, whatever the hell a hashtag is, I wonder whether #MakeAmericaDecentAgain already exists.
–TP
In all fairness to wj,
Non-Americans are entirely justified in lumping us all together and saying “You Americans must be insane for electing He, Trump”. We can reasonably point out that more of us voted for Hillary, but we can’t deny that OUR electoral system is what coughed him up. (With help from Putin, to be sure, but still.) Partly for sentimental reasons and partly for practical ones, we Americans resist giving up our status as Americans — not even to dissociate ourselves from a disgrace like He, Trump.
Our only hope for redemption is to Make America Decent Again. That requires making an ally of wj and a laughingstock of Marty.
BTW, whatever the hell a hashtag is, I wonder whether #MakeAmericaDecentAgain already exists.
–TP
“People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children. ”
The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
“People who arrive and ask for asylum were, previously, allowed in and released pending a hearing on their asylum application. Now, they are locked up. And separated from their children. ”
The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with “no party preference.”
Do you mean that you have no significant disagreements with the Republican Party? Or just fewer than with the Democrats? (Leaving aside whatever options are open to you.)
As far as I can see, my options are to join a party (there are a number of possibilities on offer) with which I have a significant number of disagreements, or go with “no party preference.”
Do you mean that you have no significant disagreements with the Republican Party? Or just fewer than with the Democrats? (Leaving aside whatever options are open to you.)
This “suspension” may mean that for a few days, or weeks, some children will be left with their parents who would otherwise not have been. And that’s great, every little bit helps.
But in terms of where we’re going as a country, I don’t have any faith that this means a damned thing. It’s just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or “forward” — into darkness) and one step back illusion.
Has anyone said whether a dime will be spent trying to reunite the families that have already been broken? Does anyone think that will actually happen?
This “suspension” may mean that for a few days, or weeks, some children will be left with their parents who would otherwise not have been. And that’s great, every little bit helps.
But in terms of where we’re going as a country, I don’t have any faith that this means a damned thing. It’s just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or “forward” — into darkness) and one step back illusion.
Has anyone said whether a dime will be spent trying to reunite the families that have already been broken? Does anyone think that will actually happen?
The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.
that’s a complete falsehood.
a) the relevant laws have changed in the past 20 years.
b) policy is how laws are interpreted, and Trump and Sessions have decided to interpret the laws differently.
The child separation policy, if suspended, is suspended for the first time in 20 years.
that’s a complete falsehood.
a) the relevant laws have changed in the past 20 years.
b) policy is how laws are interpreted, and Trump and Sessions have decided to interpret the laws differently.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.
I guess you could split hairs about what is policy and what is practice. Either way, the practice of separating families is new in its breadth and scale. That’s why people are talking about it, including people within the Trump administration. It’s a choice they made.
If zero-tolerance requires the separation of families, and if they knew this going in, which I have to assume they did because they talked about before they started doing it, it was their choice to separate families. They even said outright that it was to serve as a deterrent.
But keep defending these creeps, if that’s what makes you happy.
Sessions crackdown on people illegally crossing the border is the only policy that has changed.
I guess you could split hairs about what is policy and what is practice. Either way, the practice of separating families is new in its breadth and scale. That’s why people are talking about it, including people within the Trump administration. It’s a choice they made.
If zero-tolerance requires the separation of families, and if they knew this going in, which I have to assume they did because they talked about before they started doing it, it was their choice to separate families. They even said outright that it was to serve as a deterrent.
But keep defending these creeps, if that’s what makes you happy.
As far as I can see, my options are… suffering from a serious self truncation.
1. There are many political parties. All but two are insignificant, but they exist. Join one.
2. If you mean an “effective” political party, then you ally yourself with and self-identify with either “Democrat” or “Republican”. Pick.
3. It is indeed possible to ally yourself with a party that does not share all of your political positions. Really, it is.
4. The question the peanut gallery has for wj is, what are the dealbreaker positions of the actually exisiting Democratic Party that keeps you from allying yourself with it? Just curious.
As far as I can see, my options are… suffering from a serious self truncation.
1. There are many political parties. All but two are insignificant, but they exist. Join one.
2. If you mean an “effective” political party, then you ally yourself with and self-identify with either “Democrat” or “Republican”. Pick.
3. It is indeed possible to ally yourself with a party that does not share all of your political positions. Really, it is.
4. The question the peanut gallery has for wj is, what are the dealbreaker positions of the actually exisiting Democratic Party that keeps you from allying yourself with it? Just curious.
As I said above, bobbyp, sticking with an affiliation (to a party, to a nation, to a blog even) can be for sentimental reasons as well as practical ones.
But I too am curious: leaving sentiment aside, what policy positions of the Democratic Party does wj dislike? And to extend the question a bit: what are the current GOP’s policy positions on those issues?
–TP
As I said above, bobbyp, sticking with an affiliation (to a party, to a nation, to a blog even) can be for sentimental reasons as well as practical ones.
But I too am curious: leaving sentiment aside, what policy positions of the Democratic Party does wj dislike? And to extend the question a bit: what are the current GOP’s policy positions on those issues?
–TP
The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
Treating someone who takes one step across the border and immediately asks for asylum the same as someone who has entered the country illegally (or stayed illegally), traveled further in and stayed a while? Which is exactly what is being done.
The crackdown is on people who enter illegally, whether they ask for asylum or not. Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
Treating someone who takes one step across the border and immediately asks for asylum the same as someone who has entered the country illegally (or stayed illegally), traveled further in and stayed a while? Which is exactly what is being done.
Adam Silverman, fiercely, on the whole horror show but particularly the question of where the girls and toddlers are.
Bottom line…no one really has a fucking clue.
Including, for those who don’t want to follow the link:
Adam Silverman, fiercely, on the whole horror show but particularly the question of where the girls and toddlers are.
Bottom line…no one really has a fucking clue.
Including, for those who don’t want to follow the link:
It’s just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or “forward” — into darkness) and one step back illusion.
I fear this is exactly right, with the added plus that as well as exhausting/infuriating people like us, it also sends a message to his base that he intends to keep his promises to them, even if temporarily stopped by “the optics” (I loathe that expression), and will continue to go in that direction as soon as possible, and by other means.
It’s just another in a long line of quite possibly deliberately perpetrated outrages explicitly designed to exhaust people like us (or most of us) here at ObWi, and to make us think we accomplished something (he turned off the policy! yay!), when in fact the whole thing will have been a five steps forward (or “forward” — into darkness) and one step back illusion.
I fear this is exactly right, with the added plus that as well as exhausting/infuriating people like us, it also sends a message to his base that he intends to keep his promises to them, even if temporarily stopped by “the optics” (I loathe that expression), and will continue to go in that direction as soon as possible, and by other means.
Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
In terms of your status as a person requesting asylum, there is no difference. They are exactly the same.
See here, especially this:
If you are physically in the US and not a citizen, you are entitled to apply for asylum.
Full stop.
Asking for asylum after you get caught is not the same as going to an authorized crossing and asking for asylum.
In terms of your status as a person requesting asylum, there is no difference. They are exactly the same.
See here, especially this:
If you are physically in the US and not a citizen, you are entitled to apply for asylum.
Full stop.
For the record, you are also entitled to apply for asylum if you entered illegally, have been caught, and are currently in removal proceedings.
If you are physically in the US and are not a citizen, you are entitled to request asylum.
Period. Full stop. End of story.
That is the law.
For the record, you are also entitled to apply for asylum if you entered illegally, have been caught, and are currently in removal proceedings.
If you are physically in the US and are not a citizen, you are entitled to request asylum.
Period. Full stop. End of story.
That is the law.
wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
The challenge for me is this is a complex set of situations that is being treated one dimensionally to put all of the immigration policy in a bad light.
One thing changed. There were consequences of that change that were unacceptable. It doesn’t make all of the other things bad. It means that we should address that change in a way that makes sense.
The people being arrested are still entering the country illegally. Full stop.
If you think we should have open borders I respect that, I don’t. No other country I have been to didn’t require me to have a visa. These things aren’t new or unique. These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.
wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
The challenge for me is this is a complex set of situations that is being treated one dimensionally to put all of the immigration policy in a bad light.
One thing changed. There were consequences of that change that were unacceptable. It doesn’t make all of the other things bad. It means that we should address that change in a way that makes sense.
The people being arrested are still entering the country illegally. Full stop.
If you think we should have open borders I respect that, I don’t. No other country I have been to didn’t require me to have a visa. These things aren’t new or unique. These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.
if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
that has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are entitled to request asylum, nor on how we are obliged to treat them if they do so.
if their request is bogus, they won’t get asylum. this is not an “open borders” thing.
These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.
And the “one change” is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.
if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
that has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are entitled to request asylum, nor on how we are obliged to treat them if they do so.
if their request is bogus, they won’t get asylum. this is not an “open borders” thing.
These laws/policies, aside from the one change, have been in place for decades.
And the “one change” is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.
No other country I have been to didn’t require me to have a visa.
You’ve never been as a tourist to the UK nor any country in the EU?
No other country I have been to didn’t require me to have a visa.
You’ve never been as a tourist to the UK nor any country in the EU?
Then there’s Canada, where pre-911 we (and the Canadians) weren’t even required to have a passport to go back and forth, never mind a visa.
Then there’s Canada, where pre-911 we (and the Canadians) weren’t even required to have a passport to go back and forth, never mind a visa.
If, for the last 50 years, the US had made is as easy as possible for people to cross the country’s borders while keeping a lookout for criminals and criminal activity, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants and their families in the country. A lot of the people who come here to work leaving their families at home. As it is, people come here to stay. And bring their families with them.
And absent the war on drugs and military interventions in other countries, there would be a lot fewer people coming here with no place to go back to.
If, for the last 50 years, the US had made is as easy as possible for people to cross the country’s borders while keeping a lookout for criminals and criminal activity, there would be a lot fewer illegal immigrants and their families in the country. A lot of the people who come here to work leaving their families at home. As it is, people come here to stay. And bring their families with them.
And absent the war on drugs and military interventions in other countries, there would be a lot fewer people coming here with no place to go back to.
JanieM: Mexico too, back in the day. No idea about today. Well, Mexico would probably let you in with no problem, it’s getting back into FascioTrumpUSA that would be the problem.
JanieM: Mexico too, back in the day. No idea about today. Well, Mexico would probably let you in with no problem, it’s getting back into FascioTrumpUSA that would be the problem.
And the “one change” is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.
russell, you’re not supposed to object to things, or ask for things, unless you’ve addressed (to Marty’s satisfaction) the entire policy universe surrounding those things.
IOW, you can’t complain about this horrifically cruel policy of Clickbait’s unless you’ve addressed everything there is to address about immigration, otherwise you’re being one-dimensional.
Sort of like the way gay people were selfish for asking for the right to get married because (we found out much later) Marty doesn’t believe the government should be in the marriage business in the first place.
If you gotta think of some way to defend the indefensible, I guess that kind of “logic” is as good as any other.
And the “one change” is what is causing the problem people are disturbed by.
russell, you’re not supposed to object to things, or ask for things, unless you’ve addressed (to Marty’s satisfaction) the entire policy universe surrounding those things.
IOW, you can’t complain about this horrifically cruel policy of Clickbait’s unless you’ve addressed everything there is to address about immigration, otherwise you’re being one-dimensional.
Sort of like the way gay people were selfish for asking for the right to get married because (we found out much later) Marty doesn’t believe the government should be in the marriage business in the first place.
If you gotta think of some way to defend the indefensible, I guess that kind of “logic” is as good as any other.
Snarki — yes, I’m pretty syre it all changed at the same time, after 9/11.
Snarki — yes, I’m pretty syre it all changed at the same time, after 9/11.
syre->sure
syre->sure
wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
Marty, over and above what Russell said, there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry. We’re not talking someone gaming the system, no matter how liberally you try to interpret that term.
wj, I can make the argument that if they took one step across the border and no one was there they would not have asked for asylum they would have kept going.
Marty, over and above what Russell said, there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry. We’re not talking someone gaming the system, no matter how liberally you try to interpret that term.
We’re not talking someone gaming the system,
Now that you mention it, I think we are talking about someone gaming the system, and it’s not the migrants.
We’re not talking someone gaming the system,
Now that you mention it, I think we are talking about someone gaming the system, and it’s not the migrants.
Point taken.
Point taken.
as always, it bears repeating that the criminal act of entering the US without proper authorization, other than through an authorized point of entry, is a misdemeanor.
Common misdemeanors include:
* minor drug offenses, e.g. holding a doobie
* urinating in public
* gambling
* trespassing on private property
* traffic violations
Consider what a Sessions-style “zero tolerance” policy for stuff like this would be. Immediate incarceration until you have a hearing, and if your kids are with you, they go to social services.
You run a stop sign or bet $100 in a football pool, and you go straight to jail. If your kids are with you, they go into a detention facility and from there they go into foster care.
That’s what we’re talking about.
as always, it bears repeating that the criminal act of entering the US without proper authorization, other than through an authorized point of entry, is a misdemeanor.
Common misdemeanors include:
* minor drug offenses, e.g. holding a doobie
* urinating in public
* gambling
* trespassing on private property
* traffic violations
Consider what a Sessions-style “zero tolerance” policy for stuff like this would be. Immediate incarceration until you have a hearing, and if your kids are with you, they go to social services.
You run a stop sign or bet $100 in a football pool, and you go straight to jail. If your kids are with you, they go into a detention facility and from there they go into foster care.
That’s what we’re talking about.
Just for a change of pace, I agree with ChasWT @ 5:39MP above. This agreement is subject to cessation of the repeated claim that “Libertarians have always believed this since, like forever”, and is subject to the licencing agreement contained herein and accepted by letting your cursor cross over MY (mine, mine, mine!) post.
As agreed, disputes are to be adjudicated in binding arbitration, and I get to pick the arbitrator.
PS: Trump and Sessions are scum.
Just for a change of pace, I agree with ChasWT @ 5:39MP above. This agreement is subject to cessation of the repeated claim that “Libertarians have always believed this since, like forever”, and is subject to the licencing agreement contained herein and accepted by letting your cursor cross over MY (mine, mine, mine!) post.
As agreed, disputes are to be adjudicated in binding arbitration, and I get to pick the arbitrator.
PS: Trump and Sessions are scum.
Seconding bobbyp at 7:04
Seconding bobbyp at 7:04
No russell, that’s not what we’re talking about. The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime. The same punishment for someone illegally entering the country would allow them to stay.
Handing someone a summons to a deportation hearing is ludicrous. Here, you snuck across the border, tried to hide from authorities, we caught you, here’s a summons, your free to go, welcome to America.
It’s nice you keep quoting that it’s a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean? Should they just get to walk across the border and stay?
No russell, that’s not what we’re talking about. The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime. The same punishment for someone illegally entering the country would allow them to stay.
Handing someone a summons to a deportation hearing is ludicrous. Here, you snuck across the border, tried to hide from authorities, we caught you, here’s a summons, your free to go, welcome to America.
It’s nice you keep quoting that it’s a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean? Should they just get to walk across the border and stay?
“there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry”
This is classic, there was this one jerk….with no context at all. I can believe there was one complete ass working for the border patrol. So sure, that shouldn’t happen, nor have I heard it happened. Every example I’ve seen is someone being interviewed that crossed the border in an obvious attempt to enter illegally. Then got caught. As for gaming the system, illegally crossing the border is gaming the system by definition.
So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.
“there was at least one case of someone who was at a regular border crossing. Took one (1!) step across the line on the floor which marks the border, inn order to approach a Border Patrol agent to ask for asylum . . . and was promptly arrested for illegal entry”
This is classic, there was this one jerk….with no context at all. I can believe there was one complete ass working for the border patrol. So sure, that shouldn’t happen, nor have I heard it happened. Every example I’ve seen is someone being interviewed that crossed the border in an obvious attempt to enter illegally. Then got caught. As for gaming the system, illegally crossing the border is gaming the system by definition.
So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.
I owe Marty an apology for the “we found out much later” assertion in my 5:50. I don’t think that changes my sense of how the arguments go, but it’s not literally true, so I retract it.
In any case, I won’t bring up the old stuff again.
I owe Marty an apology for the “we found out much later” assertion in my 5:50. I don’t think that changes my sense of how the arguments go, but it’s not literally true, so I retract it.
In any case, I won’t bring up the old stuff again.
Marty, it would be better if we took the discussion to one about open/non-open borders. Feelings are running high, especially concerning minors and the arguments to either shift blame (it’s the parents fault, not ours) and argue the law (hey, we are just enforcing what is on the books). Saying ‘that’s not what we are talking about’ seems to be getting into questions of mind reading and that is never a good place to be for blog comments.
So why not take a step back and talk about why the US shouldn’t have open borders? Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?
Marty, it would be better if we took the discussion to one about open/non-open borders. Feelings are running high, especially concerning minors and the arguments to either shift blame (it’s the parents fault, not ours) and argue the law (hey, we are just enforcing what is on the books). Saying ‘that’s not what we are talking about’ seems to be getting into questions of mind reading and that is never a good place to be for blog comments.
So why not take a step back and talk about why the US shouldn’t have open borders? Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?
So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.
What we should do, and have done, for people claiming asylum, is to give them a preliminary hearing, put an ankle bracelet on them if they seemed not to be dangerous, and send them into the community, where they have to report to Immigration Control weekly. It works.
I know someone in my community that has this going on. It’s a pain in the butt for her, in that she has to report to someone, but she and her kid live in a safe community, and her kid goes to public school.
Why is this not good enough?
So that do you think should happen when someone sneaks across the Rio Grande and gets caught? Open question, describe what we should do.
What we should do, and have done, for people claiming asylum, is to give them a preliminary hearing, put an ankle bracelet on them if they seemed not to be dangerous, and send them into the community, where they have to report to Immigration Control weekly. It works.
I know someone in my community that has this going on. It’s a pain in the butt for her, in that she has to report to someone, but she and her kid live in a safe community, and her kid goes to public school.
Why is this not good enough?
I know someone in my community [whp] has this going on.
By the way, these folks came here in 2016 during Obama’s presidency. Obama enforced the law, and life was not perfect for immigrants, but she has an existence that is safe and nurturing for her and her son.
I know someone in my community [whp] has this going on.
By the way, these folks came here in 2016 during Obama’s presidency. Obama enforced the law, and life was not perfect for immigrants, but she has an existence that is safe and nurturing for her and her son.
wj, I’ve voted for Republicans in the past, one of them for the US Senate. That was before the Republican Party became deeply anti-science, deeply racist, and even more deeply committed to making sure that economic prosperity is not too widely enjoyed. It’s not like being black or white or those other things, it’s a choice, and that choice is being made in a context. It’s an unconscionable choice at this moment, IMO.
wj, I’ve voted for Republicans in the past, one of them for the US Senate. That was before the Republican Party became deeply anti-science, deeply racist, and even more deeply committed to making sure that economic prosperity is not too widely enjoyed. It’s not like being black or white or those other things, it’s a choice, and that choice is being made in a context. It’s an unconscionable choice at this moment, IMO.
Just a brief interlude here, not meant to derail the immigration topic, but mostly for wj, who I know has been interested. Maine had primaries on 6/12. The ranked-choice tabulation for some of the races has taken until today; I was hoping to do a post, but the tabulation took longer than expected and now I’m out of time prior to a trip.
The Republican gubernatorial race had 4 candidates, one of whom (Shawn Moody), won on the first round.
We voted to keep ranked choice voting (to whatever extent we can, which I forget at the moment) by 54-46 or so.
The Democratic gubernatorial race had 7 candidates. After the first round the top two had roughly 33% and 28%. The final vote tally (I haven’t read how many rounds they had to go) had Janet Mills winning with 54%. She’ll be a good candidate and if all goes well a good governor.
The Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional district had three candidates. The top guy, Jared Golden, had a hair under 50% on the first round, so they had to do another rond. Today it was announced that Jared Golden did indeed win the chance to unseat the (insert epithets here, including cowardly) incumbent R, Bruce Poliquin.
Short of moving to the 2nd district (the boundary isn’t very far from where I live), I’m going to contribute as much $ and time as I can to get Jared Golden elected. I think he’s a great candidate to have in the race.
Just a brief interlude here, not meant to derail the immigration topic, but mostly for wj, who I know has been interested. Maine had primaries on 6/12. The ranked-choice tabulation for some of the races has taken until today; I was hoping to do a post, but the tabulation took longer than expected and now I’m out of time prior to a trip.
The Republican gubernatorial race had 4 candidates, one of whom (Shawn Moody), won on the first round.
We voted to keep ranked choice voting (to whatever extent we can, which I forget at the moment) by 54-46 or so.
The Democratic gubernatorial race had 7 candidates. After the first round the top two had roughly 33% and 28%. The final vote tally (I haven’t read how many rounds they had to go) had Janet Mills winning with 54%. She’ll be a good candidate and if all goes well a good governor.
The Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional district had three candidates. The top guy, Jared Golden, had a hair under 50% on the first round, so they had to do another rond. Today it was announced that Jared Golden did indeed win the chance to unseat the (insert epithets here, including cowardly) incumbent R, Bruce Poliquin.
Short of moving to the 2nd district (the boundary isn’t very far from where I live), I’m going to contribute as much $ and time as I can to get Jared Golden elected. I think he’s a great candidate to have in the race.
sapient,
My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that’s how it works today.
sapient,
My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that’s how it works today.
Meanwhile, in the strange bedfellows department, not to mention the “you can’t make this stuff up” department, we find Michael Cohen resigning from the RNC. Citing as one reason his revulsion at the way immigrants are being treated:
Meanwhile, in the strange bedfellows department, not to mention the “you can’t make this stuff up” department, we find Michael Cohen resigning from the RNC. Citing as one reason his revulsion at the way immigrants are being treated:
Hey, JanieM, I just kicked in a modest sum for Jared Golden in honor of our recent peace accords.
(Also, why not? He seems great.)
Hey, JanieM, I just kicked in a modest sum for Jared Golden in honor of our recent peace accords.
(Also, why not? He seems great.)
sapient — thanks, good stuff!!! I’m really glad!
Every seat counts, and I’m cautiously hopeful. Jared G. ticks a lot of boxes for this race, besides the fact that he seems to be a good guy, smart, articulate, with some experience as a state legislator.
sapient — thanks, good stuff!!! I’m really glad!
Every seat counts, and I’m cautiously hopeful. Jared G. ticks a lot of boxes for this race, besides the fact that he seems to be a good guy, smart, articulate, with some experience as a state legislator.
My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that’s how it works today.
But you don’t get to go to the entry point. Listen to or read this.
I’m not going to keep trying to prove this to you, Marty, because I will end up losing it, so I’ll talk to you another day.
My understanding is that if you go to the entry point and ask for asylum, that’s how it works today.
But you don’t get to go to the entry point. Listen to or read this.
I’m not going to keep trying to prove this to you, Marty, because I will end up losing it, so I’ll talk to you another day.
JanieM,
Thank you. And I apologize for any personal hurt I caused. My intent is never personal. As for your other point you are absolutely correct. My mind works that way. I process information, I guess, differently, to the point of being frustrated that one thing is being discussed without the various dimensions being considered.
In this discussion, for example, after saying Trump and Sessions are assholes and, as much as possible kids should not be taken away from their parents as givens, there seems to be a lot of variablies to consider, and the facts matter then.
But, it is a flaw to some extent that I recognize. When I had a blog the title line was: Now, A Different View
Changing the discussion by changing the question.
Your point is valid and I do mostly try to contain myself.
JanieM,
Thank you. And I apologize for any personal hurt I caused. My intent is never personal. As for your other point you are absolutely correct. My mind works that way. I process information, I guess, differently, to the point of being frustrated that one thing is being discussed without the various dimensions being considered.
In this discussion, for example, after saying Trump and Sessions are assholes and, as much as possible kids should not be taken away from their parents as givens, there seems to be a lot of variablies to consider, and the facts matter then.
But, it is a flaw to some extent that I recognize. When I had a blog the title line was: Now, A Different View
Changing the discussion by changing the question.
Your point is valid and I do mostly try to contain myself.
Thanks, Marty. Onward!
Thanks, Marty. Onward!
“But you don’t get to go to the entry point. ”
That’s inconvenient, but a two day wait, or figuring out where another bridge is unconscionable only if one assumes the border guard is lusing and there really is room at processing center. Then is he just being an authoritarian ass or is that a policy?
Like so many things, I want to know if the press is flung so far and wide as to identify any bad actor, or is there a systemic policy reason. I dont see any policy statements that would have closed the bridge.
Now to take ljs advice, but maybe a step further, I am going to just lurk on this point. I want to follow the discussion but I dont think I’m offering any productive insight at this point.
“But you don’t get to go to the entry point. ”
That’s inconvenient, but a two day wait, or figuring out where another bridge is unconscionable only if one assumes the border guard is lusing and there really is room at processing center. Then is he just being an authoritarian ass or is that a policy?
Like so many things, I want to know if the press is flung so far and wide as to identify any bad actor, or is there a systemic policy reason. I dont see any policy statements that would have closed the bridge.
Now to take ljs advice, but maybe a step further, I am going to just lurk on this point. I want to follow the discussion but I dont think I’m offering any productive insight at this point.
Can’t people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?
Can’t people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?
The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime
yes, that is exactly the difference. good for you for noticing, you make my point eloquently.
watch this:
enter illegally and we send you home.
enter illegally with your kids and we send you all home.
claim asylum and you get a hearing, if you’re full of crap or don’t qualify you go home, otherwise welcome to america.
claim asylum while accompanied by your kids we keep you with your kids until your hearing, then if you’re full of crap or don’t qualify you all go home, otherwise welcome to america all y’all.
those are policies commesurate with a misdemeanor. hold in criminal lockup and, if your kids are with you, they go to HHS or foster care, is not.
keep working that “you all want open borders” BS, it lets us all know you’re drinking the kool aid.
f this noise. what we’re doing is deliberately brutal, and the folks who came up with it are heinous pricks. it’s fucking wrong, and you demean yourself by defending it.
The difference is that the punishments for those are consistent with the crime
yes, that is exactly the difference. good for you for noticing, you make my point eloquently.
watch this:
enter illegally and we send you home.
enter illegally with your kids and we send you all home.
claim asylum and you get a hearing, if you’re full of crap or don’t qualify you go home, otherwise welcome to america.
claim asylum while accompanied by your kids we keep you with your kids until your hearing, then if you’re full of crap or don’t qualify you all go home, otherwise welcome to america all y’all.
those are policies commesurate with a misdemeanor. hold in criminal lockup and, if your kids are with you, they go to HHS or foster care, is not.
keep working that “you all want open borders” BS, it lets us all know you’re drinking the kool aid.
f this noise. what we’re doing is deliberately brutal, and the folks who came up with it are heinous pricks. it’s fucking wrong, and you demean yourself by defending it.
Pro Bono, to not leave your question hanging, no, I have never been to Europe. But my statement wasn’t accurate, I have been to Canada with only my passport.
Pro Bono, to not leave your question hanging, no, I have never been to Europe. But my statement wasn’t accurate, I have been to Canada with only my passport.
Can’t people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?
yes, they can
Can’t people apply at the US embassy or consulates in Mexico for refugee status without having to go to the border?
yes, they can
Ok Russell but there is a time lag between each of those things and we send you home. It’s called due process. Your status during due process is what is under discussion.
If we catch you and we just March you to the border and send you home was the policy I would have a huge problem with it.
Ok Russell but there is a time lag between each of those things and we send you home. It’s called due process. Your status during due process is what is under discussion.
If we catch you and we just March you to the border and send you home was the policy I would have a huge problem with it.
It’s nice you keep quoting that it’s a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean?
thanks, i’m glad you are enjoying it.
fwiw, i’m not “quoting”, i’m pointing out a fact.
what it means when i say “it’s a misdemeanor” is that IT’S A MISDEMEANOR. under common law systems, criminal offenses generally are characterized as felonies or misdemeanors.
felonies are serious offenses, typically punished by imprisonment for more than one year.
misdemeanors are less serious, punishable by either short term imprisonment typically not in federal lockup, or more commonly by a fine.
entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor. in particular, it is one in which no harm to persons or property is involved.
hopefully that clarifies my meaning.
It’s nice you keep quoting that it’s a misdemeanor, my answer is what does that mean?
thanks, i’m glad you are enjoying it.
fwiw, i’m not “quoting”, i’m pointing out a fact.
what it means when i say “it’s a misdemeanor” is that IT’S A MISDEMEANOR. under common law systems, criminal offenses generally are characterized as felonies or misdemeanors.
felonies are serious offenses, typically punished by imprisonment for more than one year.
misdemeanors are less serious, punishable by either short term imprisonment typically not in federal lockup, or more commonly by a fine.
entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor. in particular, it is one in which no harm to persons or property is involved.
hopefully that clarifies my meaning.
Your status during due process is what is under discussion.
as if.
what is under discussion is whether it is appropriate to separate parents from their children during that period.
it’s not.
Your status during due process is what is under discussion.
as if.
what is under discussion is whether it is appropriate to separate parents from their children during that period.
it’s not.
It’s not appropriate. It’s also not necessary.
Witness the fact that, after insisting for a week that it was acting as required by a law that only Congress could change, the administration reversed itself without trouble. Even for the Trump administration, turning on a dime after numerous cabinet level officials (not to mention the President himself) claimed it was impossible is an impressive case of giving themselves the lie.
At this point, it seems undeniable (not that they won’t) that the whole thing was an exercise in deliberate, malicious cruelty.
It’s not appropriate. It’s also not necessary.
Witness the fact that, after insisting for a week that it was acting as required by a law that only Congress could change, the administration reversed itself without trouble. Even for the Trump administration, turning on a dime after numerous cabinet level officials (not to mention the President himself) claimed it was impossible is an impressive case of giving themselves the lie.
At this point, it seems undeniable (not that they won’t) that the whole thing was an exercise in deliberate, malicious cruelty.
Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?
i agree, and thank you charles.
i’ll offer my take:
immigrants are already here and doing useful, valuable work. for us. for not a lot of money.
unemployment is minimal.
if people want to come here and work, let them do so. if they don’t want to stay, they still have to pay taxes etc.
if they want to stay, let them stay.
we issue about a million visas for permanent residence a year. that’s about one third of one percent of the population.
trying to keep people out who simply want to come here in good faith and improve their lives, and ours, costs us a ton of money and is rotting our souls as a nation.
i see no upside to what we do now, except as a growth industry for for-profit detention centers. which are a moral blight.
so let’s stop being boneheads and let people come.
Charles WT has provided an interesting start, how about you try and give us your take?
i agree, and thank you charles.
i’ll offer my take:
immigrants are already here and doing useful, valuable work. for us. for not a lot of money.
unemployment is minimal.
if people want to come here and work, let them do so. if they don’t want to stay, they still have to pay taxes etc.
if they want to stay, let them stay.
we issue about a million visas for permanent residence a year. that’s about one third of one percent of the population.
trying to keep people out who simply want to come here in good faith and improve their lives, and ours, costs us a ton of money and is rotting our souls as a nation.
i see no upside to what we do now, except as a growth industry for for-profit detention centers. which are a moral blight.
so let’s stop being boneheads and let people come.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
You may want to hold off on your assessment of whether it is legal or not.
Just because he signed the order doesn’t mean it will stand up in court.
So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
You may want to hold off on your assessment of whether it is legal or not.
Just because he signed the order doesn’t mean it will stand up in court.
So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.
So my take.
I think that we need to do two things.
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
One million visas will be a drop in the bucket if we abandon the first, even one order of magnitude will have a huge economic impact but that would be a small estimate of potential immigration.
We should welcome many more immigrants with less restrictions. We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.
But we need to agree to both, each on it’s own is untenable.
So my take.
I think that we need to do two things.
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
One million visas will be a drop in the bucket if we abandon the first, even one order of magnitude will have a huge economic impact but that would be a small estimate of potential immigration.
We should welcome many more immigrants with less restrictions. We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.
But we need to agree to both, each on it’s own is untenable.
When Marty says “fix the problem”, sentient people can reasonably ask: which problem?
When ICE arrests 146 workers at an Ohio meatpacking plant, and does NOT perp-walk the plant manager out ahead of them, it’s reasonable to suspect that “the problem” Marty means is brown-skinned people trying to earn a living, and not the pasty-white members of the NFIB who so loudly cheered He, Trump’s verbal diarrhea a couple of days ago.
–TP
When Marty says “fix the problem”, sentient people can reasonably ask: which problem?
When ICE arrests 146 workers at an Ohio meatpacking plant, and does NOT perp-walk the plant manager out ahead of them, it’s reasonable to suspect that “the problem” Marty means is brown-skinned people trying to earn a living, and not the pasty-white members of the NFIB who so loudly cheered He, Trump’s verbal diarrhea a couple of days ago.
–TP
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
No, we do not. It has always struck me as odd that we have laws that can only be broken by people who are not even citizens…but whatever. If you demand it be made a crime, then what is to be the punishment? We have several examples of current policy disputes where these two things are at loggerheads: Drugs, abortion, and sex work. If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense. The right always invokes the mantra “We are a nation of laws”, well sure, except for those laws they don’t particularly care about….LIKE HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS (emphasis mine-thanks Tony) or turning a blind eye to abortion when it’s your daughter, concubine, or wife, or getting busted for smoking some dope.
If you don’t want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don’t even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens. Or, what russell said.
We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.
Yes indeed. But the details matter here. But why not try something different? Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? There are a variety of policies in this regard that we should give more attention to.
We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.
I don’t see this as serious. Just how much “financial stability” will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board? And sponsors? Egad. You know what sponsors want? They want cheap labor.
So is cheap labor your preferred way of promoting the General Welfare, Marty?
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
No, we do not. It has always struck me as odd that we have laws that can only be broken by people who are not even citizens…but whatever. If you demand it be made a crime, then what is to be the punishment? We have several examples of current policy disputes where these two things are at loggerheads: Drugs, abortion, and sex work. If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense. The right always invokes the mantra “We are a nation of laws”, well sure, except for those laws they don’t particularly care about….LIKE HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS (emphasis mine-thanks Tony) or turning a blind eye to abortion when it’s your daughter, concubine, or wife, or getting busted for smoking some dope.
If you don’t want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don’t even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens. Or, what russell said.
We need to agree that legal immigration should be easier, streamlined and clarified.
Yes indeed. But the details matter here. But why not try something different? Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? There are a variety of policies in this regard that we should give more attention to.
We should have policies similar to Canada, sponsored immigration with proof of financial stability from the sponsor, etc.
I don’t see this as serious. Just how much “financial stability” will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board? And sponsors? Egad. You know what sponsors want? They want cheap labor.
So is cheap labor your preferred way of promoting the General Welfare, Marty?
So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.
The weak link consists of moderate Republicans wher are willing to work with Dems to pass a humane immigration reform package, but GOP leadership, held hostage by their extremist wing, will not allow a vote.
The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out and take their taco trucks, their restaurants with menus in Spanish, and their brown skinned kids in THEIR schools with them.
Barring a total Dem electoral sweep (an outcome devoutly to be wished), this is a civil war that has to be settled amongst those on the right of the political spectrum.
So there needs to be continued pressure on Congress to actually fix the problem.
The weak link consists of moderate Republicans wher are willing to work with Dems to pass a humane immigration reform package, but GOP leadership, held hostage by their extremist wing, will not allow a vote.
The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out and take their taco trucks, their restaurants with menus in Spanish, and their brown skinned kids in THEIR schools with them.
Barring a total Dem electoral sweep (an outcome devoutly to be wished), this is a civil war that has to be settled amongst those on the right of the political spectrum.
If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense.
Well, in the sense that people’s welfare is promoted by feeling virtuous. Even though they behave otherwise. That’s the basis of all “blue laws” — they forbid “sinning” (however defined).
Of course they don’t work. But it makes those demanding them feel good and virtuous.
If you demand on a law that will be almost universally ignored it strikes me this is not promoting the General Welfare in any meaningful sense.
Well, in the sense that people’s welfare is promoted by feeling virtuous. Even though they behave otherwise. That’s the basis of all “blue laws” — they forbid “sinning” (however defined).
Of course they don’t work. But it makes those demanding them feel good and virtuous.
The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out
I think you’re inaccurately conflating two different groups.
One wants cheap labor. They could generally care less whether the immigrant part of that labor is temporarily or permanently resident. (So long as they don’t become voters who will vote “wrong,” of course.) Mostly, their concerns about cultural contamination are minimal — perhaps because they mostly see their culture as different from that of the “uncultured” masses. For example, their kids aren’t going to be in public schools with “those people’s” kids anyway.
The other doesn’t want guest workers, or any other kind of immigrants who might hold wages down. They don’t much care for anyone who is not like them (however defined — a shifting target). They actually need some of them around, just to feel superior to. But heaven forbid they be in sufficient numbers to be a significant part of society. That might have been tolerable when there were laws to “keep them in their place” (i.e. down), but no more.
The wingers do not want immigration reform. They want guest workers. Laborers who come in, work a bit so they can have cheap salads, and then get the fuck out
I think you’re inaccurately conflating two different groups.
One wants cheap labor. They could generally care less whether the immigrant part of that labor is temporarily or permanently resident. (So long as they don’t become voters who will vote “wrong,” of course.) Mostly, their concerns about cultural contamination are minimal — perhaps because they mostly see their culture as different from that of the “uncultured” masses. For example, their kids aren’t going to be in public schools with “those people’s” kids anyway.
The other doesn’t want guest workers, or any other kind of immigrants who might hold wages down. They don’t much care for anyone who is not like them (however defined — a shifting target). They actually need some of them around, just to feel superior to. But heaven forbid they be in sufficient numbers to be a significant part of society. That might have been tolerable when there were laws to “keep them in their place” (i.e. down), but no more.
The other doesn’t want guest workers
Yes. They do. Because that is the way to keep “them” socially isolated and under control. I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.
The other doesn’t want guest workers
Yes. They do. Because that is the way to keep “them” socially isolated and under control. I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.
I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.
Specifically agricultural wages? No. But unhappy about lack of jobs paying decent wages? Very much so.
I do not see a lot of these types of folks you have conjured up marching in the streets protesting low agricultural wages.
Specifically agricultural wages? No. But unhappy about lack of jobs paying decent wages? Very much so.
From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not…
Is that correct ?
From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not…
Is that correct ?
Of course immigration to relatively wealthy countries is a problem whether or not they have as president a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Migrants continue to drown in the Mediterranean in numbers I will not estimate, since each man’s death diminishes us.
However, it’s impossible to have an informed debate on current US policy, since the president, in addition to what I’ve already quoted about him, is a habitual liar who lies about everything he does and the reasons for it.
Of course immigration to relatively wealthy countries is a problem whether or not they have as president a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute. Migrants continue to drown in the Mediterranean in numbers I will not estimate, since each man’s death diminishes us.
However, it’s impossible to have an informed debate on current US policy, since the president, in addition to what I’ve already quoted about him, is a habitual liar who lies about everything he does and the reasons for it.
Steve Schmidt –
“Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.”
https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/steve-schmidt-gop-1202852019/
Steve Schmidt –
“Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.”
https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/steve-schmidt-gop-1202852019/
A handful of Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that they have a problem…
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-sanford-insult-amash-costello-660488
“Had a great meeting with the House GOP last night at the Capitol,” the president posted on Twitter as he was en route to Duluth, Minnesota, for a rally Wednesday evening. “They applauded and laughed loudly when I mentioned my experience with Mark Sanford. I have never been a fan of his!”
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) responded that that lawmakers were instead “disgusted.”
“House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity,” Amash tweeted. “Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted.”
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) also denied Trump’s claim that Republicans were cheering about his Sanford comments at the GOP closed-door conference on Tuesday night.
“Categorically false,” Costello tweeted in response to the president’s post.
A handful of Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that they have a problem…
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-sanford-insult-amash-costello-660488
“Had a great meeting with the House GOP last night at the Capitol,” the president posted on Twitter as he was en route to Duluth, Minnesota, for a rally Wednesday evening. “They applauded and laughed loudly when I mentioned my experience with Mark Sanford. I have never been a fan of his!”
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) responded that that lawmakers were instead “disgusted.”
“House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity,” Amash tweeted. “Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted.”
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) also denied Trump’s claim that Republicans were cheering about his Sanford comments at the GOP closed-door conference on Tuesday night.
“Categorically false,” Costello tweeted in response to the president’s post.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
because it’s no secret that the Flores case is a ‘conservative’ bête noire and now they’ve crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.
it’s no accident. it’s not unplanned. Trump et al aren’t hapless naifs struggling against the evil Courts.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
because it’s no secret that the Flores case is a ‘conservative’ bête noire and now they’ve crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.
it’s no accident. it’s not unplanned. Trump et al aren’t hapless naifs struggling against the evil Courts.
“If you don’t want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don’t even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens.”
Could not agree more.
“Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? ”
I made this point, last week I think.
“How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? ”
Great ideas, 100% agree.
“Just how much “financial stability” will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board?”
Canada accepts many more immigrants than we do by percentage. Their requirements seem reasonable to me YMMV.
The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist. It’s actually just tiresome at this point to read another five sentences about how everyone who disagrees is just against brown people. If all the poor people in Guatemala and Mexico were white there would still need to be immigration laws, but it would be more difficult to profile a set of people for suspicion or to treat them as an oppressed minority. So likely racists and Democrats would care less about the issue.
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem
“If you don’t want them here, then take reasonable measures to simply send them back when caught. But don’t even begin to claim you are serious about this issue if you turn a blind eye to employers illegally hiring illegal aliens.”
Could not agree more.
“Why not try to bolster the economies and the democratic institutions of our southern neighbors? ”
I made this point, last week I think.
“How about cracking down on gun sales to Mexican drug gangs? How about coming up with trade incentives to grow jobs in Latin America? ”
Great ideas, 100% agree.
“Just how much “financial stability” will you require for some poor sod to make their way up here to pick cherries one month out of the year or hang gyp board?”
Canada accepts many more immigrants than we do by percentage. Their requirements seem reasonable to me YMMV.
The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist. It’s actually just tiresome at this point to read another five sentences about how everyone who disagrees is just against brown people. If all the poor people in Guatemala and Mexico were white there would still need to be immigration laws, but it would be more difficult to profile a set of people for suspicion or to treat them as an oppressed minority. So likely racists and Democrats would care less about the issue.
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem
what’s crucial, and missing, is Republican leadership willing to let things come up for votes, and a President who would sign something that doesn’t contain hundreds of billions of dollars for an unneeded wall.
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform are as important as moderate Republicans in solving the problem
what’s crucial, and missing, is Republican leadership willing to let things come up for votes, and a President who would sign something that doesn’t contain hundreds of billions of dollars for an unneeded wall.
Trump’s war against irony rages on…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-resigns-rnc-committee-post/story?id=56033406
Trump’s war against irony rages on…
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-resigns-rnc-committee-post/story?id=56033406
The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
this is false.
nobody is calling for open borders.
what people are opposed to is “zero tolerance” enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
this is false.
nobody is calling for open borders.
what people are opposed to is “zero tolerance” enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
this is false.
nobody is calling for open borders.
what people are opposed to is “zero tolerance” enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.
Right now each side supports one of those positions.
this is false.
nobody is calling for open borders.
what people are opposed to is “zero tolerance” enforcement, and specifically to the separation of families.
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
No. We should not prosecute them. Not only is it inhumane, it’s a waste. Do we want to do what it takes to detain, hold, try, and imprison those who cross illegally? Remember, they really have done nothing that resembles committing an actual crime. Besides, ICE is thuggish enough already. Let’s not expand it and give them more excuses for bad behavior.
The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral.
Spending $20-25 billion on a useless wall is a complete waste.
We need to agree that illegally crossing the border is a crime and we should prosecute those that do it.
No. We should not prosecute them. Not only is it inhumane, it’s a waste. Do we want to do what it takes to detain, hold, try, and imprison those who cross illegally? Remember, they really have done nothing that resembles committing an actual crime. Besides, ICE is thuggish enough already. Let’s not expand it and give them more excuses for bad behavior.
The walls 20 b dollars, not passing immigration reform because of the wall is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral.
Spending $20-25 billion on a useless wall is a complete waste.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
because it’s no secret that the Flores case is a ‘conservative’ bête noire and now they’ve crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.
correct.
there are legal challenges because the new policy conflicts with… the law.
cleek thinks this is a plan, i could be easily persuaded that “a plan” gives too much credit, and that it’s trump, miller, et al flipping us all the bird.
just another way of saying “womp womp”.
horrible people make horrible policy. the price of your wonderful tax cut is cruel, half-assed clusterf**ks like this.
there was no prepation for this policy, sessions dropped it and now everyone is scrambling. and not doing such a great job, some of these people won’t see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.
it’s a f***ing mess.
more people try to enter the country than we have resources to manage at the “well, just enforce the law” policy you seem to be looking for. so, we prioritize. obama aggressively went after people who had criminal histories, or who were more serious violaters – re-entry after prior deportation, etc. and obama-era policies were quite aggressive.
sessions decided the thing to do was focus on aggressively prosecuting every entry under criminal law. so now we have a mess.
if you want to tell me that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of these people are brown and speak a different language, i’m going to ask you what freaking country you hink you are living in, and invite you to review every freaking stump speech trump ever gave, beginning with the very first one.
this shit is what he ran on. it’s what his people want, and he is giving it to them.
some of these people aren’t going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it’s stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.
Witness the fact that as soon as he signed it multiple news outlets announced the legal challenges to it.
because it’s no secret that the Flores case is a ‘conservative’ bête noire and now they’ve crafted a policy that puts themselves squarely into conflict with it.
correct.
there are legal challenges because the new policy conflicts with… the law.
cleek thinks this is a plan, i could be easily persuaded that “a plan” gives too much credit, and that it’s trump, miller, et al flipping us all the bird.
just another way of saying “womp womp”.
horrible people make horrible policy. the price of your wonderful tax cut is cruel, half-assed clusterf**ks like this.
there was no prepation for this policy, sessions dropped it and now everyone is scrambling. and not doing such a great job, some of these people won’t see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.
it’s a f***ing mess.
more people try to enter the country than we have resources to manage at the “well, just enforce the law” policy you seem to be looking for. so, we prioritize. obama aggressively went after people who had criminal histories, or who were more serious violaters – re-entry after prior deportation, etc. and obama-era policies were quite aggressive.
sessions decided the thing to do was focus on aggressively prosecuting every entry under criminal law. so now we have a mess.
if you want to tell me that this has nothing to do with the fact that most of these people are brown and speak a different language, i’m going to ask you what freaking country you hink you are living in, and invite you to review every freaking stump speech trump ever gave, beginning with the very first one.
this shit is what he ran on. it’s what his people want, and he is giving it to them.
some of these people aren’t going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it’s stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform
actually, that was barack obama.
you know, the tyrant.
you can look it up, don’t take my word for it.
Moderate Democrats willing to say yes to immigration reform
actually, that was barack obama.
you know, the tyrant.
you can look it up, don’t take my word for it.
“imprison those who cross illegally”
I’m not talking about imprisoning them, except for the shortest time possible while deporting them. But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that’s a crime and you are subject to deportation. The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.
Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.
“Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral. ”
No, its amoral as is most government. There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.
That’s really how government should work.
“imprison those who cross illegally”
I’m not talking about imprisoning them, except for the shortest time possible while deporting them. But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that’s a crime and you are subject to deportation. The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.
Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.
“Holding Dreamers hostage because you want the stupid wall is immoral. ”
No, its amoral as is most government. There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.
That’s really how government should work.
From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not…
Is that correct ?
Not exactly.
From what I understand, while US law requires immigrant workers to have papers, it also requires employers not to enquiry too closely into whether they are legitimate or not…
Is that correct ?
Not exactly.
The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist.
Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve “the problem” is no excuse to not solve “the problem”.
Maybe first somebody should tell me what “the problem” is?
The immigration problem is unlikely to be solved as long as every discussion includes accusing the other side of being racist.
Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve “the problem” is no excuse to not solve “the problem”.
Maybe first somebody should tell me what “the problem” is?
some of these people won’t see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.
This, to my mind, is the most unforgivable piece of an overall massively immoral policy. No way to track the individual kids, so you could someday return them to their parents?
Just to take the most obvious point, if you don’t track the kids, how will you know when their parents are deported? And if you don’t know that, are you just going to keep the kids here until they turn 18 and you can deport them separately?
I’d ask what these morons were thinking, except the answer is obvious — they don’t think.
some of these people won’t see their kids for years, because there are no systems in place to track who belongs to who.
This, to my mind, is the most unforgivable piece of an overall massively immoral policy. No way to track the individual kids, so you could someday return them to their parents?
Just to take the most obvious point, if you don’t track the kids, how will you know when their parents are deported? And if you don’t know that, are you just going to keep the kids here until they turn 18 and you can deport them separately?
I’d ask what these morons were thinking, except the answer is obvious — they don’t think.
Not exactly
“…an employer can be penalized for discrimination for checking documents too zealously or insisting on a particular document, such as a green card. The way the rules put it, you should accept documents from the I-9 lists that “reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.”…”
But substantially.
Not exactly
“…an employer can be penalized for discrimination for checking documents too zealously or insisting on a particular document, such as a green card. The way the rules put it, you should accept documents from the I-9 lists that “reasonably appear on their face to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them.”…”
But substantially.
Slate makes a respectable point:
In abusive relationships, abusers know how grateful people feel when the suffering they’ve inflicted stops. This is a dynamic worth resisting, so here is where the words you choose matter: If you describe the moment when an abusive person stops as relenting or relieving or any variant that invokes mercy, you’re flattering the abuser, painting him as not just powerful but benevolent. Crediting him with defusing a situation he created positions him (as Brian Phillips points out) as the hero deactivating the bomb rather than the person who lit the fuse….
Slate makes a respectable point:
In abusive relationships, abusers know how grateful people feel when the suffering they’ve inflicted stops. This is a dynamic worth resisting, so here is where the words you choose matter: If you describe the moment when an abusive person stops as relenting or relieving or any variant that invokes mercy, you’re flattering the abuser, painting him as not just powerful but benevolent. Crediting him with defusing a situation he created positions him (as Brian Phillips points out) as the hero deactivating the bomb rather than the person who lit the fuse….
It’s the same pattern with NK. From “little rocket man” and “fire and fury” and “bigger nuclear button” to “Look how much safer we are now that I’ve diffused all this tension!”
It’s the same pattern with NK. From “little rocket man” and “fire and fury” and “bigger nuclear button” to “Look how much safer we are now that I’ve diffused all this tension!”
Maybe first somebody should tell me what “the problem” is?
Fever dreams of welfare cheats born elsewhere draining our scarce resources.
Maybe first somebody should tell me what “the problem” is?
Fever dreams of welfare cheats born elsewhere draining our scarce resources.
You May Be A Racist If:
1) You talk as if walking across the US/Mexico border is the only form of illegal immigration.
That is all.
–TP
You May Be A Racist If:
1) You talk as if walking across the US/Mexico border is the only form of illegal immigration.
That is all.
–TP
Just came across a great line (from a Public Defender in El Paso, whose trying to work with the detained parents):
If you arrested, they take your wallet and you get a receipt. When you leave, you get the wallet back. But now, if they take you child, you don’t even get a slip of paper? And they have no way to even find the child again??
MAIA — make American Incompetent Again.
Just came across a great line (from a Public Defender in El Paso, whose trying to work with the detained parents):
If you arrested, they take your wallet and you get a receipt. When you leave, you get the wallet back. But now, if they take you child, you don’t even get a slip of paper? And they have no way to even find the child again??
MAIA — make American Incompetent Again.
“Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve “the problem” is no excuse to not solve “the problem”.”
We are not talking about hurt feelings here, we are talking about adults working out disagreements without resorting every fifth sentence to calling each other names like twelve year olds. Both sides. Yes, both sides. FFS.
“Using hurt feelings as an excuse to not solve “the problem” is no excuse to not solve “the problem”.”
We are not talking about hurt feelings here, we are talking about adults working out disagreements without resorting every fifth sentence to calling each other names like twelve year olds. Both sides. Yes, both sides. FFS.
There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.
That’s really how government should work.
I disagree. First of all, even for those who want much better border security, the wall is a bad idea and a waste of money. It’s popular with some because it sounds tough, and Trump made an issue of it during the campaign.
More important is this. A substantial majority of the country wants to do something to legalize the Dreamers. Even Republicans. Even Trump claims that he wants to. (He’s lying, but let’s take him at his word.)
So why make the damn wall an obstacle to doing something, unrelated to the wall, about the Dreamers? It’s nothing but hostage-taking.
Compare:
“Yes. I really want to let your kid go home, but you have to send me $50,000 first.”
and.
“Yes. I really want to do something about the Dreamers, but you have to give me $25 billion for the wall first.”
That is what Trump, and the Republicans in Congress, are doing. Simple cruelty.
There are competing factions, trying to look out for the best interests of varying groups of which Dreamers are one. One faction believes that their changes to immigration laws substantially aid another group so they insist that both groups get taken care of at the same time.
That’s really how government should work.
I disagree. First of all, even for those who want much better border security, the wall is a bad idea and a waste of money. It’s popular with some because it sounds tough, and Trump made an issue of it during the campaign.
More important is this. A substantial majority of the country wants to do something to legalize the Dreamers. Even Republicans. Even Trump claims that he wants to. (He’s lying, but let’s take him at his word.)
So why make the damn wall an obstacle to doing something, unrelated to the wall, about the Dreamers? It’s nothing but hostage-taking.
Compare:
“Yes. I really want to let your kid go home, but you have to send me $50,000 first.”
and.
“Yes. I really want to do something about the Dreamers, but you have to give me $25 billion for the wall first.”
That is what Trump, and the Republicans in Congress, are doing. Simple cruelty.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/stable-genius-at-work.html
https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Trump-retreats-on-separating-families-but-13012090.php
Notice the continuity between that photograph and this, especially the expression on the face of the lunkhead God bothering ghoul standing to the right:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QzX5cGKN6Eg
That scene in It’s A Wonderful Life was shot two ways by Frank Capra. The alternative, which will see the light of day in good time, has George Bailey dropping the cigar as a ruse and drawing an NRA-approved semi-automatic pistol and shooting the two vermin villians in their heads and then, instead of getting drunk and attempting suicide, he gathers up his family, Zuzu’s petals, the hapless Uncle Billy, cabbie Ernie and Violet Bick and heads for the hills to remake America from common decency while filling Potter’s Field with millions of dead Potters.
Even guardian Angel Clarence relents and joins the effort as he realizes Bailey’s amorality is just the ticket for some savage fucking justice against home-grown assholes and jagoffs.
“Yeah, But What About McManus and Stalin”‘, the musical, opens on Broadway, but closes after one matinee performance, as the public yawns at its utter irrelevancy and forgettable songs.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/stable-genius-at-work.html
https://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Trump-retreats-on-separating-families-but-13012090.php
Notice the continuity between that photograph and this, especially the expression on the face of the lunkhead God bothering ghoul standing to the right:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QzX5cGKN6Eg
That scene in It’s A Wonderful Life was shot two ways by Frank Capra. The alternative, which will see the light of day in good time, has George Bailey dropping the cigar as a ruse and drawing an NRA-approved semi-automatic pistol and shooting the two vermin villians in their heads and then, instead of getting drunk and attempting suicide, he gathers up his family, Zuzu’s petals, the hapless Uncle Billy, cabbie Ernie and Violet Bick and heads for the hills to remake America from common decency while filling Potter’s Field with millions of dead Potters.
Even guardian Angel Clarence relents and joins the effort as he realizes Bailey’s amorality is just the ticket for some savage fucking justice against home-grown assholes and jagoffs.
“Yeah, But What About McManus and Stalin”‘, the musical, opens on Broadway, but closes after one matinee performance, as the public yawns at its utter irrelevancy and forgettable songs.
Try this for the photograph in that second cite.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/their-hero.html
Try this for the photograph in that second cite.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/06/their-hero.html
But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that’s a crime and you are subject to deportation.
I think everyone understands that entering without proper documentation is against the law, and doing so makes you subject to deportation.
The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.
Apparently you do not have a clear understanding of what sanctuary cities are about.
Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.
This man, he is made of straw. If you’re addressing me, you need to read my comments more carefully.
Conversely, when people tell me that this whole issue has nothing to do with race, after the very public statements of the POTUS and folks in his circle, to say nothing of the public statements of his rank and file followers, I have to ask if those people are arguing in good faith.
Want to close that gap? You need to be a hell of a lot more candid about what motivates the folks who support this crap. I have eyes in my head, and the whole “it ain’t about them being brown” thing is a dog that does not hunt.
If you want to get down to it and talk about what’s actually going on here, fine with me. Then let’s really get down to it.
We can start with a review of Trump’s speech, declaring himself a candidate for office. And then we can proceed from there.
But there needs to be a consensus that if you are here illegally that’s a crime and you are subject to deportation.
I think everyone understands that entering without proper documentation is against the law, and doing so makes you subject to deportation.
The example is sanctuary cities, which essentially say fuck off to the people who supposedly agree that we should not have open borders.
Apparently you do not have a clear understanding of what sanctuary cities are about.
Saying you are not for open borders but then supporting every instance that undermines border security creates, IMO, a legitimate question as to where the line is actually drawn.
This man, he is made of straw. If you’re addressing me, you need to read my comments more carefully.
Conversely, when people tell me that this whole issue has nothing to do with race, after the very public statements of the POTUS and folks in his circle, to say nothing of the public statements of his rank and file followers, I have to ask if those people are arguing in good faith.
Want to close that gap? You need to be a hell of a lot more candid about what motivates the folks who support this crap. I have eyes in my head, and the whole “it ain’t about them being brown” thing is a dog that does not hunt.
If you want to get down to it and talk about what’s actually going on here, fine with me. Then let’s really get down to it.
We can start with a review of Trump’s speech, declaring himself a candidate for office. And then we can proceed from there.
oh look, Trump found yet another policy option he didn’t know he had.
[ht BJ]
bbbbuutttt Caaaahhhhnnnnngresssss!
oh look, Trump found yet another policy option he didn’t know he had.
[ht BJ]
bbbbuutttt Caaaahhhhnnnnngresssss!
Per cleek’s link, zero tolerance is still the policy, yet they won’t detain families for extended periods, rather they will release them to await a hearing.
So zero tolerance doesn’t require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.
Marty?
Per cleek’s link, zero tolerance is still the policy, yet they won’t detain families for extended periods, rather they will release them to await a hearing.
So zero tolerance doesn’t require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.
Marty?
Trump found yet another policy option he didn’t know he had.
We already knew that he was massively ignorant of his office and how it works. Of course, any President relies on advisors to know all the stuff that he can’t personally keep up on — and there’s more than even someone who wants to know can. But when your advisors are folks like Miller, who don’t want to do anything but be as noxious as possible, they aren’t going to bother to learn about other options. Let alone tell you.
SAD. But not surprising.
Trump found yet another policy option he didn’t know he had.
We already knew that he was massively ignorant of his office and how it works. Of course, any President relies on advisors to know all the stuff that he can’t personally keep up on — and there’s more than even someone who wants to know can. But when your advisors are folks like Miller, who don’t want to do anything but be as noxious as possible, they aren’t going to bother to learn about other options. Let alone tell you.
SAD. But not surprising.
He, Trump knows One Big Thing: how to cater to the Martys of the world.
Don’t get me wrong: I do not mean to offend Marty inadvertently. If I want a revolution, I have to offend somebody. When Birther-in-Chief He, Trump or boy-Nazi Stephen Miller deign to speak for themselves here (instead of counting on Marty to parrot their nativist yahoo talking points) then I will joyfully lay off Marty and enthusiastically violate the posting rules all over their pasty-white asses.
Anybody who wants to “solve the immigration problem” without demanding a national ID card is fooling himself, not me. A red-haired, freckle-faced, blue-eyed Irishman who overstays his visa after flying into the port of entry called JFK is just as much an “illegal immigrant” as a brown Spanish-speaking Central American who swims across the Rio Grande. Whichever of those stereotypes represents a bigger population, neither would make the trip if there were no way to earn money, rent housing, get medical care, or even buy electricity without presenting a valid, unexpired national ID card. Of course, since many people named Kelly or Sanchez are native-born Americans (maternity-ward immigrants, IOW) everybody would need the ID card.
I recognize that such a regime would seriously inconvenience the “job creators” who count on hiring low-wage workers for unpleasant jobs without having to vet their legal status. It might seriously displease the “Independent Business” types whose “National Federation” He, Trump addressed to howls of applause the other day.
I also recognize that many on the Left, as well as the RWNJs, consider a national ID card to be anathema.
But you can’t “solve the immigration problem” without it. You can “solve” some problem, maybe, but it might be embarrassing to have to admit which “problem”.
–TP
He, Trump knows One Big Thing: how to cater to the Martys of the world.
Don’t get me wrong: I do not mean to offend Marty inadvertently. If I want a revolution, I have to offend somebody. When Birther-in-Chief He, Trump or boy-Nazi Stephen Miller deign to speak for themselves here (instead of counting on Marty to parrot their nativist yahoo talking points) then I will joyfully lay off Marty and enthusiastically violate the posting rules all over their pasty-white asses.
Anybody who wants to “solve the immigration problem” without demanding a national ID card is fooling himself, not me. A red-haired, freckle-faced, blue-eyed Irishman who overstays his visa after flying into the port of entry called JFK is just as much an “illegal immigrant” as a brown Spanish-speaking Central American who swims across the Rio Grande. Whichever of those stereotypes represents a bigger population, neither would make the trip if there were no way to earn money, rent housing, get medical care, or even buy electricity without presenting a valid, unexpired national ID card. Of course, since many people named Kelly or Sanchez are native-born Americans (maternity-ward immigrants, IOW) everybody would need the ID card.
I recognize that such a regime would seriously inconvenience the “job creators” who count on hiring low-wage workers for unpleasant jobs without having to vet their legal status. It might seriously displease the “Independent Business” types whose “National Federation” He, Trump addressed to howls of applause the other day.
I also recognize that many on the Left, as well as the RWNJs, consider a national ID card to be anathema.
But you can’t “solve the immigration problem” without it. You can “solve” some problem, maybe, but it might be embarrassing to have to admit which “problem”.
–TP
“o zero tolerance doesn’t require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.
Marty?”
Wow, he is such a great President. He worked all that out in just a few weeks to solve that problem!
Thank goodness for his leadership.
Seriously, it still isn’t legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it. It will be interesting to see the results of the legal challenges.
It will be a complete circle when they announce catch and release instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.
“o zero tolerance doesn’t require detention, nor separation, after all. It appears they had a choice all along.
Marty?”
Wow, he is such a great President. He worked all that out in just a few weeks to solve that problem!
Thank goodness for his leadership.
Seriously, it still isn’t legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it. It will be interesting to see the results of the legal challenges.
It will be a complete circle when they announce catch and release instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.
Seriously, it still isn’t legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it.
What still isn’t legal? Does the law require detention? For how long? Under what circumstances?
Please, educate us!
Seriously, it still isn’t legal and once again everyone is happy with the president when he does what they want, even if he has no right to do it.
What still isn’t legal? Does the law require detention? For how long? Under what circumstances?
Please, educate us!
once again everyone is happy with the president
Trump has already stored up several lifetimes’ worth of DO NOT WANT from my point of view.
Ain’t nothing the man is gonna do that’s gonna make me happy except leave.
He’s a f’ing crook, and he harms the nation every day he is in office.
Just to clarify. Don’t want to set any unrealistic expectations.
once again everyone is happy with the president
Trump has already stored up several lifetimes’ worth of DO NOT WANT from my point of view.
Ain’t nothing the man is gonna do that’s gonna make me happy except leave.
He’s a f’ing crook, and he harms the nation every day he is in office.
Just to clarify. Don’t want to set any unrealistic expectations.
once again everyone is happy with the president
Riiiight. Just like everyone is happy with him because he decided to meet with North Korea rather than start a shooting war, like he’d been talking about. And, when he did so, didn’t quite give away the store for nothing — even though he made significant concessions in exchange for nothing but flattery.
The fact is, this week’s fiasco was entirely due to his own choices. And his executive order, while better than what his administration was previously doing, is still significantly worse than what went before.
So no, there are still a lot of people who, while acknowledging that he stepped back from a major horror show, are not happy with the latest policy either.
once again everyone is happy with the president
Riiiight. Just like everyone is happy with him because he decided to meet with North Korea rather than start a shooting war, like he’d been talking about. And, when he did so, didn’t quite give away the store for nothing — even though he made significant concessions in exchange for nothing but flattery.
The fact is, this week’s fiasco was entirely due to his own choices. And his executive order, while better than what his administration was previously doing, is still significantly worse than what went before.
So no, there are still a lot of people who, while acknowledging that he stepped back from a major horror show, are not happy with the latest policy either.
Probably just rumors.
No, not facebook. The AP.
Probably just rumors.
No, not facebook. The AP.
D’you know, it’s incredible how something can just be staring you in the face and you just don’t see it. Or at least I didn’t. Obviously Trump has always disliked and criticised Merkel, and his comments about her refugee policy and Germany’s “rising crime” (totally untrue) have been disobliging, to say the least. And he’s backed things that weaken the EU (Brexit, Putin etc) and Nato (Putin etc), but for some ridiculous reason it never occurred to me that he was actually trying to get rid of her.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/angela-merkel-donald-trump-immigration_us_5b2bbc25e4b00295f15a1d5d
I suppose this was common knowledge? Did everybody else see it, and if Hartmut is around, can he tell us how much this will help Merkel, as opposed to harm her?
D’you know, it’s incredible how something can just be staring you in the face and you just don’t see it. Or at least I didn’t. Obviously Trump has always disliked and criticised Merkel, and his comments about her refugee policy and Germany’s “rising crime” (totally untrue) have been disobliging, to say the least. And he’s backed things that weaken the EU (Brexit, Putin etc) and Nato (Putin etc), but for some ridiculous reason it never occurred to me that he was actually trying to get rid of her.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/angela-merkel-donald-trump-immigration_us_5b2bbc25e4b00295f15a1d5d
I suppose this was common knowledge? Did everybody else see it, and if Hartmut is around, can he tell us how much this will help Merkel, as opposed to harm her?
Trump dislikes every world leader who’s smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn’t bother to hide it from him.
His occasional attempts to interfere in UK politics have attracted near-universal derision. May is quick to distance herself from him when he does it.
Trump dislikes every world leader who’s smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn’t bother to hide it from him.
His occasional attempts to interfere in UK politics have attracted near-universal derision. May is quick to distance herself from him when he does it.
It’s ugly out there.
New Italian Interior Minister Salvini is talking of ‘cleansing’ Italy of immigrants. To applause.
Not a nice guy…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/matteo-salvini-threatens-to-remove-gomorrah-roberto-saviano-police-protection
It’s ugly out there.
New Italian Interior Minister Salvini is talking of ‘cleansing’ Italy of immigrants. To applause.
Not a nice guy…
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/matteo-salvini-threatens-to-remove-gomorrah-roberto-saviano-police-protection
That’s true, Pro Bono, Teresa May even managed to say “The pictures of children being held in what appear to be cages are deeply disturbing. This is wrong, this is not something that we agree with” which for her was quite something. But what I’m getting at is that even someone who despises Trump as I do (and as pretty much everyone here does – personally I take Marty at his word) somehow hadn’t actually formulated the thought that he was trying to topple the leader of Germany. Stupid and blind, I admit. Hopefully it will do her good with domestic opinion, as May’s sucking up to him sometimes does her harm with UK public opinion, but the resurgent xenophobic rightwing in Europe worries me a great deal and may outbalance that effect. That’s why I was hoping Hartmut might be around to comment…
That’s true, Pro Bono, Teresa May even managed to say “The pictures of children being held in what appear to be cages are deeply disturbing. This is wrong, this is not something that we agree with” which for her was quite something. But what I’m getting at is that even someone who despises Trump as I do (and as pretty much everyone here does – personally I take Marty at his word) somehow hadn’t actually formulated the thought that he was trying to topple the leader of Germany. Stupid and blind, I admit. Hopefully it will do her good with domestic opinion, as May’s sucking up to him sometimes does her harm with UK public opinion, but the resurgent xenophobic rightwing in Europe worries me a great deal and may outbalance that effect. That’s why I was hoping Hartmut might be around to comment…
Trump dislikes every world leader who’s smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn’t bother to hide it from him.
I don’t think so. He seems to like Putin just fine, and I will offer very long odds that Putin is smarter than Trump.
He also expressed admiration for Kim Jong-un.
Maybe he just dislikes the ones who are both smarter than him and reasonable people.
Trump dislikes every world leader who’s smarter than him (almost all of them) and doesn’t bother to hide it from him.
I don’t think so. He seems to like Putin just fine, and I will offer very long odds that Putin is smarter than Trump.
He also expressed admiration for Kim Jong-un.
Maybe he just dislikes the ones who are both smarter than him and reasonable people.
I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.
That’s where Ms Merkel falls short. She doesn’t pander to the Trump ego. Inability, or just unwillingness, to suffer fools gladly is a fatal flaw in Trumpworld.
I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.
That’s where Ms Merkel falls short. She doesn’t pander to the Trump ego. Inability, or just unwillingness, to suffer fools gladly is a fatal flaw in Trumpworld.
I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.
I, in turn, doubt whether he would recognize whether someone was smarter. Egomaniacs, especially not-too-bright ones, tend to have trouble with that.
You’re right about “reasonable,” though. Maybe it’s just flattery that’s required.
I doubt he would recognize whether or not someone was reasonable. What he dislikes is anyone who is smarter, and fails to flatter his ego by pretending not to be.
I, in turn, doubt whether he would recognize whether someone was smarter. Egomaniacs, especially not-too-bright ones, tend to have trouble with that.
You’re right about “reasonable,” though. Maybe it’s just flattery that’s required.
Krauthammer was shit.
Carry on
Krauthammer was shit.
Carry on
But would even Krauthammer have gone to visit traumatized children wearing a jacket saying “I really don’t care. Do U?”? Talk about tone deaf — or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?
But would even Krauthammer have gone to visit traumatized children wearing a jacket saying “I really don’t care. Do U?”? Talk about tone deaf — or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?
I just recall thing Krauthammer a poisonous snake during the Obama administration, lobbing criticisms that could be said twice over against Bush and 100 times against Trump, plus yadda yaddaing the Iraq war and its aftermath.
I just recall thing Krauthammer a poisonous snake during the Obama administration, lobbing criticisms that could be said twice over against Bush and 100 times against Trump, plus yadda yaddaing the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Ah, here is a link discussing why K was such shit
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/22/happy-krauthammer-day-2/
Ah, here is a link discussing why K was such shit
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/22/happy-krauthammer-day-2/
“I really don’t care. Do U?”? Talk about tone deaf — or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?
i’m sure the FBI Deep State snuck up on her and spray-painted those words onto the back of her jacket when she wasn’t looking.
it’s the only explanation.
and the FBI is notorious for these kinds of illegal operations. so i’m told.
“I really don’t care. Do U?”? Talk about tone deaf — or was it careful calculation to speak to the base?
i’m sure the FBI Deep State snuck up on her and spray-painted those words onto the back of her jacket when she wasn’t looking.
it’s the only explanation.
and the FBI is notorious for these kinds of illegal operations. so i’m told.
No, no! Not the FBI, the Secret Service. Far better access to the First Lady. Plus the name says it all — especially if you’re a conspiracy theorist.
No, no! Not the FBI, the Secret Service. Far better access to the First Lady. Plus the name says it all — especially if you’re a conspiracy theorist.
Are you guys talking about
the Third Lady of the United States?
–TP
Are you guys talking about
the Third Lady of the United States?
–TP
Krauthammer was shit.
the man is dead. maybe let it be.
Krauthammer was shit.
the man is dead. maybe let it be.
I can’t even process the jacket thing. It’s so f*cking bizarre. Words???
I can’t even process the jacket thing. It’s so f*cking bizarre. Words???
Someday He, Trump will be, too. Will your advice be the same then, russell?
–TP
Someday He, Trump will be, too. Will your advice be the same then, russell?
–TP
What if it won’t be? What’s the relevance? Are they the same?
What if it won’t be? What’s the relevance? Are they the same?
Great news for Mr Trump! He made the cover of Time again!
Welcome to America:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rolandscahill/status/1009828329250283520/photo/1
Great news for Mr Trump! He made the cover of Time again!
Welcome to America:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rolandscahill/status/1009828329250283520/photo/1
But unlike many of the neocons, not entirely without nuance:
“I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully,” he wrote in August 2016, around the time Trump officially became the Republican nominee. “I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him.”…
But unlike many of the neocons, not entirely without nuance:
“I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully,” he wrote in August 2016, around the time Trump officially became the Republican nominee. “I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him.”…
russell @ 9:36: some of these people aren’t going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it’s stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.
And that’s not the worst of it. I’ve read far too much commentary where the POV is parent-centric.
All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set. Relationship issues (mostly with intimacy), problems with properly regulating intoxicant intake, suicides, and in the worst cases settling into a life of criminality are the predictable outcomes that will result from what we have done.
I care less about the parents than the innocent children (toddlers?) who have been damaged by this at an age at which it will be difficult to ever recover.
It is hard for me to fully express my sadness as I ruminate on this idiotic cruelty. And so I drink.
russell @ 9:36: some of these people aren’t going to see their kids for years. because we are utterly unprepared to keep track of who belongs to who. it’s stupid and unnecessary and wrong. people who support this need to take a good long look in the mirror.
And that’s not the worst of it. I’ve read far too much commentary where the POV is parent-centric.
All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set. Relationship issues (mostly with intimacy), problems with properly regulating intoxicant intake, suicides, and in the worst cases settling into a life of criminality are the predictable outcomes that will result from what we have done.
I care less about the parents than the innocent children (toddlers?) who have been damaged by this at an age at which it will be difficult to ever recover.
It is hard for me to fully express my sadness as I ruminate on this idiotic cruelty. And so I drink.
From my POV the German situaition is as follows:
Our Texas GOP (the Bavarian CSU which is formally separate from the CDU and fills its slot in Bavaria) has always lived by the doctrine of ‘no one (democratic) to the Right of us’. Now the AfD (the RW populist ‘Alternative for Germany’) threatens the de facto one-party rule of the CSU in Bavaria by outflanking it on the right without openly going Nazi (thus staying electable). The CSU has to secure that flank for the upcoming Bavarian state elections by going hard right-populist on refugees. Their (oversized) influence on the federal level depends on keeping near absolute power in Bavaria. If they lose that, they can wag the dog no more. So, they rather risk blowing up the federal coalition governmnent in a (possibly vain) hope to counter the AfD at home. No CSU guy could replace Merkel (it’s another axiom of German politics that a CSU chancellor is unthinkable*). The hope is to weaken her position in the coalition (thus increasing CSU influence) without blowing it up. The late supreme CSU ruler Strauß tried something similar against Merkel’s predecessor Kohl but failed. It’s as of yet unclear what will be the outcome this time.
The likeliest scenario is that everyone but the AfD will lose but Merkel will remain chancellor due to lack of alternatives. A chancellor can only be replaced by the parliament voting someone else in with a majority of its members (constructive vote of no confidence). New elections would strengthen the AfD but they would not find a coalition partner to get a majority.
Merkel avoids extremes as a matter of principle but she can by pretty ruthless (a lesson she learned from her mentor Kohl).
My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.
If anything, Trump&Co.’s meddling will strenghthen Merkel since even on the Right he will not win popularity contests.
*ironically the last attempt in that direction failed due to Bush the Lesser. Schröder kept his chancellorship with the tiniest of margins because the CSU candidate did not 100% exclude the possibility of joining Dubya’s Iraq adventure. There are rumors that Merkel deliberately held back knowing that this was going to happen, so she would run and win the next time herself.
From my POV the German situaition is as follows:
Our Texas GOP (the Bavarian CSU which is formally separate from the CDU and fills its slot in Bavaria) has always lived by the doctrine of ‘no one (democratic) to the Right of us’. Now the AfD (the RW populist ‘Alternative for Germany’) threatens the de facto one-party rule of the CSU in Bavaria by outflanking it on the right without openly going Nazi (thus staying electable). The CSU has to secure that flank for the upcoming Bavarian state elections by going hard right-populist on refugees. Their (oversized) influence on the federal level depends on keeping near absolute power in Bavaria. If they lose that, they can wag the dog no more. So, they rather risk blowing up the federal coalition governmnent in a (possibly vain) hope to counter the AfD at home. No CSU guy could replace Merkel (it’s another axiom of German politics that a CSU chancellor is unthinkable*). The hope is to weaken her position in the coalition (thus increasing CSU influence) without blowing it up. The late supreme CSU ruler Strauß tried something similar against Merkel’s predecessor Kohl but failed. It’s as of yet unclear what will be the outcome this time.
The likeliest scenario is that everyone but the AfD will lose but Merkel will remain chancellor due to lack of alternatives. A chancellor can only be replaced by the parliament voting someone else in with a majority of its members (constructive vote of no confidence). New elections would strengthen the AfD but they would not find a coalition partner to get a majority.
Merkel avoids extremes as a matter of principle but she can by pretty ruthless (a lesson she learned from her mentor Kohl).
My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.
If anything, Trump&Co.’s meddling will strenghthen Merkel since even on the Right he will not win popularity contests.
*ironically the last attempt in that direction failed due to Bush the Lesser. Schröder kept his chancellorship with the tiniest of margins because the CSU candidate did not 100% exclude the possibility of joining Dubya’s Iraq adventure. There are rumors that Merkel deliberately held back knowing that this was going to happen, so she would run and win the next time herself.
Will your advice be the same then, russell?
i don’t know, maybe. i hope so.
i’m a fairly irascible person and a lot of things make me angry. sometims it’s useful sometimes it’s not.
i try to let it go if i can, it’s an exhausting thing to carry around. there are days when id gladly swap my temperament for another.
apologies if my comment came off as being advice, or really directive in any way. everyone’s going to respond to stuff like this in their own way. maybe read my comment less as “you should…” and more as “I need to…”.
thanks tony.
thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set
this, and thank you.
recently, maybe a year or so ago, i went to a lecture by a neurologist from harvard. he’s saudi, which is neither here or there other than that it may, perhaps, contribute to a heightened sensitivity on his part to stuff going on in that part of the world.
he was talking about syria, and his overall point was along the lines of what you are saying here. the refugee issue with syria is not simply, or even most significantly, the fact of millions of people who are being dislocated. it’s the millions of people who are having extreme trauma seared into their nervous systems. literal, physical neurological damage. for younger people, their very nervous systems are being formed, for life, by years of daily acute trauma.
and there is no-one – no nation, no NGO, no charity, no institution – that has anything like the resources to address that kind of damage at that scale.
it is going to be a generational, maybe multi-generational, legacy.
we damage people at our own peril.
Will your advice be the same then, russell?
i don’t know, maybe. i hope so.
i’m a fairly irascible person and a lot of things make me angry. sometims it’s useful sometimes it’s not.
i try to let it go if i can, it’s an exhausting thing to carry around. there are days when id gladly swap my temperament for another.
apologies if my comment came off as being advice, or really directive in any way. everyone’s going to respond to stuff like this in their own way. maybe read my comment less as “you should…” and more as “I need to…”.
thanks tony.
thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set
this, and thank you.
recently, maybe a year or so ago, i went to a lecture by a neurologist from harvard. he’s saudi, which is neither here or there other than that it may, perhaps, contribute to a heightened sensitivity on his part to stuff going on in that part of the world.
he was talking about syria, and his overall point was along the lines of what you are saying here. the refugee issue with syria is not simply, or even most significantly, the fact of millions of people who are being dislocated. it’s the millions of people who are having extreme trauma seared into their nervous systems. literal, physical neurological damage. for younger people, their very nervous systems are being formed, for life, by years of daily acute trauma.
and there is no-one – no nation, no NGO, no charity, no institution – that has anything like the resources to address that kind of damage at that scale.
it is going to be a generational, maybe multi-generational, legacy.
we damage people at our own peril.
he was talking about Syria…
A similar dynamic has been going on for rather a long time in Afghanistan.
With no end in sight…
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/the-great-afghan-paradox-were-not-winning-but-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-leave/
the number of munitions dropped in the first quarter of 2018 was the highest recorded since reporting began in 2013, and is more than two-and-a-half times the amount dropped in the first quarter of 2017…
he was talking about Syria…
A similar dynamic has been going on for rather a long time in Afghanistan.
With no end in sight…
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/the-great-afghan-paradox-were-not-winning-but-that-doesnt-mean-we-should-leave/
the number of munitions dropped in the first quarter of 2018 was the highest recorded since reporting began in 2013, and is more than two-and-a-half times the amount dropped in the first quarter of 2017…
the bombings will continue until morale improves
the bombings will continue until morale improves
Dear Marty,
first off, I apologize for dropping a question and not following up, I’m quite busy, but that being the case, perhaps I shouldn’t have dropped the question at all.
But I did have an ulterior motive with the question that I’d like to explain. I don’t really relish calling out what I perceive to be racism on your part and I agree that I don’t think anyone’s mind is going to be changed if I rag on you about it. So I was hoping that the question of open borders might move us away from talking about racism but still deal with the issues. Or at least allow us to explore it without perpetual outrage fatigue.
I understand why there are borders and how it might be important to only allow particular people to cross them, like only allowing people with paid up memberships to use a gym or something similar. But at that point, things break down for me. We clearly need people to pick lettuce and tomatoes, or buss tables or cook meals. At the risk of being called a communist, I would prefer that everyone had a living wage but a lot of these people make much less than I imagine I could survive on and still are able to remit money back to their home countries. So what is it about allowing people to come into the country and make a living that is so problematic?
Hitting wikipedia, it tells me that open border only applies to people, which surprised me a bit, because I assumed that it might also apply to goods or materials. Admittedly, people have free will and goods and raw materials are mostly inert, we don’t expect a truckload of ball bearings or machine parts to go on a rampage, and some are trying to suggest that the reason we are doing this is because terrorists are using children as a way of sneaking into the US, but that seems totally far-fetched. So I’m wondering why it is such a big deal to you?
Much of our advancement has been due to ‘open borders’ where information and goods move freely. That being the case, doesn’t the denying of open borders for people limit us?
Dear Marty,
first off, I apologize for dropping a question and not following up, I’m quite busy, but that being the case, perhaps I shouldn’t have dropped the question at all.
But I did have an ulterior motive with the question that I’d like to explain. I don’t really relish calling out what I perceive to be racism on your part and I agree that I don’t think anyone’s mind is going to be changed if I rag on you about it. So I was hoping that the question of open borders might move us away from talking about racism but still deal with the issues. Or at least allow us to explore it without perpetual outrage fatigue.
I understand why there are borders and how it might be important to only allow particular people to cross them, like only allowing people with paid up memberships to use a gym or something similar. But at that point, things break down for me. We clearly need people to pick lettuce and tomatoes, or buss tables or cook meals. At the risk of being called a communist, I would prefer that everyone had a living wage but a lot of these people make much less than I imagine I could survive on and still are able to remit money back to their home countries. So what is it about allowing people to come into the country and make a living that is so problematic?
Hitting wikipedia, it tells me that open border only applies to people, which surprised me a bit, because I assumed that it might also apply to goods or materials. Admittedly, people have free will and goods and raw materials are mostly inert, we don’t expect a truckload of ball bearings or machine parts to go on a rampage, and some are trying to suggest that the reason we are doing this is because terrorists are using children as a way of sneaking into the US, but that seems totally far-fetched. So I’m wondering why it is such a big deal to you?
Much of our advancement has been due to ‘open borders’ where information and goods move freely. That being the case, doesn’t the denying of open borders for people limit us?
Thanks Hartmut for that extremely informative comment!
Thanks Hartmut for that extremely informative comment!
Hartmut: My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.
It seems more likely that Trump’s approach to Merkel is entirely personal. She let him know just how low an opinion she has of him. That is sufficient to explain it all.
Now some of his people (e.g. Miller and Grenell) are sufficiently delusional about US politics that they are likely equally delusional about German politics. But they only get to spew about it because of Trump’s personal animus.
Hartmut: My assumption is that Trump&Co. have no idea about these specific dynamics and believe that a CDU/AfD coalition run by a CSU guy would be feasible, if Merkel could be weakened enough.
It seems more likely that Trump’s approach to Merkel is entirely personal. She let him know just how low an opinion she has of him. That is sufficient to explain it all.
Now some of his people (e.g. Miller and Grenell) are sufficiently delusional about US politics that they are likely equally delusional about German politics. But they only get to spew about it because of Trump’s personal animus.
instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.
it’s a felony to lie on your security clearance papers. Kushner is still in the White House. GOP doesn’t give a shit.
Trump is obviously in violation of the emoluments clause. GOP doesn’t give a shit.
brown people ! GOP loses its stupid mind.
pull the other one.
instead of prosecution to avoid having to incarcerate people per the court orders.
it’s a felony to lie on your security clearance papers. Kushner is still in the White House. GOP doesn’t give a shit.
Trump is obviously in violation of the emoluments clause. GOP doesn’t give a shit.
brown people ! GOP loses its stupid mind.
pull the other one.
speaking of pull the other one…
enjoy those tax cuts.
speaking of pull the other one…
enjoy those tax cuts.
All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set.
It’s not like governments haven’t been ripping families apart like forever. It’s just that Trump has the gift of rubbing everybody’s noses in the things that governments have always done.
All I can come away from when thinking about the implications of this freely-chosen, venal mess is that thousands of humans are suffering tremendous early childhood traumas from which the basic arc of their life will be set.
It’s not like governments haven’t been ripping families apart like forever. It’s just that Trump has the gift of rubbing everybody’s noses in the things that governments have always done.
enjoy those tax cuts.
I have to wonder how many Trump/Freedom Caucus/Tea Party voters will get the rug pulled out from under them, and whether those who do will know who did it to them.
enjoy those tax cuts.
I have to wonder how many Trump/Freedom Caucus/Tea Party voters will get the rug pulled out from under them, and whether those who do will know who did it to them.
enjoy those tax cuts.
.
Especially since, at the rate that Trump is expanding his trade wars, the increase in prices will pretty well wipe out the benefits for anyone making under $1 million this year.
enjoy those tax cuts.
.
Especially since, at the rate that Trump is expanding his trade wars, the increase in prices will pretty well wipe out the benefits for anyone making under $1 million this year.
I don’t understand. The tax cuts Womack voted for were going to produce a surplus we could spend on good things, Marty told us so.
Actually I do understand. Your party lied to you Marty. It’s what it does.
I don’t understand. The tax cuts Womack voted for were going to produce a surplus we could spend on good things, Marty told us so.
Actually I do understand. Your party lied to you Marty. It’s what it does.
Since this is an open thread, this is (mainly) a message for the Count:
I just watched James Corden’s Carpool Karaoke with Paul McCartney. I was never a Paul girl, I was a John girl (I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement, and for the purposes of this comment I’m not talking about whether we fancied them or not, it was pretty much who we thought was coolest). But the truth is, hearing those songs sung (as Elvis Costello said) in the right voice, makes the hair stand up on the back of the neck. And parts of it (when you see people in Liverpool reacting to him singing at the end, or even James Corden reacting) are actually quite moving. It was rather a relief from lots of the awfulness on the news etc.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail, so: as you were.
Since this is an open thread, this is (mainly) a message for the Count:
I just watched James Corden’s Carpool Karaoke with Paul McCartney. I was never a Paul girl, I was a John girl (I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement, and for the purposes of this comment I’m not talking about whether we fancied them or not, it was pretty much who we thought was coolest). But the truth is, hearing those songs sung (as Elvis Costello said) in the right voice, makes the hair stand up on the back of the neck. And parts of it (when you see people in Liverpool reacting to him singing at the end, or even James Corden reacting) are actually quite moving. It was rather a relief from lots of the awfulness on the news etc.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail, so: as you were.
Derail away.
The world needs another permanent Beatles derailment.
That made my day.
I note with great melancholy that Paul can’t hit the notes longer, for example, in Maybe I’m Amazed.
It was always impossibly miraculous anyway that he could hit the notes he did without going into falsetto. God, what an instrument.
He won’t drop the song key either.
To be expected, it’s a 76-year old voice that he puts through the meat grinder of three to four shows, and ravaged early on with the ciggies and the weed, but still, it’s a loss, like spring without birdsong.
You were an Apple Scruff, kind of. How they loved you.
Derail away.
The world needs another permanent Beatles derailment.
That made my day.
I note with great melancholy that Paul can’t hit the notes longer, for example, in Maybe I’m Amazed.
It was always impossibly miraculous anyway that he could hit the notes he did without going into falsetto. God, what an instrument.
He won’t drop the song key either.
To be expected, it’s a 76-year old voice that he puts through the meat grinder of three to four shows, and ravaged early on with the ciggies and the weed, but still, it’s a loss, like spring without birdsong.
You were an Apple Scruff, kind of. How they loved you.
Three to four-hour shows, it should read.
Three to four-hour shows, it should read.
Nah, I was never an Apple Scruff, although our London flat wasn’t far from Apple (or in fact Abbey Road) and we used to drive past sometimes and see their psychedelically painted Rolls Royce (or Bentley? You would know!)
But pretty much everybody had an allegiance to one or other of them, from what I remember even boys did (although at the time I knew very few English boys, being at an all-girls boarding school). But I remember that at school, we used to sit around and analyse their latest albums, and we all portentously (innocently?) decided they were in trouble when we first heard the White Album and listened to such unprecedented stuff as Revolution Number Nine…
Nah, I was never an Apple Scruff, although our London flat wasn’t far from Apple (or in fact Abbey Road) and we used to drive past sometimes and see their psychedelically painted Rolls Royce (or Bentley? You would know!)
But pretty much everybody had an allegiance to one or other of them, from what I remember even boys did (although at the time I knew very few English boys, being at an all-girls boarding school). But I remember that at school, we used to sit around and analyse their latest albums, and we all portentously (innocently?) decided they were in trouble when we first heard the White Album and listened to such unprecedented stuff as Revolution Number Nine…
I’m taking a break to see U2 at the Garden.
I really like carpool karaoke, haven’t seen Paul.
I’m taking a break to see U2 at the Garden.
I really like carpool karaoke, haven’t seen Paul.
I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement
actually, to us musician types it’s an expression of profound aesthetic preference.
tax cuts:
i would be utterly unsurprised if the tax cuts contributed to a nominal increase in gdp.
the question is, who gets the money.
i look at the increases in productivity and gdp over the last 40 years, and i look at the changes in real wages, and the question appears to be answered.
maybe there has been some radical re-odering of our national priorities in favor of working people of which i am somehow unaware. or maybe all of the folks making decisions about where the windfall should be directed have had some kind of pauline metanoia, a damascus road, scales falling from the eyes crisis, and have realized that some of that dough should go to the folks who created it through their own skill, dedication and effort.
maybe this time around it will play out differently.
maybe.
probably not.
i got a tax cut. i’ll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office.
I know to you musician types this is a frivolous and meaningless statement
actually, to us musician types it’s an expression of profound aesthetic preference.
tax cuts:
i would be utterly unsurprised if the tax cuts contributed to a nominal increase in gdp.
the question is, who gets the money.
i look at the increases in productivity and gdp over the last 40 years, and i look at the changes in real wages, and the question appears to be answered.
maybe there has been some radical re-odering of our national priorities in favor of working people of which i am somehow unaware. or maybe all of the folks making decisions about where the windfall should be directed have had some kind of pauline metanoia, a damascus road, scales falling from the eyes crisis, and have realized that some of that dough should go to the folks who created it through their own skill, dedication and effort.
maybe this time around it will play out differently.
maybe.
probably not.
i got a tax cut. i’ll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office.
maybe i’m amazed is a hell of a song.
maybe i’m amazed is a hell of a song.
i got a tax cut. i’ll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office.
I got very little. But I’ll totally support RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office. And put my mouth where my money is.
i got a tax cut. i’ll spend some of mine on RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office.
I got very little. But I’ll totally support RAICES and getting (R)’s out of office. And put my mouth where my money is.
This is a relatively small matter, but it is symptomatic of the utter cowardice of Republics who continue to enable Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/it-wasnt-a-big-deal-trumps-portrayal-of-his-sanford-insult-goes-largely-unchallenged-by-house-republicans/2018/06/22/c2e46900-763e-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
This is a relatively small matter, but it is symptomatic of the utter cowardice of Republics who continue to enable Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/it-wasnt-a-big-deal-trumps-portrayal-of-his-sanford-insult-goes-largely-unchallenged-by-house-republicans/2018/06/22/c2e46900-763e-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
Trump looks at the cowards of the GOP and smiles inwardly, knowing that they will never hold him accountable in the only way they can, no matter what Mueller finds.
the GOP is a cult.
Trump looks at the cowards of the GOP and smiles inwardly, knowing that they will never hold him accountable in the only way they can, no matter what Mueller finds.
the GOP is a cult.
and this Christians-only HOA is a bit of a cult, too.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/22/bay-view-northern-michigan-resort-ban-non-christians-faces-lawsuit/712707002/
and this Christians-only HOA is a bit of a cult, too.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/06/22/bay-view-northern-michigan-resort-ban-non-christians-faces-lawsuit/712707002/
hey, it’s an open thread, right?
JAZZ TRIGGER ALERT!!! 🙂
check these guys, buddies of mine. they had a local residency for about 13 years, a local film-maker made a movie about it, so they got back together for a re-union thing.
just bragging on my pals.
back to your regularly scheduled programming….
hey, it’s an open thread, right?
JAZZ TRIGGER ALERT!!! 🙂
check these guys, buddies of mine. they had a local residency for about 13 years, a local film-maker made a movie about it, so they got back together for a re-union thing.
just bragging on my pals.
back to your regularly scheduled programming….
I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.
The more frivolity and meaninglessness the better.
A-wum, toop, three, foie!
She was just seventeen, you know what I mean, and before to long ….
I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.
The more frivolity and meaninglessness the better.
A-wum, toop, three, foie!
She was just seventeen, you know what I mean, and before to long ….
Count, your immersion in the period and the lingo is perfect – you take me right back…
Count, your immersion in the period and the lingo is perfect – you take me right back…
I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.
the folks who are in it for the dating opportunities pretty much fade away by about age 30.
I thought the entire point of becoming a musician was to pull the birds.
the folks who are in it for the dating opportunities pretty much fade away by about age 30.
check these guys
dang.
when that guitar player soled, he didn’t even bother looking down at his hands.
check these guys
dang.
when that guitar player soled, he didn’t even bother looking down at his hands.
back on the political tip – George Will leaves the (R) party.
George freaking Will.
back on the political tip – George Will leaves the (R) party.
George freaking Will.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders joins the ranks of Trump staffers shamed out of a DC area restaurant.
A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they’re wearing MAGA hats.
Getting lonely out there for a (R).
Sarah Huckabee Sanders joins the ranks of Trump staffers shamed out of a DC area restaurant.
A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they’re wearing MAGA hats.
Getting lonely out there for a (R).
A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they’re wearing MAGA hats.
It’s satisfying, but if the ruling holds, it works both ways. Or I should say, all ways.
Freedom to refuse to make cakes for gay weddings, freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters….freedom to ban Democrats from your bar? I mean, does political affiliation come under freedom of association, or under an argument that says political parties/beliefs don’t a protected class make?
Lawyers….what do you think?
A court rules that bars can deny service to people wearing MAGA hats, because they’re wearing MAGA hats.
It’s satisfying, but if the ruling holds, it works both ways. Or I should say, all ways.
Freedom to refuse to make cakes for gay weddings, freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters….freedom to ban Democrats from your bar? I mean, does political affiliation come under freedom of association, or under an argument that says political parties/beliefs don’t a protected class make?
Lawyers….what do you think?
“freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters….freedom to ban Democrats from your bar?”
The problem was the MAGA hat; I don’t think that any bar was checking voter registration cards, and I’m sure there are plenty of bars that would kick you out for wearing a t-shirt that has Trump kissing Putin.
However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they’d better dial it down.
And that most of the “freedom to ban” actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation, and who practice political mind-reading.
“freedom to refuse to make mixed drinks for MAGA supporters….freedom to ban Democrats from your bar?”
The problem was the MAGA hat; I don’t think that any bar was checking voter registration cards, and I’m sure there are plenty of bars that would kick you out for wearing a t-shirt that has Trump kissing Putin.
However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they’d better dial it down.
And that most of the “freedom to ban” actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation, and who practice political mind-reading.
most of the “freedom to ban” actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation
Yes. Whether it was clear or not, that was my point.
most of the “freedom to ban” actions are going to come from the same a-holes that luvved them some segregation
Yes. Whether it was clear or not, that was my point.
MAGAts aren’t a protected class, as far as I know.
MAGAts aren’t a protected class, as far as I know.
However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they’d better dial it down.
what does “dial it down” mean?
I understand that there is value in not having people sorting themselves into mutually antagonistic camps. And I’m happy to engage anyone in dialog.
But it’s not always possible. Sometimes people espouse points of view that are, frankly, abhorrent.
After the famous “free speech” rally in Boston, I went on the Facebook page of the folks who organized it. Lots of folks were chiming in there, from lots of points of view.
One guy shared his view that the guy who ran over and killed Heather Heyer could not have intended to do it, because it damaged his car, and he had a pretty nice car. Who would damage their car on purpose?
This is not even remotely the most head-shakingly bizarre point of view I’ve heard over the 15 years or so that I’ve been talking to the “other side” in an attempt to have an exchange of views.
There was the guy who thought Pinochet was actually a pretty good guy. The guy who would take a bullet for WalMart. All the people who think Milo is an unsung prophet of truth. I can go on and on and on.
The volume knob is stuck well beyond 11. I didn’t put it there. WTF does “dial it down” mean, right now?
I’m all out of ideas.
However, I think this is going to get MUCH worse before people figure out that they’d better dial it down.
what does “dial it down” mean?
I understand that there is value in not having people sorting themselves into mutually antagonistic camps. And I’m happy to engage anyone in dialog.
But it’s not always possible. Sometimes people espouse points of view that are, frankly, abhorrent.
After the famous “free speech” rally in Boston, I went on the Facebook page of the folks who organized it. Lots of folks were chiming in there, from lots of points of view.
One guy shared his view that the guy who ran over and killed Heather Heyer could not have intended to do it, because it damaged his car, and he had a pretty nice car. Who would damage their car on purpose?
This is not even remotely the most head-shakingly bizarre point of view I’ve heard over the 15 years or so that I’ve been talking to the “other side” in an attempt to have an exchange of views.
There was the guy who thought Pinochet was actually a pretty good guy. The guy who would take a bullet for WalMart. All the people who think Milo is an unsung prophet of truth. I can go on and on and on.
The volume knob is stuck well beyond 11. I didn’t put it there. WTF does “dial it down” mean, right now?
I’m all out of ideas.
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
Should we all stop wearing our political messages on our clothing? No bumper stickers on our cars, lest the restaurant of our choice tell us we can’t eat there? I wonder how many of Paul LePage’s fans would happily exclude me from stores and restaurants because LePage hates land trusts, and my favorite cap advertises the land trust I volunteer for.
Snarki says no one is going to ask to see our voter registration or party membership cards in a bar. I’m not convinced, either that it won’t go that far or that “our side” will “win” at that game.
On the one hand, I’m cheering on the bar-owner who bounced the guy in the MAGA hat. On the other, maybe there’s a difference between some anonymous bozo in a MAGA hat and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.
Are you now or have you ever been…….
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
Should we all stop wearing our political messages on our clothing? No bumper stickers on our cars, lest the restaurant of our choice tell us we can’t eat there? I wonder how many of Paul LePage’s fans would happily exclude me from stores and restaurants because LePage hates land trusts, and my favorite cap advertises the land trust I volunteer for.
Snarki says no one is going to ask to see our voter registration or party membership cards in a bar. I’m not convinced, either that it won’t go that far or that “our side” will “win” at that game.
On the one hand, I’m cheering on the bar-owner who bounced the guy in the MAGA hat. On the other, maybe there’s a difference between some anonymous bozo in a MAGA hat and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.
Are you now or have you ever been…….
You’re certainly not the only one who cares. This is always the danger of giving in to vengeful impulses, the results cut both ways. Or, to put it another way, it behoves us always to act or support on principle, rather than for personal reasons, because the principle applies no matter the personnel. I read somewhere recently of someone quoting A Man for All Seasons, it may have been about the George Will piece which I was unable to read behind the firewall, but if so I’d lay good odds the bit he quoted was this:
You’re certainly not the only one who cares. This is always the danger of giving in to vengeful impulses, the results cut both ways. Or, to put it another way, it behoves us always to act or support on principle, rather than for personal reasons, because the principle applies no matter the personnel. I read somewhere recently of someone quoting A Man for All Seasons, it may have been about the George Will piece which I was unable to read behind the firewall, but if so I’d lay good odds the bit he quoted was this:
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
The law allows it. That doesn’t mean it’s wise. It makes news because most businesses want customers. Perhaps Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kristin Nielson should themselves be more welcoming.
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
The law allows it. That doesn’t mean it’s wise. It makes news because most businesses want customers. Perhaps Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kristin Nielson should themselves be more welcoming.
Thomas More lost his head. So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.
Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap. Would it make a difference, in principle? How about a big hammer-and-sickle insignia?
A standard comedy trope has a group of obvious nerds, or flamboyant gays, or suit-and-tie bankers, accidentally walking into a biker bar. The bikers all turn to give the newcomers the stink-eye over their brawny tattooed shoulders and the jukebox turns off. It’s funny because it’s true.
–TP
Thomas More lost his head. So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.
Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap. Would it make a difference, in principle? How about a big hammer-and-sickle insignia?
A standard comedy trope has a group of obvious nerds, or flamboyant gays, or suit-and-tie bankers, accidentally walking into a biker bar. The bikers all turn to give the newcomers the stink-eye over their brawny tattooed shoulders and the jukebox turns off. It’s funny because it’s true.
–TP
GftNC, I can’t remember if I read the play or saw the 1966 movie first, but I’ve always loved that passage.
…and you’re just the man to do it… — No punches pulled, even for his son-in-law.
*****
TP: So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.
I have a hunch Thomas More was well aware that his noble principles would be of no avail.
GftNC, I can’t remember if I read the play or saw the 1966 movie first, but I’ve always loved that passage.
…and you’re just the man to do it… — No punches pulled, even for his son-in-law.
*****
TP: So even noble principles are sometimes of no avail.
I have a hunch Thomas More was well aware that his noble principles would be of no avail.
Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap.
Getting to be hard to tell the difference.
Suppose it was a swastika armband rather than a MAGA cap.
Getting to be hard to tell the difference.
Nah, real simple. The swastika was black on red. MAGA must, of necessity, be white on red — anything else would be unthinkable. See? Simple!
Nah, real simple. The swastika was black on red. MAGA must, of necessity, be white on red — anything else would be unthinkable. See? Simple!
Unusual day for me.
I went to a lovely luncheon with many friends of mine, mostly not close, but the person hosting is very close. Every single person was emotionally destroyed with what is happening with the missing children, and doing various things: protesting, contributing, whatever. Many talked about their own mental health issues dealing with this horrible responsibility of living in a democracy and bearing the burden of this administration.
I have a Facebook account, which I almost never used to look at. At least, not until the past couple of weeks, because organizing has been happening near me, and some of that happens on Facebook. Anyway, a friend from long ago, someone who disappeared for years, but for whom I had much respect for many reasons, posted an adulation of Donald Trump. I “unfollowed” this person, whatever that means on Facebook, without “unfriending”. I hate Facebook, but more to the point, what do we do with these people who have such destructive hatreds? (Because what else could explain this?)
And yet, this was predictable, because this person is extremely driven, and single minded, and certain. There’s no room for “what if”. But, incredibly accomplished. And conservative. And making more and more money (all very much earned, IMO.)
But still, have to wonder whether the soul was left behind. I’m not ready to respond to this person. Maybe I should just shake my head and move on.
Unusual day for me.
I went to a lovely luncheon with many friends of mine, mostly not close, but the person hosting is very close. Every single person was emotionally destroyed with what is happening with the missing children, and doing various things: protesting, contributing, whatever. Many talked about their own mental health issues dealing with this horrible responsibility of living in a democracy and bearing the burden of this administration.
I have a Facebook account, which I almost never used to look at. At least, not until the past couple of weeks, because organizing has been happening near me, and some of that happens on Facebook. Anyway, a friend from long ago, someone who disappeared for years, but for whom I had much respect for many reasons, posted an adulation of Donald Trump. I “unfollowed” this person, whatever that means on Facebook, without “unfriending”. I hate Facebook, but more to the point, what do we do with these people who have such destructive hatreds? (Because what else could explain this?)
And yet, this was predictable, because this person is extremely driven, and single minded, and certain. There’s no room for “what if”. But, incredibly accomplished. And conservative. And making more and more money (all very much earned, IMO.)
But still, have to wonder whether the soul was left behind. I’m not ready to respond to this person. Maybe I should just shake my head and move on.
my point in citing the case of the guy in the maga cap who didn’t get served wasn’t to say “excellent! let’s all deny service to people in maga caps!”. it was to point out, per wj’s questions about (R) affiliation in the age of trump, that such an affiliation is becoming increasingly toxic.
it’s becoming toxic because trump is a crap president, and to all appearances a crap human being, and because he damages the nation and degrades our national discourse on a daily basis.
i’m not sure exactly what response is appropriate to that. i’m still trying to figure it out.
i suspect that “dialing it down” is, precisely, not the right response.
my point in citing the case of the guy in the maga cap who didn’t get served wasn’t to say “excellent! let’s all deny service to people in maga caps!”. it was to point out, per wj’s questions about (R) affiliation in the age of trump, that such an affiliation is becoming increasingly toxic.
it’s becoming toxic because trump is a crap president, and to all appearances a crap human being, and because he damages the nation and degrades our national discourse on a daily basis.
i’m not sure exactly what response is appropriate to that. i’m still trying to figure it out.
i suspect that “dialing it down” is, precisely, not the right response.
i suspect that “dialing it down” is, precisely, not the right response.
I am remembering, maybe because I’ve been reminded, of the Plaza de Mayo, the mothers of Argentinians who disappeared. I attend a weekly vigil at lunchtime. It’s just started. I’m hoping that the kids are okay, but the fact that the US has disappeared them is not good. We need to stay loud until they are accounted for. Every single child.
i suspect that “dialing it down” is, precisely, not the right response.
I am remembering, maybe because I’ve been reminded, of the Plaza de Mayo, the mothers of Argentinians who disappeared. I attend a weekly vigil at lunchtime. It’s just started. I’m hoping that the kids are okay, but the fact that the US has disappeared them is not good. We need to stay loud until they are accounted for. Every single child.
The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal. He was all for burning (Lutheran) heretics at the stake. And he clearly overdid his panegyrics to Henry to foster his own career.Were it nor for his end, we would likely not look favorably on him.
(for that matter, even ignoring his anti-judaism for a moment, Luther was not actually a prophet of freedom and conscience either).
Still, “A man for all seasons” is worth watching and of relevance today.
The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal. He was all for burning (Lutheran) heretics at the stake. And he clearly overdid his panegyrics to Henry to foster his own career.Were it nor for his end, we would likely not look favorably on him.
(for that matter, even ignoring his anti-judaism for a moment, Luther was not actually a prophet of freedom and conscience either).
Still, “A man for all seasons” is worth watching and of relevance today.
It’s commonly assumed that Thomas More ghosted Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, for which Henry VIII was awarded the title Fidei Defensor by the then pope. A few years and several popes later, Henry found it convenient to change his mind about Protestantism, and the title was revoked. And a few years after that Henry came up with the amusing idea of having parliament award him the same title.
Because of this, the coins in my pocket carry the notation “F.D.” after the queen’s name.
It’s commonly assumed that Thomas More ghosted Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, for which Henry VIII was awarded the title Fidei Defensor by the then pope. A few years and several popes later, Henry found it convenient to change his mind about Protestantism, and the title was revoked. And a few years after that Henry came up with the amusing idea of having parliament award him the same title.
Because of this, the coins in my pocket carry the notation “F.D.” after the queen’s name.
Yes, those of us (many of us, from what I remember of a past “favourite books” thread) who loved The Daughter of Time are well aware that the real Thomas More was not the man portrayed in AMFAS. But the man so portrayed is a powerful example, and although, Tony P, it didn’t save his head, it did stop him from turning into somebody else.
I always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard. It showed how a good man, a German academic, slides by small, seemingly insignificant increments into being a Nazi (an actual Nazi, in 1930s Germany). It was an important lesson about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge.
http://www.picks.plus.com/howard/broadwaygood.htm
That’s why I think, as difficult and troublesome as it is, people need to think about their reactions and their reactions’ long-term ramifications, not just react out of a sense of moral outrage and certainty.
I should mention that this is an aspiration, not something I think I’m all that good at!
Yes, those of us (many of us, from what I remember of a past “favourite books” thread) who loved The Daughter of Time are well aware that the real Thomas More was not the man portrayed in AMFAS. But the man so portrayed is a powerful example, and although, Tony P, it didn’t save his head, it did stop him from turning into somebody else.
I always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard. It showed how a good man, a German academic, slides by small, seemingly insignificant increments into being a Nazi (an actual Nazi, in 1930s Germany). It was an important lesson about the slippery slope, the thin end of the wedge.
http://www.picks.plus.com/howard/broadwaygood.htm
That’s why I think, as difficult and troublesome as it is, people need to think about their reactions and their reactions’ long-term ramifications, not just react out of a sense of moral outrage and certainty.
I should mention that this is an aspiration, not something I think I’m all that good at!
But I should make clear that if everyone who supported the policy on separating the children, and supported Trump in general, were to end up feeling that they had done a shameful thing, and were consequently ashamed, that would be a very good thing. And if this came about because they were made to feel it by people who they respected (this is important), that would be the best thing. But it is this last condition that would be the hardest to achieve.
So we are thrown back on democracy, and laws. It’s not until we are convinced that they have stopped working that it’s time to go rogue…
But I should make clear that if everyone who supported the policy on separating the children, and supported Trump in general, were to end up feeling that they had done a shameful thing, and were consequently ashamed, that would be a very good thing. And if this came about because they were made to feel it by people who they respected (this is important), that would be the best thing. But it is this last condition that would be the hardest to achieve.
So we are thrown back on democracy, and laws. It’s not until we are convinced that they have stopped working that it’s time to go rogue…
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
i care, a lot.
but, i think giving the Sanders’ of the world a taste of what they’re encouraging others to dish out is worth doing.
Am I the only one who cares that if a person can be excluded from places of public accommodation for a viewpoint, then we can *all* be excluded because of our viewpoints?
i care, a lot.
but, i think giving the Sanders’ of the world a taste of what they’re encouraging others to dish out is worth doing.
The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you’re not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.
That is, you should be obliged to serve Sanders so long as she’s not wearing a MAGA hat.
If you sell goods and services to the general public, you should be obliged to provide generic goods and services to anyone, but you should not have to accept any particular commission. So if you’re a baker selling wedding cakes, you should have to sell a generic wedding cake to anyone, but should not be obliged to make any particular cake to order.
For example, if you sell a standard cake carrying figures representing a mixed race couple, you should be obliged to sell one to a Klansman if he wants to buy it, but need not make a special one for him featuring two white people.
The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you’re not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.
That is, you should be obliged to serve Sanders so long as she’s not wearing a MAGA hat.
If you sell goods and services to the general public, you should be obliged to provide generic goods and services to anyone, but you should not have to accept any particular commission. So if you’re a baker selling wedding cakes, you should have to sell a generic wedding cake to anyone, but should not be obliged to make any particular cake to order.
For example, if you sell a standard cake carrying figures representing a mixed race couple, you should be obliged to sell one to a Klansman if he wants to buy it, but need not make a special one for him featuring two white people.
Does Sanders eat with that lying republican mouth?
The trolling mpers who get a jones on for Mexican food and have their racist republican asses run out of the restaurants should paraphrase Dick Gregory from the 1960s.
Server: I’m sorry, we don’t serve republicans here.
That’s ok, I’d rather have the burrito with a pound of Mexican child flesh, anyway.
Remember this shit from the filthy republican mp campaigns:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/18/i-voted-for-trump-you-lost-white-starbucks-customer-accuses-barista-of-discrimination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2efe02804204
You want cake?
Bite this.
The Second Amendment was created to protect us against these scum.
Does Sanders eat with that lying republican mouth?
The trolling mpers who get a jones on for Mexican food and have their racist republican asses run out of the restaurants should paraphrase Dick Gregory from the 1960s.
Server: I’m sorry, we don’t serve republicans here.
That’s ok, I’d rather have the burrito with a pound of Mexican child flesh, anyway.
Remember this shit from the filthy republican mp campaigns:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/18/i-voted-for-trump-you-lost-white-starbucks-customer-accuses-barista-of-discrimination/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2efe02804204
You want cake?
Bite this.
The Second Amendment was created to protect us against these scum.
The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you’re not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.
If the restaurant proprietor is a non-fascist, and the restaurant becomes a regular hangout and meeting place for polite-while-dining fascists, I would think it would make the restaurant proprietor very uncomfortable.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the sentiment, but disagree that the law should prohibit discrimination based on expressed ideology.
The law should say that if you have a bar or restaurant serving the general public, you’re not allowed to exclude anyone for any reason other than their behaviour on the premises. But you should have considerable latitude over what behaviour you disallow, including the right to exclude slogans you dislike.
If the restaurant proprietor is a non-fascist, and the restaurant becomes a regular hangout and meeting place for polite-while-dining fascists, I would think it would make the restaurant proprietor very uncomfortable.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to the sentiment, but disagree that the law should prohibit discrimination based on expressed ideology.
Works for me….
Works for me….
It would also work for me if the owner or manager had gone up to her table and said “We’re serving you because that’s the law, but I want you to know that we think you are colluding with and working to support a shameful, unAmerican regime, and if by any chance you’re right that there’s a God, you and all your fellow minions will be damned for it.”
It would also work for me if the owner or manager had gone up to her table and said “We’re serving you because that’s the law, but I want you to know that we think you are colluding with and working to support a shameful, unAmerican regime, and if by any chance you’re right that there’s a God, you and all your fellow minions will be damned for it.”
Works for me referred to Pro Bono’s formulation.
Works for me referred to Pro Bono’s formulation.
I’d say that “behavior on the premises” could easy cover attire. E.g. a MAGA hat. (Or an “I don’t care…” jacket.)
But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.) For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go. We may think of a better one eventually, but that should cover it for the moment.
It occurs to me to wonder if it would be legal to say something like “Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance.” Yeah, it’s stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?
I’d say that “behavior on the premises” could easy cover attire. E.g. a MAGA hat. (Or an “I don’t care…” jacket.)
But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.) For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go. We may think of a better one eventually, but that should cover it for the moment.
It occurs to me to wonder if it would be legal to say something like “Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance.” Yeah, it’s stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?
I like it, wj! Would it be legal – probably not, but hopefully lawyers will weigh in.
I like it, wj! Would it be legal – probably not, but hopefully lawyers will weigh in.
Well, it IS discrimination based on behavior. Even if it’s off-site behavior….
Well, it IS discrimination based on behavior. Even if it’s off-site behavior….
wj: But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.)
I sort of agree, BUT:
What a person believes is a mystery. Only what a person says or does is visible to other people or to The Law. That goes double for “religious” beliefs.
I don’t suppose that anybody here, much less anybody on the Supreme Court, would say that restaurants should be forbidden to have a dress code. Try wearing a baseball cap of any sort at the 21 Club. Dress codes can include requirements as well as prohibitions. Jacket and tie, for instance; and never mind the implicit gender discrimination.
So, what principle or law would I be violating if I owned a bar and imposed the following dress code: a “#MakeAMericaDecentAgain” armband must be worn in here at all times; loaner armbands available at the door.
You don’t have to “believe” in America or Decency; you can sport any other insignia you like; you can tell anybody who cares to listen that you despise He, Trump but love his “(Republican) policies”, but we have a dress code here, fella. Or missus, as the case may be.
–TP
wj: But I support the law on not allowing discrimination on the basis of beliefs. (Religious or otherwise.)
I sort of agree, BUT:
What a person believes is a mystery. Only what a person says or does is visible to other people or to The Law. That goes double for “religious” beliefs.
I don’t suppose that anybody here, much less anybody on the Supreme Court, would say that restaurants should be forbidden to have a dress code. Try wearing a baseball cap of any sort at the 21 Club. Dress codes can include requirements as well as prohibitions. Jacket and tie, for instance; and never mind the implicit gender discrimination.
So, what principle or law would I be violating if I owned a bar and imposed the following dress code: a “#MakeAMericaDecentAgain” armband must be worn in here at all times; loaner armbands available at the door.
You don’t have to “believe” in America or Decency; you can sport any other insignia you like; you can tell anybody who cares to listen that you despise He, Trump but love his “(Republican) policies”, but we have a dress code here, fella. Or missus, as the case may be.
–TP
always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard…
I missed that – but I did see him play Richard II and III in the same day sometime around then.
He was a remarkable actor.
always remember a play I saw in 1981, called Good, starring that wonderful actor Alan Howard…
I missed that – but I did see him play Richard II and III in the same day sometime around then.
He was a remarkable actor.
The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal…
Hilary Mantel rather redressed that balance.
The real Thomas More was less of a nice guy than his popular portrayal…
Hilary Mantel rather redressed that balance.
For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go.
I couldn’t agree more!
“Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance.” Yeah, it’s stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?
Hopefully! Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs. Support gay marriage? Well, listen to this! Black Lives Matter, Planned Parenthood? Support murdering police officers and unborn babies? Well, have I got news for you. You want gun control? Open borders? Ok, fine, we’ll serve you but good luck enjoying your meal in peace.
Along these lines, nothing is more uplifting than a bunch of SJW’s interrupting someone’s meal while those someone’s are trying to enjoy the right–perhaps a former right–to be left alone. Because, SJW’s are perfect in their understanding of humanity and understand PERFECTLY all that is true and right in this world. So yes, they have the right and the duty to call out and shame all non-conformists. Just because.
What a depressing conversation.
For that, I think telling the scum point blank that you are only serving them because that is the law, but that they are NOT welcome is a good way to go.
I couldn’t agree more!
“Because you have demonstrated that you will and do lie at the drop of a hat, we must consider anything that you say here to be a lie. We must therefore require that you pay in cash and in advance.” Yeah, it’s stretching the point, but would it conform to the letter of the law?
Hopefully! Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs. Support gay marriage? Well, listen to this! Black Lives Matter, Planned Parenthood? Support murdering police officers and unborn babies? Well, have I got news for you. You want gun control? Open borders? Ok, fine, we’ll serve you but good luck enjoying your meal in peace.
Along these lines, nothing is more uplifting than a bunch of SJW’s interrupting someone’s meal while those someone’s are trying to enjoy the right–perhaps a former right–to be left alone. Because, SJW’s are perfect in their understanding of humanity and understand PERFECTLY all that is true and right in this world. So yes, they have the right and the duty to call out and shame all non-conformists. Just because.
What a depressing conversation.
I think Sapient, WJ and GFTNC should collaborate on a freedom of conscience post.
BTW, I hope my words aren’t too harsh. That would be sad and rude. Totally not like giving someone a bucketful of shit in a restaurant.
I think Sapient, WJ and GFTNC should collaborate on a freedom of conscience post.
BTW, I hope my words aren’t too harsh. That would be sad and rude. Totally not like giving someone a bucketful of shit in a restaurant.
Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs.
I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that’s something rather different from their political beliefs.
Because, what we need as a country, more than anything else right now, is a bunch of self-righteous, partisan douche bags publicly lecturing others on the moral deficiency of their political beliefs.
I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that’s something rather different from their political beliefs.
I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that’s something rather different from their political beliefs.
There you go: since you know others’ minds, you should be allowed to ream them out for impure thoughts.
Since I’m on a roll, it occurs to me that it would be cool to accompany Planned Parenthood supporters’ meals with pictures of aborted fetuses. You know, because they lie about not believing a fetus is human. They say they aren’t lying, but “we” really know they are.
Good times!
I was not (I hope!) talking about the substance of these folks beliefs. But rather about their willingness to lie. Specifically, to lie about readily verifiable facts (not opinions). It seems to me that that’s something rather different from their political beliefs.
There you go: since you know others’ minds, you should be allowed to ream them out for impure thoughts.
Since I’m on a roll, it occurs to me that it would be cool to accompany Planned Parenthood supporters’ meals with pictures of aborted fetuses. You know, because they lie about not believing a fetus is human. They say they aren’t lying, but “we” really know they are.
Good times!
WJ, since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown–innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder’s DOJ doing the cover-up), it’s cool to call them out, right?
WJ, since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown–innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder’s DOJ doing the cover-up), it’s cool to call them out, right?
i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.
for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.
ymmv
i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.
for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.
ymmv
so, yeah, good times indeed.
so, yeah, good times indeed.
McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed “Trumpists” as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically? I don’t even address your characterisation of the two last as “Support murdering police officers and unborn babies”. Do you imagine that we SJWs have been the main public callers-out?
If you don’t think that Trump, Sanders et al are damaging the fabric of American life in a way it hasnt been damaged before, that’s your prerogative. But the facts (on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason) seem against you.
McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed “Trumpists” as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically? I don’t even address your characterisation of the two last as “Support murdering police officers and unborn babies”. Do you imagine that we SJWs have been the main public callers-out?
If you don’t think that Trump, Sanders et al are damaging the fabric of American life in a way it hasnt been damaged before, that’s your prerogative. But the facts (on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason) seem against you.
since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown–innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder’s DOJ doing the cover-up), it’s cool to call them out, right?
i don’t think you know much about BLM.
but hell yeah, call them out. they can take it. maybe you’ll learn something. maybe both parties will.
since BLM is founded on a lie (Mike Brown–innocent black male shot down in cold blood for no reason at all, Holder’s DOJ doing the cover-up), it’s cool to call them out, right?
i don’t think you know much about BLM.
but hell yeah, call them out. they can take it. maybe you’ll learn something. maybe both parties will.
(on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason)
And, of course, on inhumanity to families and children.
(on dishonesty, financial corruption and treason)
And, of course, on inhumanity to families and children.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?
my church has a “we support BLM” banner hanging over the front door. i guess we’re SJW’s. there are worse things to be, or be called. we won’t take offense at that label.
people give us feedback of all kinds. positive negative, polite and not so polite.
we take it as an opportunity to talk to people. about that, or anything else.
it’s no biggie.
by all means, call us out. we’ll have a conversation.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?
my church has a “we support BLM” banner hanging over the front door. i guess we’re SJW’s. there are worse things to be, or be called. we won’t take offense at that label.
people give us feedback of all kinds. positive negative, polite and not so polite.
we take it as an opportunity to talk to people. about that, or anything else.
it’s no biggie.
by all means, call us out. we’ll have a conversation.
i guess we’re SJW’s. there are worse things to be, or be called
Exactly. Who wouldn’t want to be a warrior for social justice? I guess the people who try to make it harder for black people to vote, for example.
i guess we’re SJW’s. there are worse things to be, or be called
Exactly. Who wouldn’t want to be a warrior for social justice? I guess the people who try to make it harder for black people to vote, for example.
McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed “Trumpists” as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.
If it is insulting to be called out–in a blog for crying out loud–for over-weening self-righteousness under the guise of being earnest and caring social justice crusaders, then fine by me. You should read what people say here about conservatives.
Here’s the thing: until I butted in, the discussion was the limits on harassing people in restaurants for their viewpoint (MAGA). There was one dissent and she’s dropped out of the conversation.
If everyone is agreeing on a format for publicly shaming non-conformists, don’t expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.
i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.
for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.
You bet! Everyone is their own moral custodian, and everyone else’s! I think aborting unborn children is an issue–a very terminal issue for the unborn. Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people’s tables in a restaurant? Define your own personal moral high ground as uniquely the highest and most pure and then let the sinners have it.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?
Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen. The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.
McKinney, your use (not for the first time) of the insult SJW, puts you in the same category you were accusing us of being in when we dismissed “Trumpists” as automatically wrong and refuted by definition.
If it is insulting to be called out–in a blog for crying out loud–for over-weening self-righteousness under the guise of being earnest and caring social justice crusaders, then fine by me. You should read what people say here about conservatives.
Here’s the thing: until I butted in, the discussion was the limits on harassing people in restaurants for their viewpoint (MAGA). There was one dissent and she’s dropped out of the conversation.
If everyone is agreeing on a format for publicly shaming non-conformists, don’t expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.
i suspect most people have some category of behavior, some line, that is just a step too far. such that you no longer care about decorum, or being nice, or perhaps even what the law demands of you.
for some people, separating people from their kids is one of those lines.
You bet! Everyone is their own moral custodian, and everyone else’s! I think aborting unborn children is an issue–a very terminal issue for the unborn. Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people’s tables in a restaurant? Define your own personal moral high ground as uniquely the highest and most pure and then let the sinners have it.
Do you think that (to use your examples) known supporters of gay marriage, Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood are NOT insulted, called out and shamed publically?
Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen. The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.
by all means, call us out. we’ll have a conversation.
You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.
Exactly.
Exactly. Because of who you are and what you stand for, you may and should call out, shame, harass and generally ostracize all non-right-thinking persons. Because only you are the truth, the way and the light.
by all means, call us out. we’ll have a conversation.
You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.
Exactly.
Exactly. Because of who you are and what you stand for, you may and should call out, shame, harass and generally ostracize all non-right-thinking persons. Because only you are the truth, the way and the light.
don’t expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.
It was on this blog you accused us of dismissing Trumpistas as refuted by definition.
Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen.
This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they’re in restaurants, or walking down the street?
don’t expect me to get to worked up over insulting that particular cohort. This is a blog, not a restaurant.
It was on this blog you accused us of dismissing Trumpistas as refuted by definition.
Not in restaurants. Not at their homes. Not when they try to use public accommodations as an ordinary citizen.
This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they’re in restaurants, or walking down the street?
Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people’s tables in a restaurant?
i’m sure that, or similar, has been done. for sure people who perform abortions as part of their medical practice have been harassed and threatened in their homes, in public places, at work, anywhere they can be found.
maybe not the best example.
the horrors that have been visited on trump supporters discussed here are (a) couldn’t buy a beer, asked to leave a bar, (b) denied service in a restaurant.
so, wtf.
janie says be careful what you wish for, which is good advice, and worth heeding.
but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.
live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.
karma.
buckle up, we got a long road ahead of before his crap is sorted.
Can I stick pictures of fetuses on people’s tables in a restaurant?
i’m sure that, or similar, has been done. for sure people who perform abortions as part of their medical practice have been harassed and threatened in their homes, in public places, at work, anywhere they can be found.
maybe not the best example.
the horrors that have been visited on trump supporters discussed here are (a) couldn’t buy a beer, asked to leave a bar, (b) denied service in a restaurant.
so, wtf.
janie says be careful what you wish for, which is good advice, and worth heeding.
but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.
live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.
karma.
buckle up, we got a long road ahead of before his crap is sorted.
This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they’re in restaurants, or walking down the street?
Leaving aside the irony of Mr. Hogg utilizing armed security, if you read what I’ve written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors. If Mr. Hogg gives a speech and those who disagree with him want to protest, fine. If Mr. Hogg goes to a restaurant, he deserves to be treated like every other guest and left alone. That’s in my world, but not in yours.
So, confer on yourselves the right to be the world’s biggest busy-bodies, sticking your views in wherever you happen to find a non-conformist: a restaurant, at home, at work, in the hospital, at their kids’ weddings. Why have any limits at all on civility?
This is hysterical. You think that people like David Hogg, for example (seen recently in New York with armed security guards), who have been monstered in the rightwing press, are not insulted or threatened when they’re in restaurants, or walking down the street?
Leaving aside the irony of Mr. Hogg utilizing armed security, if you read what I’ve written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors. If Mr. Hogg gives a speech and those who disagree with him want to protest, fine. If Mr. Hogg goes to a restaurant, he deserves to be treated like every other guest and left alone. That’s in my world, but not in yours.
So, confer on yourselves the right to be the world’s biggest busy-bodies, sticking your views in wherever you happen to find a non-conformist: a restaurant, at home, at work, in the hospital, at their kids’ weddings. Why have any limits at all on civility?
You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.
people in my church have been called out in all kinds of contexts. for the sign, and other things.
we are, somewhat famously, SJWs, by that name or not. it works some people up. we accept that as part of what comes with espousing a point of view.
it ain’t a thing, really.
heat, kitchens.
David Hogg
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
on the whole, i’m sure he’d rather be asked to leave a bar.
You are inviting a conversation, not sitting in a restaurant or trying to get some sleep.
people in my church have been called out in all kinds of contexts. for the sign, and other things.
we are, somewhat famously, SJWs, by that name or not. it works some people up. we accept that as part of what comes with espousing a point of view.
it ain’t a thing, really.
heat, kitchens.
David Hogg
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
on the whole, i’m sure he’d rather be asked to leave a bar.
but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.
live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.
You do see the irony here, do you not? Confer upon yourself the gift of true objectivity and pick and choose the winners and losers accordingly.
Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?
but what you are seeing is people responding to outrageous malfeasance. there will probably be more, of both malfeasance and response.
live by the sword, die by the sword, right? well live by outrage, malice, calumny, and threats, and some of that is gonna blow back on you.
You do see the irony here, do you not? Confer upon yourself the gift of true objectivity and pick and choose the winners and losers accordingly.
Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
What irony? Since when has anybody said that in America, where guns are so easily obtainable, people who are threatened with violence shouldn’t have armed bodyguards?
Exactly
You ridicule the word, but neglect to mention which elements of social justice you particularly object to. In the past you’ve revealed personal attitudes to race in the workplace, and gender likewise, that show you try to be fair and unprejudiced by your own lights. You don’t like our priorities: fine. You think we’re self-righteous and close-minded: fine. You don’t like Trump – how do you like what’s happening in America under his regime? How bad do things have to get before it’s OK to call out his lying press secretary in public?
I read you carefully enough. You don’t think anyone should be called out in their “private endeavours”. But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?
And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders’s biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?
What irony? Since when has anybody said that in America, where guns are so easily obtainable, people who are threatened with violence shouldn’t have armed bodyguards?
Exactly
You ridicule the word, but neglect to mention which elements of social justice you particularly object to. In the past you’ve revealed personal attitudes to race in the workplace, and gender likewise, that show you try to be fair and unprejudiced by your own lights. You don’t like our priorities: fine. You think we’re self-righteous and close-minded: fine. You don’t like Trump – how do you like what’s happening in America under his regime? How bad do things have to get before it’s OK to call out his lying press secretary in public?
I read you carefully enough. You don’t think anyone should be called out in their “private endeavours”. But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?
And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders’s biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?
Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?
The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They’re fairly easy to spot.
Who are the fascists? Who is wearing the brown shirts?
The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They’re fairly easy to spot.
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
WTF?
Hogg has been SWATed. people die that way.
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
WTF?
But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?
Ok, it must just be me. Do you not see, none of this is in any f’ing way ok. I live in a pretty diverse city, so I’m not seeing any of what you describe, but I’m sure it happens because there are assholes everywhere. What y’all are doing is justifying being assholes. Because, you’re right-thinking, good people, so it’s ok for you. And besides, other people do it to–so that makes it ok.
And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders’s biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?
This is called ‘changing the subject’–oh, look over there! A jeff sessions!
But, if you want to be judged by his standards, fine: I can’t tell the difference between the two of you.
But since rightwing thugs regularly do call out black people, gay people kissing or holding hands, known defenders of abortion or gay marriage or other SJW causes, you presumably feel that this should never be pushed back on in the same way. Turn the other cheek, eh?
Ok, it must just be me. Do you not see, none of this is in any f’ing way ok. I live in a pretty diverse city, so I’m not seeing any of what you describe, but I’m sure it happens because there are assholes everywhere. What y’all are doing is justifying being assholes. Because, you’re right-thinking, good people, so it’s ok for you. And besides, other people do it to–so that makes it ok.
And if you want to talk about self-righteousness, how would you characterise Sanders’s biblical defense of separating kids from their parents?
This is called ‘changing the subject’–oh, look over there! A jeff sessions!
But, if you want to be judged by his standards, fine: I can’t tell the difference between the two of you.
The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They’re fairly easy to spot.
That’s one group. However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named ‘yes means yes’ standard of campus “justice”.
The people kidnapping children and using them as hostages to force people to leave. The person who wants to dispense with due process. They’re fairly easy to spot.
That’s one group. However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named ‘yes means yes’ standard of campus “justice”.
McKinney and I surely disagree on what it would take to Make America Decent Again. Evidently, in a Decent America According To McKinney, 9-5 fascist liars in positions of power are entitled to be treated as simple anonymous citizens out of office hours. To treat them otherwise is to be a Social Justice Warrior, which is next door to being a Socialist, which amounts to being a mass murderer.
McKinney is a lawyer in a border state. He is in a better position than most of us to express a substantive opinion on the “social justice” of He, Trump’s border policy. If he shares the sentiment expressed on the billboard-cum-jacket recently worn by the Third Lady of the United States, that’s fine. But it provokes me to quote a different Thomas More dictum: in Law, silence implies consent.
–TP
McKinney and I surely disagree on what it would take to Make America Decent Again. Evidently, in a Decent America According To McKinney, 9-5 fascist liars in positions of power are entitled to be treated as simple anonymous citizens out of office hours. To treat them otherwise is to be a Social Justice Warrior, which is next door to being a Socialist, which amounts to being a mass murderer.
McKinney is a lawyer in a border state. He is in a better position than most of us to express a substantive opinion on the “social justice” of He, Trump’s border policy. If he shares the sentiment expressed on the billboard-cum-jacket recently worn by the Third Lady of the United States, that’s fine. But it provokes me to quote a different Thomas More dictum: in Law, silence implies consent.
–TP
if you read what I’ve written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors.
So if, to take an extreme example, if Pol Pot happens to come to you to have a bog-standard, i.e. not customized, trust set up (assuming your practice does such things), you have no call rejecting his business. Or telling him what you think of his actions. Positing that there is no legal recourse available — since his actions were in accordance with local law at the time.
if you read what I’ve written carefully, no one has any business calling out anyone else in their private endeavors.
So if, to take an extreme example, if Pol Pot happens to come to you to have a bog-standard, i.e. not customized, trust set up (assuming your practice does such things), you have no call rejecting his business. Or telling him what you think of his actions. Positing that there is no legal recourse available — since his actions were in accordance with local law at the time.
WTF?
You’re not tracking? Y’all seem to mostly agree that accosting others is just good clean fun and because they deserve it. Well, if one can be shitty to someone else “who deserves it”, who’s to say what the limits are on how shitty one can be? It’s all a matter of degree and since we’re making up the rules as we go, there really aren’t any rules.
Or, am I being too subtle?
I know I’m being a smartass, BTW. It’s intentional.
WTF?
You’re not tracking? Y’all seem to mostly agree that accosting others is just good clean fun and because they deserve it. Well, if one can be shitty to someone else “who deserves it”, who’s to say what the limits are on how shitty one can be? It’s all a matter of degree and since we’re making up the rules as we go, there really aren’t any rules.
Or, am I being too subtle?
I know I’m being a smartass, BTW. It’s intentional.
Do you not see, none of this is in any f’ing way ok.
Let’s recap. We were talking about whether the owner of a business can or should refuse to serve someone whose views and/or behaviour (off-site) they deeply disapprove of. We came down on the side that they should probably serve them, but tell them how much they (as citizens of the country the relevant person officially serves) deeply disapprove of their behaviour and values. You think this justifies:
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
Do you not see, none of this is in any f’ing way ok.
Let’s recap. We were talking about whether the owner of a business can or should refuse to serve someone whose views and/or behaviour (off-site) they deeply disapprove of. We came down on the side that they should probably serve them, but tell them how much they (as citizens of the country the relevant person officially serves) deeply disapprove of their behaviour and values. You think this justifies:
Well, in your world, no big deal. Someone doesn’t like what he says/said. That gives them permission to do whatever. There aren’t any rules, any limits. Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named ‘yes means yes’ standard of campus “justice”.
“Same quarter”? It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my “quarter”, including me, believe strongly in due process – including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.
However, due process is rich coming from the same quarter that imposed the risibly named ‘yes means yes’ standard of campus “justice”.
“Same quarter”? It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my “quarter”, including me, believe strongly in due process – including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.
Oh, and way to change the subject.
Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist “quarter”.
Oh, and way to change the subject.
Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist “quarter”.
Well, in your world, no big deal
what the hell are you talking about?
I brought up the guy in the MAGA hat as an example of yet another way in which the (R) brand has become toxic. Because it’s leader is toxic, and nobody appears to have the freaking spine to say no to him.
Because they got their tax cut.
Whatever the law says about public accommodations, that is what people should comply with. That is my position on public accommodations.
I don’t know what the law says regarding either the MAGA hat or Sanders dinner party. If the proprietors were acting within the law, that’s their prerogative. If not, they should be liable for some civil remedy, if they choose to pursue it.
My position on whether people should have a fucking SWAT team called on them because somebody doesn’t like what they say is that whoever made that call should go the hell to jail.
Regarding “true objectivity” and “brown shirts”, people believe stuff. For whatever reasons make sense to them. They are entitled to express that, and act on that, in whatever way is available to them, within the boundaries of the law.
Sometimes people disagree with things that other people say or do. Sometimes they express that disagreement. Sometimes they do so publicly.
When the person they are responding to is a notable public figure, such as Sanders, I’d say it comes with the territory, and if they don’t like it, they need to get another job.
If you’re wearing a MAGA hat, you’re expressing your point of view loud and proud, and not everyone is going to approve. Don’t like it, don’t wear a fucking MAGA hat.
You demonstrate not one freaking clue about what fascism is, or what the significance of brown shirts are. Anybody rounding up MAGA hat wearing people, or putting them in camps? Anybody beating them up, or destroying their homes or businesses, or separating them from their families, or taking their kids away?
The guy didn’t get served in a fucking bar. Here is a Fox News piece about it.
He walked into a bar with his MAGA hat. The bar owner told him he wasn’t welcome, and he was required to leave.
How many freaking bars are there in NYC? This guy’s life was damaged in exactly what way?
He said it “offended his sense of being American” to be treated that way, so he sued. His stupid hat offends my sense of being American. can I sue him for wearing it? In any case, it’s not a very strong case under the law, so he lost.
Nice try, though.
Anyway, glad to have provided you with yet another opportunity to go off on the Hypocrisy Of The Left.
What everyone needs to get their heads around is that (a) Trump and his crew are going to be deliberately provocative and offensive on a daily basis, (b) that’s going to piss people off and (c) they are going to respond.
They *should* respond. Trump’s actions and statements deserve a response, and a robust one.
If you attach yourself to the Trump brand, some of that’s going to come your way. For some small number of people, they may think twice about whether they really want to be associated with the guy. In most cases, they’re going to double down.
As a purely pragmatic, tactical matter, that may be a reason for people who are opposed to Trump to soft-pedal their opposition. “Dial it back”, says Snarki.
But to be honest, I don’t think Trump’s people are going to respond to the soft-pedal approach either. They’ve cast their lot. They don’t give a crap what people like me think, about anything.
So, it’s going to go wherever it goes.
Well, in your world, no big deal
what the hell are you talking about?
I brought up the guy in the MAGA hat as an example of yet another way in which the (R) brand has become toxic. Because it’s leader is toxic, and nobody appears to have the freaking spine to say no to him.
Because they got their tax cut.
Whatever the law says about public accommodations, that is what people should comply with. That is my position on public accommodations.
I don’t know what the law says regarding either the MAGA hat or Sanders dinner party. If the proprietors were acting within the law, that’s their prerogative. If not, they should be liable for some civil remedy, if they choose to pursue it.
My position on whether people should have a fucking SWAT team called on them because somebody doesn’t like what they say is that whoever made that call should go the hell to jail.
Regarding “true objectivity” and “brown shirts”, people believe stuff. For whatever reasons make sense to them. They are entitled to express that, and act on that, in whatever way is available to them, within the boundaries of the law.
Sometimes people disagree with things that other people say or do. Sometimes they express that disagreement. Sometimes they do so publicly.
When the person they are responding to is a notable public figure, such as Sanders, I’d say it comes with the territory, and if they don’t like it, they need to get another job.
If you’re wearing a MAGA hat, you’re expressing your point of view loud and proud, and not everyone is going to approve. Don’t like it, don’t wear a fucking MAGA hat.
You demonstrate not one freaking clue about what fascism is, or what the significance of brown shirts are. Anybody rounding up MAGA hat wearing people, or putting them in camps? Anybody beating them up, or destroying their homes or businesses, or separating them from their families, or taking their kids away?
The guy didn’t get served in a fucking bar. Here is a Fox News piece about it.
He walked into a bar with his MAGA hat. The bar owner told him he wasn’t welcome, and he was required to leave.
How many freaking bars are there in NYC? This guy’s life was damaged in exactly what way?
He said it “offended his sense of being American” to be treated that way, so he sued. His stupid hat offends my sense of being American. can I sue him for wearing it? In any case, it’s not a very strong case under the law, so he lost.
Nice try, though.
Anyway, glad to have provided you with yet another opportunity to go off on the Hypocrisy Of The Left.
What everyone needs to get their heads around is that (a) Trump and his crew are going to be deliberately provocative and offensive on a daily basis, (b) that’s going to piss people off and (c) they are going to respond.
They *should* respond. Trump’s actions and statements deserve a response, and a robust one.
If you attach yourself to the Trump brand, some of that’s going to come your way. For some small number of people, they may think twice about whether they really want to be associated with the guy. In most cases, they’re going to double down.
As a purely pragmatic, tactical matter, that may be a reason for people who are opposed to Trump to soft-pedal their opposition. “Dial it back”, says Snarki.
But to be honest, I don’t think Trump’s people are going to respond to the soft-pedal approach either. They’ve cast their lot. They don’t give a crap what people like me think, about anything.
So, it’s going to go wherever it goes.
When my son was in high school, I picked him up one day and one end of t he school parking lot was filled with dozens of anti-abortion protestors hoisting full color posters of bloody aborted fetuses and body parts in the faces of ninth and ten graders going to their school buses and their sports activities.
They kids had probably finished their lunches 90 minutes earlier.
This stuff has gone on for decades.
Does the name Randall Terry ring a bell?
I’ve sat through more than one dinner party over the years listening to Rush Limbaugh conservatives luxuriating and smacking their lips over the finer details of Bill Clinton’s ejaculate on the blue dress while I tried to choke down some bearnaise sauce.
I interrupted and broke one of them up with an outburst regarding the Iraq War just to see if they could handle it, the sensitive twits.
They couldn’t. They started putting on their coats and heading for the door as I finished my dessert alone.
But I was the one apologizing for weeks.
The mp Administration should be taken on at every venue possible.
They are a national disgrace and ruining the country.
It’s lucky they live in a country in which every white restaurant in existence wasn’t burned to the ground from the Founding until the 1970s and a few after.
We aren’t going to indulge these scum any longer, like we indulged the Southern racist Democrats since forever.
Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants. They cut and run like Moe Lane used to accuse Democrats of doing over at Redstate.
Sarah Huckabee’s father has hosted and “jammed” with an asshole who numerous times has threatened to murder Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and various gun control advocates with his automatic weapons, including the Florida High School student activists and not once at this blog has a conservative taken the time to condemn that shit.
And so on.
If I’m ever in a restaurant with mp fellow murderer Stephen Miller, finishing his fajitas will be the least of his worries.
When my son was in high school, I picked him up one day and one end of t he school parking lot was filled with dozens of anti-abortion protestors hoisting full color posters of bloody aborted fetuses and body parts in the faces of ninth and ten graders going to their school buses and their sports activities.
They kids had probably finished their lunches 90 minutes earlier.
This stuff has gone on for decades.
Does the name Randall Terry ring a bell?
I’ve sat through more than one dinner party over the years listening to Rush Limbaugh conservatives luxuriating and smacking their lips over the finer details of Bill Clinton’s ejaculate on the blue dress while I tried to choke down some bearnaise sauce.
I interrupted and broke one of them up with an outburst regarding the Iraq War just to see if they could handle it, the sensitive twits.
They couldn’t. They started putting on their coats and heading for the door as I finished my dessert alone.
But I was the one apologizing for weeks.
The mp Administration should be taken on at every venue possible.
They are a national disgrace and ruining the country.
It’s lucky they live in a country in which every white restaurant in existence wasn’t burned to the ground from the Founding until the 1970s and a few after.
We aren’t going to indulge these scum any longer, like we indulged the Southern racist Democrats since forever.
Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants. They cut and run like Moe Lane used to accuse Democrats of doing over at Redstate.
Sarah Huckabee’s father has hosted and “jammed” with an asshole who numerous times has threatened to murder Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and various gun control advocates with his automatic weapons, including the Florida High School student activists and not once at this blog has a conservative taken the time to condemn that shit.
And so on.
If I’m ever in a restaurant with mp fellow murderer Stephen Miller, finishing his fajitas will be the least of his worries.
Tracking is difficult when the discussion is moving forward so fast. But the difference between telling someone in a restaurant how deeply one disagrees with their behaviour and values and SWATting someone is a difference in kind, not of degree.
Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?
Tracking is difficult when the discussion is moving forward so fast. But the difference between telling someone in a restaurant how deeply one disagrees with their behaviour and values and SWATting someone is a difference in kind, not of degree.
Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?
What y’all are doing is justifying being assholes.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see telling a guy that you don’t want him in your bar because he’s wearing a MAGA hat is “being an asshole”.
It’s saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.
Presumably, there were other people in the bar. Maybe they didn’t want the guy there either. Most likely the bar owner knows his regulars, and his room.
I’ve been in hundreds of bars, on thousands of occasions, over the last couple of decades. Trust me when I tell you that people get asked to leave bars for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, hats.
In any case, I’m out of this conversation. This has fulfilled my daily dose of jumping through hoops for McK’s entertainment.
In any case, I hope you have enjoyed this opportunity to reaffirm your belief in the hypocrisy of the left. And, feel free to call me a SJW anytime, I will not take offense.
Maybe I’ll get it tattoo’d on me, somewhere visible.
What y’all are doing is justifying being assholes.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see telling a guy that you don’t want him in your bar because he’s wearing a MAGA hat is “being an asshole”.
It’s saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.
Presumably, there were other people in the bar. Maybe they didn’t want the guy there either. Most likely the bar owner knows his regulars, and his room.
I’ve been in hundreds of bars, on thousands of occasions, over the last couple of decades. Trust me when I tell you that people get asked to leave bars for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, hats.
In any case, I’m out of this conversation. This has fulfilled my daily dose of jumping through hoops for McK’s entertainment.
In any case, I hope you have enjoyed this opportunity to reaffirm your belief in the hypocrisy of the left. And, feel free to call me a SJW anytime, I will not take offense.
Maybe I’ll get it tattoo’d on me, somewhere visible.
Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
Pot, meet kettle.
I have not “dropped out of the conversation,” McK, if you meant me and if you meant to imply that I retreated from it or was driven from it.
As it happens, I am traveling, working, and generally not in touch with the blog as easily as I usually am. Plus, people actually do disappear sometimes for their own reasons and needs that have nothing to do with the blog (you may be familiar with that phenomenon, AKA pot, meet kettle).
You have utterly gone off the deep end. Then again, mostly what you seem to come here for is to flaunt your disdain for us by writing what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
Do what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
Pot, meet kettle.
I have not “dropped out of the conversation,” McK, if you meant me and if you meant to imply that I retreated from it or was driven from it.
As it happens, I am traveling, working, and generally not in touch with the blog as easily as I usually am. Plus, people actually do disappear sometimes for their own reasons and needs that have nothing to do with the blog (you may be familiar with that phenomenon, AKA pot, meet kettle).
You have utterly gone off the deep end. Then again, mostly what you seem to come here for is to flaunt your disdain for us by writing what makes you feel good a the moment as you display your moral superiority.
If Mckinney and I ever run into Stalin at the Russian Tea Room, Joe is going to have his hands full going against the two of us…
If Mckinney and I ever run into Stalin at the Russian Tea Room, Joe is going to have his hands full going against the two of us…
“I’m sorry, but I don’t see telling a guy that you don’t want him in your bar because he’s wearing a MAGA hat is “being an asshole”.”
After five thousand words or more it comes down to this. Yes it makes you an asshole.
“I’m sorry, but I don’t see telling a guy that you don’t want him in your bar because he’s wearing a MAGA hat is “being an asshole”.”
After five thousand words or more it comes down to this. Yes it makes you an asshole.
Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants.
Even better: she could have said, I’m sorry you feel that way, of course we’ll leave if we’re creating a problem. Here is my card, please call my office tomorrow, and we’ll find a time for someone from my staff to discuss your concerns. If my schedule allows, I will try to join in.
That’s what the pros do. She might even have changed a mind or two.
Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.
Wait, what’s her job? White House press secretary? Public face of the Trump administration?
Keep winning those hearts and minds, Sarah.
Sanders and company could have refused to leave the restaurants.
Even better: she could have said, I’m sorry you feel that way, of course we’ll leave if we’re creating a problem. Here is my card, please call my office tomorrow, and we’ll find a time for someone from my staff to discuss your concerns. If my schedule allows, I will try to join in.
That’s what the pros do. She might even have changed a mind or two.
Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.
Wait, what’s her job? White House press secretary? Public face of the Trump administration?
Keep winning those hearts and minds, Sarah.
Yes it makes you an asshole.
So be it.
Yes it makes you an asshole.
So be it.
I used to work in a bar fairly regularly where bands would be fired for playing Brown Eyed Girl or anything by Jimmy Buffett. Patrons would be warned off if they persisted in requesting them.
He actually was kind of asshole, and he paid crap, but everyone wanted to play there, because they knew they wouldn’t have to play Brown Eyed Girl or any Buffett tunes.
He knew his room, and he ran a great bar.
It’s gone now, and so is he, but if he and it were still with us, you would probably be allowed to wear a MAGA hat. You would, however, be expected to take shit for it, all night long, and not bitch about it the next day on Twitter.
Via con Dios, Bob Brezovsky.
I used to work in a bar fairly regularly where bands would be fired for playing Brown Eyed Girl or anything by Jimmy Buffett. Patrons would be warned off if they persisted in requesting them.
He actually was kind of asshole, and he paid crap, but everyone wanted to play there, because they knew they wouldn’t have to play Brown Eyed Girl or any Buffett tunes.
He knew his room, and he ran a great bar.
It’s gone now, and so is he, but if he and it were still with us, you would probably be allowed to wear a MAGA hat. You would, however, be expected to take shit for it, all night long, and not bitch about it the next day on Twitter.
Via con Dios, Bob Brezovsky.
you were allowed to play Mustang Sally if you could make it sound like Wilson Pickett did.
you were allowed to play Mustang Sally if you could make it sound like Wilson Pickett did.
McKinney and Marty. However would we cope without them defining words like “socialist” and “asshole” for us?
And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.
–TP
McKinney and Marty. However would we cope without them defining words like “socialist” and “asshole” for us?
And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.
–TP
It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my “quarter”, including me, believe strongly in due process – including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.
I don’t like being accused of taking a position that is the opposite of what I actually believe, so first thing: I apologize for including you on the progressive view of due process on campus. Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.
Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist “quarter”.
Please show me where I did that.
It’s saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.
Or your religious point of view, or something in between or having a bumper sticker on your car. You’re saying that any of this entitles others to refuse service or give you a public take-down.
Yes, that is asshole on steroids behavior.
Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
I could have ‘engaged’ in a cerebral, ‘well, yes, I see your point, and wearing a MAGA hat is an invitation to rebuttal–no doubt about that–but isn’t there a concern that someone with “Hillary for President” bumper sticker might be refused service at a drug store or something like that?’ But because we are talking about publicly harassing people for their political beliefs, I just wasn’t feeling the love.
For committed lefties, Trump is sui generis and that justifies pretty much anything and everything anti-trump that can be said or done short of outright violence and we may not be far short of that.
And for the last time, if the roles were reversed, my views would be the same.
It strikes me that there has been a lot of discussion among people among all quarters regarding what to do about campus rape. Some of my “quarter”, including me, believe strongly in due process – including notice, a hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses, and have discussed what process is appropriate in college situations. You might want to identify by name (and preferably link) those who hold the views you object to.
I don’t like being accused of taking a position that is the opposite of what I actually believe, so first thing: I apologize for including you on the progressive view of due process on campus. Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.
Please continue to defend the kidnapper racist “quarter”.
Please show me where I did that.
It’s saying that wearing your political point of view loud and proud, in that particular venue, is not acceptable.
Or your religious point of view, or something in between or having a bumper sticker on your car. You’re saying that any of this entitles others to refuse service or give you a public take-down.
Yes, that is asshole on steroids behavior.
Out of interest, intentionally being a smartass is odd. Why are you doing it?
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
I could have ‘engaged’ in a cerebral, ‘well, yes, I see your point, and wearing a MAGA hat is an invitation to rebuttal–no doubt about that–but isn’t there a concern that someone with “Hillary for President” bumper sticker might be refused service at a drug store or something like that?’ But because we are talking about publicly harassing people for their political beliefs, I just wasn’t feeling the love.
For committed lefties, Trump is sui generis and that justifies pretty much anything and everything anti-trump that can be said or done short of outright violence and we may not be far short of that.
And for the last time, if the roles were reversed, my views would be the same.
The Red Hen restaurant owner, and what went down.
The Red Hen restaurant owner, and what went down.
Because this never happens from the other direction.
Okay, the internet isn’t a restaurant. But the question of which “side” does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney’s fever dream of SJW’s projects it.
Because this never happens from the other direction.
Okay, the internet isn’t a restaurant. But the question of which “side” does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney’s fever dream of SJW’s projects it.
And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.
My original comment had something this insightful coming from the left in mind.
And remember, people: these clowns are reasonable Republicans.
My original comment had something this insightful coming from the left in mind.
McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?
–TP
McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?
–TP
Trump is sui generis
The penny drops.
Trump is sui generis
The penny drops.
Because this never happens from the other direction.
Okay, the internet isn’t a restaurant. But the question of which “side” does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney’s fever dream of SJW’s projects it.
I read the link. An Asian American woman was vilified for being Asian American in a movie? That really happened? Seriously, have you not noticed that diversity is a thing and has been for several decades. There are surely some racists douches who slime minorities, but if it was a real issue, do you think you’d only find one blurb on BBC?
And, to repeat my freaking point one more GD time: it is wrong, regardless of who does it!
Because this never happens from the other direction.
Okay, the internet isn’t a restaurant. But the question of which “side” does more to chase people out of community spaces is not quite the way McKinney’s fever dream of SJW’s projects it.
I read the link. An Asian American woman was vilified for being Asian American in a movie? That really happened? Seriously, have you not noticed that diversity is a thing and has been for several decades. There are surely some racists douches who slime minorities, but if it was a real issue, do you think you’d only find one blurb on BBC?
And, to repeat my freaking point one more GD time: it is wrong, regardless of who does it!
McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?
I’m a what.
McKinney, are you not reasonable, not a Republican, or what?
I’m a what.
As a “what”, who offends you more: SJWs or RWNJs?
And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?
==TP
As a “what”, who offends you more: SJWs or RWNJs?
And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?
==TP
Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.
Likely breaking the law in doing so.
Instead she and her dad jumped on Twitter and bitched about it.
Likely breaking the law in doing so.
Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.
All I ask is that you identify the people who hold this view, and provide a link.
Please show me where I [defended the kidnapper racist “quarter”].
You can’t. Instead you changed the subject into a bizarre whataboutism, saying that the “brownshirts” and “fascists” are everywhere, especially among campus anti-rape advocates.
You’ve expressed reasonable (more conservative than me, but reasonable) views on immigration. I’m not sure why you’re not calling this behavior by the Trump administration out loudly here in these comments. Plenty of lawyers in Texas are playing a part to attempt to represent some of these asylum seekers, and I hope there are some that you support. Anyone reading about their plight knows that these asylum seekers are desperate. Thank you in advance if your firm is helping.
Still, it is the progressive view, even if some, like you, dissent.
All I ask is that you identify the people who hold this view, and provide a link.
Please show me where I [defended the kidnapper racist “quarter”].
You can’t. Instead you changed the subject into a bizarre whataboutism, saying that the “brownshirts” and “fascists” are everywhere, especially among campus anti-rape advocates.
You’ve expressed reasonable (more conservative than me, but reasonable) views on immigration. I’m not sure why you’re not calling this behavior by the Trump administration out loudly here in these comments. Plenty of lawyers in Texas are playing a part to attempt to represent some of these asylum seekers, and I hope there are some that you support. Anyone reading about their plight knows that these asylum seekers are desperate. Thank you in advance if your firm is helping.
You know, for laughs, I went and googled “trump supporter denied service”.
Apparently, it’s a thing.
What the hell is going on? Maybe folks should ponder it.
Perhaps it seems asshole-ish. Perhaps it’s just people responding to stuff that seems more than asshole-ish, to them.
Everybody has a line. Keep crossing the line, and people will respond. If it seems rude, you can either conclude that, all of a sudden, everybody has lost their manners and their must be something in the tap water.
Or, you can consider that there actually is something different about the current situation that inspires people – business owners, people who depend on public good will for their livelihood – to say fuck it, I’m drawing a line.
Assume that there will be more of this. Consider that there are some things that some people think deserve public condemnation.
If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.
If you wear a MAGA hat, you’re aligning yourself with a guy whose personal history and political career are based on malice bigotry and a profound lack of regard for our public institutions. Feel free to marshal whatever argument you like to contest that simple statement.
Some people find that deeply offensive. They are going to respond. It’s human freaking nature.
If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.
If you want people to treat you with respect, it behooves you to not demonstrate profound disrespect for others, or celebrate those who do
If you present yourself to the world in a deliberately provocative way, it behooves you to not be offended if people are provoked
This is , like, kindergarten stuff.
Trump is an offense. He means to be one. It’s what his supporters like about him. It’s why they voted for him.
Fuck you liberal! Fuck your feelings!
Well, maybe you don’t get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that.
You know, for laughs, I went and googled “trump supporter denied service”.
Apparently, it’s a thing.
What the hell is going on? Maybe folks should ponder it.
Perhaps it seems asshole-ish. Perhaps it’s just people responding to stuff that seems more than asshole-ish, to them.
Everybody has a line. Keep crossing the line, and people will respond. If it seems rude, you can either conclude that, all of a sudden, everybody has lost their manners and their must be something in the tap water.
Or, you can consider that there actually is something different about the current situation that inspires people – business owners, people who depend on public good will for their livelihood – to say fuck it, I’m drawing a line.
Assume that there will be more of this. Consider that there are some things that some people think deserve public condemnation.
If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.
If you wear a MAGA hat, you’re aligning yourself with a guy whose personal history and political career are based on malice bigotry and a profound lack of regard for our public institutions. Feel free to marshal whatever argument you like to contest that simple statement.
Some people find that deeply offensive. They are going to respond. It’s human freaking nature.
If you want the benefits of a tolerant social fabric, it behooves you to not piss all over it, or celebrate those who do.
If you want people to treat you with respect, it behooves you to not demonstrate profound disrespect for others, or celebrate those who do
If you present yourself to the world in a deliberately provocative way, it behooves you to not be offended if people are provoked
This is , like, kindergarten stuff.
Trump is an offense. He means to be one. It’s what his supporters like about him. It’s why they voted for him.
Fuck you liberal! Fuck your feelings!
Well, maybe you don’t get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that.
McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
Yeah, when you put it like that, it’s so hard to disagree. And yet, it’s hard to see how our discussed course of action meets that criterion. If you think the person who tells Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she is supporting and enabling a regime of crooks, hustlers, possible traitors, and general slimeballs is the asshole, you show a lamentable lack of discrimination. Do people’s choices have no consequences? She doesn’t have to work there, and spout their lies and justifications for inhuman behaviour. Doesn’t her self-righteous religious justification for taking the kids away from their parents license a little self-righteousness back?
Out of interest, if you and Marty think that someone telling a guy wearing a MAGA hat to leave a bar is an asshole, I ask you Tony P’s question, way upthread. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband? I’ve resisted calling most Trumpistas fascists and nazis, but tell me, where would you stand on the swastika question? Is that a difference in kind or of degree? Is “lecturing” the swastika wearer acceptable, or are you being a SJW asshole? Where would you draw the line?
McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
Yeah, when you put it like that, it’s so hard to disagree. And yet, it’s hard to see how our discussed course of action meets that criterion. If you think the person who tells Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she is supporting and enabling a regime of crooks, hustlers, possible traitors, and general slimeballs is the asshole, you show a lamentable lack of discrimination. Do people’s choices have no consequences? She doesn’t have to work there, and spout their lies and justifications for inhuman behaviour. Doesn’t her self-righteous religious justification for taking the kids away from their parents license a little self-righteousness back?
Out of interest, if you and Marty think that someone telling a guy wearing a MAGA hat to leave a bar is an asshole, I ask you Tony P’s question, way upthread. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband? I’ve resisted calling most Trumpistas fascists and nazis, but tell me, where would you stand on the swastika question? Is that a difference in kind or of degree? Is “lecturing” the swastika wearer acceptable, or are you being a SJW asshole? Where would you draw the line?
McT, as a prelude
you write
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
preceeded by this
I know I’m being a smartass, BTW. It’s intentional.
It’s one week, so I’ve just unblocked Bob.
McT, as a prelude
you write
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
preceeded by this
I know I’m being a smartass, BTW. It’s intentional.
It’s one week, so I’ve just unblocked Bob.
incoming!!
that was a joke bob, welcome back (if you’re reading)
incoming!!
that was a joke bob, welcome back (if you’re reading)
Welcome, bob. I’ve pie filtered you, and I will be very cautious about peeking beneath, because you are not my friend.
Welcome, bob. I’ve pie filtered you, and I will be very cautious about peeking beneath, because you are not my friend.
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
If you failed, maybe it’s because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
Because I tried–and failed miserably–to make a point, i.e. no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
If you failed, maybe it’s because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
I was going to say: “Don’t bite hooks.”
Then then I read russell’s 5:15 and changed my mind.
Or: wrs.
I was going to say: “Don’t bite hooks.”
Then then I read russell’s 5:15 and changed my mind.
Or: wrs.
a topic perhaps relevant to this discussion is Popper’s paradox of tolerance.
can a tolerant society accept intolerance? can it inregrate the intolerant?
to what degree? at what point does making space for the intolerant undermine or even destroy the tolerant society itself?
in the high-falutin’ SJW circles that I travel in, this is actually a pretty common subject of discussion.
we live at a moment when questions like “should nazis be given a public platform for their views?” and “should support for white supremacy disqualify people from public office?” are not academic questions.
These are funny times. Not ha-ha funny. These questions are not academic.
If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.
a topic perhaps relevant to this discussion is Popper’s paradox of tolerance.
can a tolerant society accept intolerance? can it inregrate the intolerant?
to what degree? at what point does making space for the intolerant undermine or even destroy the tolerant society itself?
in the high-falutin’ SJW circles that I travel in, this is actually a pretty common subject of discussion.
we live at a moment when questions like “should nazis be given a public platform for their views?” and “should support for white supremacy disqualify people from public office?” are not academic questions.
These are funny times. Not ha-ha funny. These questions are not academic.
If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.
Yes, I second that: wrs @5.15
Yes, I second that: wrs @5.15
If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.
Thank you, russell. I will totally plagiarize that, or attribute it to you, whichever you prefer.
If you embrace bigotry and malice and/or support those who do, you cannot also assume that the traditions and institutions of a tolerant and open society will continue to be available to you.
Thank you, russell. I will totally plagiarize that, or attribute it to you, whichever you prefer.
please feel free to use it if it’s useful. attribution is not necessary, and will probably be counter-productive. 🙂
please feel free to use it if it’s useful. attribution is not necessary, and will probably be counter-productive. 🙂
Thanks. Going to go on a sign at the very least.
Thanks. Going to go on a sign at the very least.
Going to go on a sign at the very least.
In case that isn’t clear, I’m going to march with that theme.
Going to go on a sign at the very least.
In case that isn’t clear, I’m going to march with that theme.
“Well, maybe you don’t get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that.”
So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.
And that’s ok? And wrs? I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.
“Well, maybe you don’t get a beer. The wise person will take a lesson from that.”
So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.
And that’s ok? And wrs? I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.
I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.
This hasn’t come up much before now (except in the case of the baker who didn’t really want to deal with gay marriage people, and people working in clerks’ offices in courts, who didn’t want to do anything re: gay marriage).
I wonder why.
I will just say that since these are mostly the characteristics and tactics I despise in Trump and the far right, I despise them in the other side also.
This hasn’t come up much before now (except in the case of the baker who didn’t really want to deal with gay marriage people, and people working in clerks’ offices in courts, who didn’t want to do anything re: gay marriage).
I wonder why.
Stop mischaracterizing what this is.
This is not about having differing opinions about tax rates. It is not about having differing opinions about whether to build a particular highway overpass or not. It is not about having differing opinions about how to redesign our health care system. It is not even about having differing opinions about whether presidents should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices.
It is about celebrating putting people in cages. It’s about celebrating the agenda of an ignorant, lawless, vile, cruel, lying crook.
Did I mention lawless?
I’m still not sure I know where the line should be drawn, but let’s not pretend it’s being drawn in relation to any old simple disagreement about any old topic.
Stop mischaracterizing what this is.
This is not about having differing opinions about tax rates. It is not about having differing opinions about whether to build a particular highway overpass or not. It is not about having differing opinions about how to redesign our health care system. It is not even about having differing opinions about whether presidents should be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices.
It is about celebrating putting people in cages. It’s about celebrating the agenda of an ignorant, lawless, vile, cruel, lying crook.
Did I mention lawless?
I’m still not sure I know where the line should be drawn, but let’s not pretend it’s being drawn in relation to any old simple disagreement about any old topic.
I should have quoted Marty, to whom my “stop mischaracterizing what this is” was addressed.
Oh, the poor put-upon MAGA people.
“Fuck your feelings.”
I should have quoted Marty, to whom my “stop mischaracterizing what this is” was addressed.
Oh, the poor put-upon MAGA people.
“Fuck your feelings.”
wrs because he wasn’t saying what you thought he was saying (I think from your comment).
He was saying, if I understood him correctly, that so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response. Sometimes, vile opinions take a while to move into the “unacceptable” category (happened with overt racism way back when, before the recent upsurge), and realising that most people regard them as vile might influence the holders of those opinions to re-examine them.
That’s what I thought he was saying, or something along those lines, and that’s why I said wrs.
wrs because he wasn’t saying what you thought he was saying (I think from your comment).
He was saying, if I understood him correctly, that so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response. Sometimes, vile opinions take a while to move into the “unacceptable” category (happened with overt racism way back when, before the recent upsurge), and realising that most people regard them as vile might influence the holders of those opinions to re-examine them.
That’s what I thought he was saying, or something along those lines, and that’s why I said wrs.
Marty, keep fooling yourself that we’re talking about every run-of-the-mill “opinion” here.
Yes, what russell said. You want to defend the rights of assholes? Prepare to eat shit.
–TP
Marty, keep fooling yourself that we’re talking about every run-of-the-mill “opinion” here.
Yes, what russell said. You want to defend the rights of assholes? Prepare to eat shit.
–TP
But actually, wrs is usually an appropriate reaction. As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
But actually, wrs is usually an appropriate reaction. As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
About SHS getting kicked out of the restaurant, I haven’t clicked on the links, and I’m not sure if this is where I originally got it, but
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/23/why-a-small-town-restaurant-owner-asked-sarah-huckabee-sanders-to-leave-and-would-do-it-again/?utm_term=.dcc308b6c020
points out that the owner of the restaurant has a number of servers who are gay and when she asked them what she should do, they asked her not to serve them. Now McT might sniff and say ‘of course, waitstaff would be typical SJW, what do you expect?’, but if it were a choice of keeping my staff happy or serving SHS, I’d definitely go with the former. Of course, your staff are ideally a reflection of what you want the place to be so that wouldn’t be a big surprise, but it just shows how groups can magnify particular impulses.
And to succumb to the temptation of whataboutism, there’s this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44594652
US President Donald Trump has called for speedy deportations that bypass any judicial process in a tweet on Sunday.
The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…
About SHS getting kicked out of the restaurant, I haven’t clicked on the links, and I’m not sure if this is where I originally got it, but
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/06/23/why-a-small-town-restaurant-owner-asked-sarah-huckabee-sanders-to-leave-and-would-do-it-again/?utm_term=.dcc308b6c020
points out that the owner of the restaurant has a number of servers who are gay and when she asked them what she should do, they asked her not to serve them. Now McT might sniff and say ‘of course, waitstaff would be typical SJW, what do you expect?’, but if it were a choice of keeping my staff happy or serving SHS, I’d definitely go with the former. Of course, your staff are ideally a reflection of what you want the place to be so that wouldn’t be a big surprise, but it just shows how groups can magnify particular impulses.
And to succumb to the temptation of whataboutism, there’s this.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44594652
US President Donald Trump has called for speedy deportations that bypass any judicial process in a tweet on Sunday.
The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…
As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
Yes, because if he were ROTU, I’d be screaming in his direction (at him – maybe in disagreement), and he’d answer. That would be a lovely U.
As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
Yes, because if he were ROTU, I’d be screaming in his direction (at him – maybe in disagreement), and he’d answer. That would be a lovely U.
The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…
Important point.
I see that McKinney has his [not separated] grandchildren to behold, and is not here to argue.
The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…
Important point.
I see that McKinney has his [not separated] grandchildren to behold, and is not here to argue.
“The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…”
What the hell do you think catch and release is? He’s calling for nothing more than what was standard practice for every Mexican illegal family until three weeks ago, extended to Central Americans.
“The other side doesn’t call for legal protections to be ignored…”
What the hell do you think catch and release is? He’s calling for nothing more than what was standard practice for every Mexican illegal family until three weeks ago, extended to Central Americans.
So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.
you have a vivid imagination.
also, you appear to think this is about differences of opinion.
if only.
so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response
yes. although i doubt that will happen often, if at all.
As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
this is very flattering, and i appreciate it, but really, i would not recommend me to run a pop stand.
but, thank you.
So, on the internet, in restaurants, clubs, bars, wise people will not Express an opinion different than yours or they will be refused service, ostracized, bullied, refused employment, and otherwise threatened and harassed up to and including physically.
you have a vivid imagination.
also, you appear to think this is about differences of opinion.
if only.
so many people despise and detest Trump that Trump supporters meeting these reactions will perhaps start wondering quite why he generates this response
yes. although i doubt that will happen often, if at all.
As I have said before, he should be ROTU, it would be a better place.
this is very flattering, and i appreciate it, but really, i would not recommend me to run a pop stand.
but, thank you.
Marty, what are you smoking again? Share!
Marty, what are you smoking again? Share!
marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.
marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.
marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.
And it works. The people have ankle bracelets. It was all sort of fine (although even then kind of creepy). But for all y’all who just hate on the idea of people “infesting” the country, people were monitored.
marty, catch and release refers to the policy of releasing illegal entrants into the community while they wait for their hearing.
And it works. The people have ankle bracelets. It was all sort of fine (although even then kind of creepy). But for all y’all who just hate on the idea of people “infesting” the country, people were monitored.
No it doesn’t. It refers to series of policies including immediately returning Mexican families back into Mexico rather than prosecuting them, while releasing Central Amricans into the community.
No it doesn’t. It refers to series of policies including immediately returning Mexican families back into Mexico rather than prosecuting them, while releasing Central Amricans into the community.
Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm’s attempts, to help the asylum seekers.
My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.
I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the “good man” he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.
Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm’s attempts, to help the asylum seekers.
My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.
I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the “good man” he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.
So no one feels the need, the Mexican families do get trotted in front of a judge, a hundreds a day. Not really due process. Then deported. The problem with Central Americans is the transport back so they get a longer wait, so they can’t hold the kids more than twenty days so they get released also, but into the community.
So no one feels the need, the Mexican families do get trotted in front of a judge, a hundreds a day. Not really due process. Then deported. The problem with Central Americans is the transport back so they get a longer wait, so they can’t hold the kids more than twenty days so they get released also, but into the community.
Marty, read what you just wrote. Explain, or go to bed.
Marty, read what you just wrote. Explain, or go to bed.
What the hell do you think catch and release is?
What it mostly seems to be is an urban myth. In general use (as opposed to your, perhaps ideosyncratic, definition) it refers to release inside the US, pending a hearing. For which, contra the implication, appearance rates were upwards of 99.9%.
What the hell do you think catch and release is?
What it mostly seems to be is an urban myth. In general use (as opposed to your, perhaps ideosyncratic, definition) it refers to release inside the US, pending a hearing. For which, contra the implication, appearance rates were upwards of 99.9%.
Real catch and release is like being in heaven, not this.
Real catch and release is like being in heaven, not this.
. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband?
I put a swastika or a KKK sign in a separate class. When I was a kid, the ACLU went to bat for some Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie IL. Back then, liberals supported the ACLU. It’s speech and it’s protected. It was the right call then, it’s the right call today. Public accommodations were a thing back then for blacks, less so than in times past, but still a thing. So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.
Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm’s attempts, to help the asylum seekers.
My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.
I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the “good man” he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.
Whether I’m a good man or not is open to debate. I’m not in the trenches for asylum seekers, so if that’s what it takes to be among the elect, I’m doomed. I feel no need to strut my stuff and I have no issues facing myself in the mirror.
More generally, my long response to a number of you fell by the wayside when I hit the wrong buttons. Probably a good thing.
Trump is pretty bad, I’ll grant you. Shunning the half more or less of the country who are in his corner is beyond pointless, it is counterproductive. If you weaponize public accommodations based on hats or bumper stickers, you take an already divided body politic and make things expotentially worse.
As right-thinking as most of you here think you are, you are also terribly short-thinking. Intolerant too.
TP, it depends on the day and the subject. The day after DT met with Kim Il Fuckwit, it was the RWNJs. Today, it’s the SJWs.
Also, you never asked this question,
And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?
I’m generally not in favor of open borders–just like Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica (three countries that check my passport everytime I enter). I would turn back any but bona fide asylum seekers. I would not deport anyone who has been here five years or more. Those in the 3-5 year range would get a hearing. Less than three years, they’d go home. I would have a guest worker program, although I think that’s bad for American workers. So, I don’t know where that puts me.
If you failed, maybe it’s because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
Exactly my point. Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn’t going to change any minds. That’s my point. Get it? I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit. And you know what else? They push back. The next thing you know, every controversial viewpoint produces a battle in forums most people just want to relax and enjoy a meal.
What SLWs and RWNJs have in common? Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.
McKinney out.
. Do you think the same about someone wearing a swastika armband?
I put a swastika or a KKK sign in a separate class. When I was a kid, the ACLU went to bat for some Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie IL. Back then, liberals supported the ACLU. It’s speech and it’s protected. It was the right call then, it’s the right call today. Public accommodations were a thing back then for blacks, less so than in times past, but still a thing. So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.
Hope that McKinney returns to talk about his attempts, or his law firm’s attempts, to help the asylum seekers.
My guess is that the reason he did the drive-by is that he realizes the problem, but has to check on things in his firm. Or that he really is only about tax cuts, and when asked about compassionate legal representation, has nothing.
I hope he has something. My optimistic side says that McKinney is the “good man” he says he is. Now is the time to evaluate.
Whether I’m a good man or not is open to debate. I’m not in the trenches for asylum seekers, so if that’s what it takes to be among the elect, I’m doomed. I feel no need to strut my stuff and I have no issues facing myself in the mirror.
More generally, my long response to a number of you fell by the wayside when I hit the wrong buttons. Probably a good thing.
Trump is pretty bad, I’ll grant you. Shunning the half more or less of the country who are in his corner is beyond pointless, it is counterproductive. If you weaponize public accommodations based on hats or bumper stickers, you take an already divided body politic and make things expotentially worse.
As right-thinking as most of you here think you are, you are also terribly short-thinking. Intolerant too.
TP, it depends on the day and the subject. The day after DT met with Kim Il Fuckwit, it was the RWNJs. Today, it’s the SJWs.
Also, you never asked this question,
And I ask again: do you support, oppose, or not care about the Trump/Sessions/Nielsen/Sanders border policy?
I’m generally not in favor of open borders–just like Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica (three countries that check my passport everytime I enter). I would turn back any but bona fide asylum seekers. I would not deport anyone who has been here five years or more. Those in the 3-5 year range would get a hearing. Less than three years, they’d go home. I would have a guest worker program, although I think that’s bad for American workers. So, I don’t know where that puts me.
If you failed, maybe it’s because no one likes being lectured to by an asshole.
Exactly my point. Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn’t going to change any minds. That’s my point. Get it? I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit. And you know what else? They push back. The next thing you know, every controversial viewpoint produces a battle in forums most people just want to relax and enjoy a meal.
What SLWs and RWNJs have in common? Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.
McKinney out.
So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.
Hmm…that got me to thinking (no snide remarks, please, I have sensitive feelings). Wasn’t there a recent Supreme Court case on this subject? Just who started weaponizing what here?
Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.
Said the man who got blue in the face about transgenders and bathrooms. You are a funny guy, McKinney.
So, when people start talking about weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs, they have moved into the early stages of tyranny.
Hmm…that got me to thinking (no snide remarks, please, I have sensitive feelings). Wasn’t there a recent Supreme Court case on this subject? Just who started weaponizing what here?
Every fucking thing there is gets politicized. Every thing. It is exhausting.
Said the man who got blue in the face about transgenders and bathrooms. You are a funny guy, McKinney.
I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit.
“No one” includes us. So what do you think you’re going to accomplish?
weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs
A MAGA hat is not a private action. In the current climate, it comes close to being overtly hostile. Certainly a challenge. “I dare you.”
I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit.
“No one” includes us. So what do you think you’re going to accomplish?
weaponizing viewpoints to the point of denying/penalizing public access to public venues based on private actions and beliefs
A MAGA hat is not a private action. In the current climate, it comes close to being overtly hostile. Certainly a challenge. “I dare you.”
Me: “No one” includes us. So what do you think you’re going to accomplish?
Point being, when you shout in my face, I don’t hear you, I just decide you’re an asshole and stay away from you.
You can’t change people’s minds that way. Which is what I think you were trying to tell us in your superior sanctimonious way, imitating the very people you’re apoplectic about.
And anyhow, it’s not very relevant to the restaurant situation, because I suspect the restaurant owner didn’t giving a flying fuck whether he changed the MAGA hat wearer’s mind or not, s/he just didn’t want his restaurant to serve as a platform for the hat’s message.
Me: “No one” includes us. So what do you think you’re going to accomplish?
Point being, when you shout in my face, I don’t hear you, I just decide you’re an asshole and stay away from you.
You can’t change people’s minds that way. Which is what I think you were trying to tell us in your superior sanctimonious way, imitating the very people you’re apoplectic about.
And anyhow, it’s not very relevant to the restaurant situation, because I suspect the restaurant owner didn’t giving a flying fuck whether he changed the MAGA hat wearer’s mind or not, s/he just didn’t want his restaurant to serve as a platform for the hat’s message.
Sorry, not being careful enough with my pronouns.
I’m in big trouble now. 😉
Sorry, not being careful enough with my pronouns.
I’m in big trouble now. 😉
I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit.
No you are not, you drop in and when the going gets too tough, off you go to your busy busy life. I tend to take things as face value, but if you were so concerned about changing our minds, you’d actually take an interest in what we are saying and try to tease points out. But you don’t, you drop in, preferably after another dustup when feelings are running high and lob a few grenades in and trot away.
Which is fine, you can do that, though it is assholish behavior and if you act like an asshole, you’ll get treated as one. But where you always go to far is where you bring something in from the outside and then try to tar everyone else with it. Communism, Social Justice, intersectionality. It’s enough to look for some key words to pop up to know that you that you are going to be doing the McT thing.
If other commenters feel that you are the grain of sand that makes a pearl, so be it. I only make a note on your comments when it seems like the irony threatens to warp space-time, like saying you are being a smartass on purpose and then arguing that this is how assholes get treated. Thanks for the lesson, but you didn’t need to make in interactive…
I’m in your collective faces to make a point–no one likes that shit.
No you are not, you drop in and when the going gets too tough, off you go to your busy busy life. I tend to take things as face value, but if you were so concerned about changing our minds, you’d actually take an interest in what we are saying and try to tease points out. But you don’t, you drop in, preferably after another dustup when feelings are running high and lob a few grenades in and trot away.
Which is fine, you can do that, though it is assholish behavior and if you act like an asshole, you’ll get treated as one. But where you always go to far is where you bring something in from the outside and then try to tar everyone else with it. Communism, Social Justice, intersectionality. It’s enough to look for some key words to pop up to know that you that you are going to be doing the McT thing.
If other commenters feel that you are the grain of sand that makes a pearl, so be it. I only make a note on your comments when it seems like the irony threatens to warp space-time, like saying you are being a smartass on purpose and then arguing that this is how assholes get treated. Thanks for the lesson, but you didn’t need to make in interactive…
A MAGA hat is not just a private person walking into a public place and minding his own business. A MAGA hat is a political message, aggressive and potentially hostile and representing a viewpoint attached to a bunch of qualities I already listed somewhere above. (Cruelty, dishonesty……)
I doubt the restaurant owner is going to quiz people at the door about whether they’ve *ever* worn a MAGA hat. If the guy hadn’t had the hat on and had minded his own business and had his beer, none of this would have happened. In that sense, it isn’t even about banning someone because you disagree with them. It’s about insisting that certain messages are not going to be promulgated in your establishment.
A MAGA hat is not just a private person walking into a public place and minding his own business. A MAGA hat is a political message, aggressive and potentially hostile and representing a viewpoint attached to a bunch of qualities I already listed somewhere above. (Cruelty, dishonesty……)
I doubt the restaurant owner is going to quiz people at the door about whether they’ve *ever* worn a MAGA hat. If the guy hadn’t had the hat on and had minded his own business and had his beer, none of this would have happened. In that sense, it isn’t even about banning someone because you disagree with them. It’s about insisting that certain messages are not going to be promulgated in your establishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
Rolling coal: I saw an asshole do this not long ago as he passed a couple of twelve-year-olds on bicycles. Fuckwad.
Rolling coal: I saw an asshole do this not long ago as he passed a couple of twelve-year-olds on bicycles. Fuckwad.
I play competitve sports. My teammates over the years have been relative gentleman.
We play to win and we keep it to ourselves.
Never do we gloat over the losers, nor do we tell them to go fuck their feelings.
Unless the other team wants to be assholes.
We can sink to that occasion. You wanna see assholishness?
We’re better at that too..
We never denied a hearing to a Supreme Court Justice nominee on the field of play.
You wanna play that game? Expect high spikes at second and third aimed at your faces.
You like trash talk?
It’s my hobby.
By the way, what kind of a lout wears a hat at the dinner table?
Stephen Miller walks into my watering hole. He spouts off about Mexicans, gays, blacks, and liberals. I, the straight white guy among the Mexicans, gays, and blacks and the bipartisan crowd, cold cocks him. The Russian immigrant regular at the nearby table gives him a swift one to the short ribs while he’s down.
The owner, originally a Mexican immigrant and the most decent human being among the species, drags him out to the sidewalk, brings him to, stands him up, and bans him permanently from the premises. No cops.
The owner comes over to me and says take the night off, Johnny.
See ya tomorrow.
mp republicans are being schooled on how to behave in public.
Unlike their supporters who have been waving around military weaponry in people’s faces for the past twenty years and getting away with it.
No more. Shut your mouths and behave. Leave people alone.
I play competitve sports. My teammates over the years have been relative gentleman.
We play to win and we keep it to ourselves.
Never do we gloat over the losers, nor do we tell them to go fuck their feelings.
Unless the other team wants to be assholes.
We can sink to that occasion. You wanna see assholishness?
We’re better at that too..
We never denied a hearing to a Supreme Court Justice nominee on the field of play.
You wanna play that game? Expect high spikes at second and third aimed at your faces.
You like trash talk?
It’s my hobby.
By the way, what kind of a lout wears a hat at the dinner table?
Stephen Miller walks into my watering hole. He spouts off about Mexicans, gays, blacks, and liberals. I, the straight white guy among the Mexicans, gays, and blacks and the bipartisan crowd, cold cocks him. The Russian immigrant regular at the nearby table gives him a swift one to the short ribs while he’s down.
The owner, originally a Mexican immigrant and the most decent human being among the species, drags him out to the sidewalk, brings him to, stands him up, and bans him permanently from the premises. No cops.
The owner comes over to me and says take the night off, Johnny.
See ya tomorrow.
mp republicans are being schooled on how to behave in public.
Unlike their supporters who have been waving around military weaponry in people’s faces for the past twenty years and getting away with it.
No more. Shut your mouths and behave. Leave people alone.
The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.
Once again, wearing a MAGA hat in public is not a “private” act.
A lot of what McKinney accused other people of in this thread, he was doing. He couldn’t have constructed a more perfect example of what he was decrying if he had been doing it intentionally.
Is wearing a MAGA hat in public any more a “private” act than posting comments on a blog? I don’t think so.
And now I’m done with McKinney.
The mantle of victimhood does not sit well on anyone here claiming the moral right to accost others as they go about their PRIVATE lives.
Once again, wearing a MAGA hat in public is not a “private” act.
A lot of what McKinney accused other people of in this thread, he was doing. He couldn’t have constructed a more perfect example of what he was decrying if he had been doing it intentionally.
Is wearing a MAGA hat in public any more a “private” act than posting comments on a blog? I don’t think so.
And now I’m done with McKinney.
And you know what else? They push back.
i’m not sure exactly how to reply to this.
yes, precisely, if you get in people’s faces, act like a dick, and give them shit, they will push back. we already understand that,you’re not bringing anything to the table there.
what we’re discussing *is the pushback*.
i don’t think you guys have any idea whatsoever how the trump regime is being received by people who (a) give a shit, and (b) aren’t all in on (R) policies.
not just flaming SJW’s like me and my fellow Unitarian jihadis.
other people.
this shit is going to come down on people’s heads. and they’re going to deserve it. because they wanted it, demanded it, embrced it, voted for it.
i’m not talking about not getting a beer, and i’m not talking about anybody like me doing one damned thing to anybody. certainly not over a stupid hat. i’m talking about our public institutions, and basic social fabric, and standing in the world, and ability to function effectively as a nation.
folks who are all in for trump better wake the fuck up, because he is toxic. everything and everyone he touches is worse for it.
folks who are on the fence, enjoy it while ypu got it, because it probably isn’t gonna last.
Trump *is a point of division*. there isn’t common ground available. not because anybody like me is being a dick, but because *he rules it out*.
he’s not an acceptable person to hold the office. he does damage every day he is there. he sows division and enmity like pollen, because he thrives on it. because he’s a damaged and dangerous human being.
you better believe there will be push back. a lot of it, by far most of it, will be reasonable. some probably won’t be.
it’s not a reasonable time.
if that doesn’t suit you, find a place to hide for a few years. because it’s on.
people like me didn’t choose it, didn’t ask for it, didn’t want it don’t want it.
it’s been thrust upon us, we’re just trying to figure out how to deal.
if you’re getting worked up about a guy who didn’t get a beer, you have more than lost the plot. two hands and a flashlight won’t help you.
i’m not sure you understand wtf is going on here.
enjoy your tax cut.
And you know what else? They push back.
i’m not sure exactly how to reply to this.
yes, precisely, if you get in people’s faces, act like a dick, and give them shit, they will push back. we already understand that,you’re not bringing anything to the table there.
what we’re discussing *is the pushback*.
i don’t think you guys have any idea whatsoever how the trump regime is being received by people who (a) give a shit, and (b) aren’t all in on (R) policies.
not just flaming SJW’s like me and my fellow Unitarian jihadis.
other people.
this shit is going to come down on people’s heads. and they’re going to deserve it. because they wanted it, demanded it, embrced it, voted for it.
i’m not talking about not getting a beer, and i’m not talking about anybody like me doing one damned thing to anybody. certainly not over a stupid hat. i’m talking about our public institutions, and basic social fabric, and standing in the world, and ability to function effectively as a nation.
folks who are all in for trump better wake the fuck up, because he is toxic. everything and everyone he touches is worse for it.
folks who are on the fence, enjoy it while ypu got it, because it probably isn’t gonna last.
Trump *is a point of division*. there isn’t common ground available. not because anybody like me is being a dick, but because *he rules it out*.
he’s not an acceptable person to hold the office. he does damage every day he is there. he sows division and enmity like pollen, because he thrives on it. because he’s a damaged and dangerous human being.
you better believe there will be push back. a lot of it, by far most of it, will be reasonable. some probably won’t be.
it’s not a reasonable time.
if that doesn’t suit you, find a place to hide for a few years. because it’s on.
people like me didn’t choose it, didn’t ask for it, didn’t want it don’t want it.
it’s been thrust upon us, we’re just trying to figure out how to deal.
if you’re getting worked up about a guy who didn’t get a beer, you have more than lost the plot. two hands and a flashlight won’t help you.
i’m not sure you understand wtf is going on here.
enjoy your tax cut.
GftNC: McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.
IIRC, McKinney recently confessed that in 2016 he voted a straight Republican ticket except for president. That’s Republican enough for me.
As for “conservative”. well: the “conservative” party line appears to be that an all-GOP government can violate all sorts of norms, traditions, and decencies of governance — but its opponents must stick to such norms, traditions, and decencies of “civil” discourse as Emily Post would be comfortable with.
McKinney is more Republican than wj, AFAICT, and to label them both “conservative” might be offensive to at least one of them. It’s hard, isn’t it, to discuss anything beyond the fine weather we’re having without offending somebody.
I’m not criticizing you, GftNC. The world would be a better place if everybody were as determined to be kind as you are.
–TP
GftNC: McKinney has said before, and again recently, that he is not a Republican but that he is a conservative.
IIRC, McKinney recently confessed that in 2016 he voted a straight Republican ticket except for president. That’s Republican enough for me.
As for “conservative”. well: the “conservative” party line appears to be that an all-GOP government can violate all sorts of norms, traditions, and decencies of governance — but its opponents must stick to such norms, traditions, and decencies of “civil” discourse as Emily Post would be comfortable with.
McKinney is more Republican than wj, AFAICT, and to label them both “conservative” might be offensive to at least one of them. It’s hard, isn’t it, to discuss anything beyond the fine weather we’re having without offending somebody.
I’m not criticizing you, GftNC. The world would be a better place if everybody were as determined to be kind as you are.
–TP
A message from the Unitarian Jihad
A message from the Unitarian Jihad
Per the Unitarian Jihad, I would dearly love to see Sarah Huckabee-Sanders appear in public dressed as a trout.
That is all.
Per the Unitarian Jihad, I would dearly love to see Sarah Huckabee-Sanders appear in public dressed as a trout.
That is all.
Rolling coal…. something I’d not even heard of.
Wikipedia:
“The practice of rolling coal has not spread enough to justify legislation outside of the United States….”
Synecdoche, the party of Trump.
Rolling coal…. something I’d not even heard of.
Wikipedia:
“The practice of rolling coal has not spread enough to justify legislation outside of the United States….”
Synecdoche, the party of Trump.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
I’m fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
I’m also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. That means that when and if sanity is restored, Trumpers can tell people working for the new president, who isn’t a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, how much they disapprove of her. If they can manage to do it politely.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
I’m fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
I’m also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. That means that when and if sanity is restored, Trumpers can tell people working for the new president, who isn’t a crook, a blowhard, a misogynist, a racist, and an ass in every personal attribute, how much they disapprove of her. If they can manage to do it politely.
McKT has got a point
your take-away from mck’s comments was not the same as mine.
a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
might?
if you’re asking what the rest of us would think of that, i’d say that a BLM t shirt is, and intends to be, a public statement of support for a point of view that is a point of division. negative responses come with the territory.
in other news, trump and his crew are losing Godwin . if that doesn’t give you pause, I don’t know what will.
McKT has got a point
your take-away from mck’s comments was not the same as mine.
a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
might?
if you’re asking what the rest of us would think of that, i’d say that a BLM t shirt is, and intends to be, a public statement of support for a point of view that is a point of division. negative responses come with the territory.
in other news, trump and his crew are losing Godwin . if that doesn’t give you pause, I don’t know what will.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
except when “religious convictions” are involved, of course. then, it’s totally different.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
except when “religious convictions” are involved, of course. then, it’s totally different.
“It is exhausting”
THIS I agree with.
“It is exhausting”
THIS I agree with.
Tony P, for me, it’s not really about being kind, it’s about being accurate and showing respect. Although, kindess is certainly a decent aspiration, and it is one of my concerns, albeit a somewhat secondary one.
The question of Skokie and the Nazi march is one that was very much on my mind, all through our discussion yesterday. I have always greatly admired the actions of the ACLU on that occasion, and thought it was a principle worth fighting for.
So, McKinney might rightly ask, what is different now? Well, as I understand it, the principle espoused by the ACLU in the case of the Skokie march was in the context of a political situation where the Nazis were a tiny minority, generally despised and looked down upon and seen if anything as a cautionary tale from history.
So you might say, what is a principle if it changes with the political situation? And I would say to that, defending Nazis’ right to march would not, as an example, apply in a context where Nazis are the majority – they would clearly have that right. Now, I have notably fought with sapient and others when they have called the current Republicans Nazis en masse, and I still (more reluctantly) do so. But, we are now in a situation where the openly racist Trump regime (which enjoys a 90% approval rating among Republicans) has set up concentration camps for children who have been removed from their parents explicitly as a policy to deter those parents from trying to enter the country. The context has changed utterly.
So perhaps the principle was that minorities should not have their right to free speech abridged? Since my early admiration for the ACLU in the Skokie case we have had hate speech legislation introduced in the UK, and I am still trying to work out to what extent I agree or disagree with it. This is a work in progress, I don’t pretend to have a perfect philosophy suitable for all occasions – I’m still working it out.
But one thing I’m absolutely sure of: if people work for liars, racists, thugs and crooks and stand up telling lies to the public on their behalf, and self-righteously justifying cruelty by quoting so-called biblical authority to respect laws (which their regime selectively ignores), then people telling them what they think of them in public (or private) is fine with me. Sticks and stones might break their bones, so I reject their use under the circumstances, but words are all most people have to fling at them.
Tony P, for me, it’s not really about being kind, it’s about being accurate and showing respect. Although, kindess is certainly a decent aspiration, and it is one of my concerns, albeit a somewhat secondary one.
The question of Skokie and the Nazi march is one that was very much on my mind, all through our discussion yesterday. I have always greatly admired the actions of the ACLU on that occasion, and thought it was a principle worth fighting for.
So, McKinney might rightly ask, what is different now? Well, as I understand it, the principle espoused by the ACLU in the case of the Skokie march was in the context of a political situation where the Nazis were a tiny minority, generally despised and looked down upon and seen if anything as a cautionary tale from history.
So you might say, what is a principle if it changes with the political situation? And I would say to that, defending Nazis’ right to march would not, as an example, apply in a context where Nazis are the majority – they would clearly have that right. Now, I have notably fought with sapient and others when they have called the current Republicans Nazis en masse, and I still (more reluctantly) do so. But, we are now in a situation where the openly racist Trump regime (which enjoys a 90% approval rating among Republicans) has set up concentration camps for children who have been removed from their parents explicitly as a policy to deter those parents from trying to enter the country. The context has changed utterly.
So perhaps the principle was that minorities should not have their right to free speech abridged? Since my early admiration for the ACLU in the Skokie case we have had hate speech legislation introduced in the UK, and I am still trying to work out to what extent I agree or disagree with it. This is a work in progress, I don’t pretend to have a perfect philosophy suitable for all occasions – I’m still working it out.
But one thing I’m absolutely sure of: if people work for liars, racists, thugs and crooks and stand up telling lies to the public on their behalf, and self-righteously justifying cruelty by quoting so-called biblical authority to respect laws (which their regime selectively ignores), then people telling them what they think of them in public (or private) is fine with me. Sticks and stones might break their bones, so I reject their use under the circumstances, but words are all most people have to fling at them.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
Maybe I’ve been in far too many bars in my life, but almost every one I’ve been in has rules, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, about who they want to be there and who they don’t. If you don’t realize that, maybe you need to get out a bit more.
Now, maybe if it is pharmacies, we can talk
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
Maybe I’ve been in far too many bars in my life, but almost every one I’ve been in has rules, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, about who they want to be there and who they don’t. If you don’t realize that, maybe you need to get out a bit more.
Now, maybe if it is pharmacies, we can talk
BLM T-shirts
Here’s a BLM story. Apologies if I’ve told this already, I’ve been saying the same stuff here for 15 years now, I’m bound to repeat myself.
A friend of mine opened a cafe, two towns over from me. It’s a typical past-its-prime New England mill town. Immigrants, blacks, blue-collar white people who are generally pissed off about the immigrants and blacks. Not a lot of money, lots of typical hollowed out former manufacturing city problems. The place is kind of bumping along, trying to get its groove back.
They’re trying to get a good downtown vibe going. That’s worked for other places in the region. My friend’s place was kind of part of that. Good food, a really interesting music and art program. Vinyl Tuesdays, where you could bring your records and play them. Bluegrass and traditional music sessions. Some good write-ups in the local press.
Basically, a good local hang. Hipsters, but also old-timer locals. Artists and musicians, but also people getting coffee and a bagel on their way to the commuter rail. A place that attracts regulars, and a place that will draw folks from out of town in for a meal or a drink and some entertainment that isn’t what you’re going to see in every other joint.
If you’re trying to build a viable downtown, places like this are freaking gold.
My friend’s daughter worked for her. My friend’s daughter had strong views about the relationship between cops and black people, and expressed those views on social media, under her own name, unrelated in any way to the cafe business.
Some folks put two and two together, figured out that my friend’s daughter worked at the cafe, and fucking hammered the place into the ground on social media.
My friend did her best to recover lost ground. Fired her daughter, made apologies on social media and elsewhere, expressed her support for the local cops.
No dice.
My friend lost her business, lost all the money she had put into it, which was basically her life savings. Lost her condo. She’s kind of all right, she has a really good network of people who love and support her personally.
But at the age of 50-ish, she’s back to square one. She Ubers and does some other stuff to pay the bills.
Hounded out, by the anti-BLM flying monkeys.
McK will say, well that sucks, too. And it surely does.
So hell yeah, a BLM t shirt might deprive you of a beer. Being related to, or employing, a vocal BLM supporter might lose you your livelihood, your business, and your home. It cost my friend hers.
That’s the environment we’re in.
So I’m just not that upset if a guy doesn’t get a beer, or if Sanders was politely asked to leave a restaurant. It’s a shame that it’s come to that, but it by god has come to that.
Trump is a toxic, malevolent presence. People are going to resist that, because they aren’t freaking insane, and they want to preserve a way of life that isn’t based on toxic resentment and malice.
If that is going to rock your boat, go find a place to hide for a while.
Enjoy your tax cut.
BLM T-shirts
Here’s a BLM story. Apologies if I’ve told this already, I’ve been saying the same stuff here for 15 years now, I’m bound to repeat myself.
A friend of mine opened a cafe, two towns over from me. It’s a typical past-its-prime New England mill town. Immigrants, blacks, blue-collar white people who are generally pissed off about the immigrants and blacks. Not a lot of money, lots of typical hollowed out former manufacturing city problems. The place is kind of bumping along, trying to get its groove back.
They’re trying to get a good downtown vibe going. That’s worked for other places in the region. My friend’s place was kind of part of that. Good food, a really interesting music and art program. Vinyl Tuesdays, where you could bring your records and play them. Bluegrass and traditional music sessions. Some good write-ups in the local press.
Basically, a good local hang. Hipsters, but also old-timer locals. Artists and musicians, but also people getting coffee and a bagel on their way to the commuter rail. A place that attracts regulars, and a place that will draw folks from out of town in for a meal or a drink and some entertainment that isn’t what you’re going to see in every other joint.
If you’re trying to build a viable downtown, places like this are freaking gold.
My friend’s daughter worked for her. My friend’s daughter had strong views about the relationship between cops and black people, and expressed those views on social media, under her own name, unrelated in any way to the cafe business.
Some folks put two and two together, figured out that my friend’s daughter worked at the cafe, and fucking hammered the place into the ground on social media.
My friend did her best to recover lost ground. Fired her daughter, made apologies on social media and elsewhere, expressed her support for the local cops.
No dice.
My friend lost her business, lost all the money she had put into it, which was basically her life savings. Lost her condo. She’s kind of all right, she has a really good network of people who love and support her personally.
But at the age of 50-ish, she’s back to square one. She Ubers and does some other stuff to pay the bills.
Hounded out, by the anti-BLM flying monkeys.
McK will say, well that sucks, too. And it surely does.
So hell yeah, a BLM t shirt might deprive you of a beer. Being related to, or employing, a vocal BLM supporter might lose you your livelihood, your business, and your home. It cost my friend hers.
That’s the environment we’re in.
So I’m just not that upset if a guy doesn’t get a beer, or if Sanders was politely asked to leave a restaurant. It’s a shame that it’s come to that, but it by god has come to that.
Trump is a toxic, malevolent presence. People are going to resist that, because they aren’t freaking insane, and they want to preserve a way of life that isn’t based on toxic resentment and malice.
If that is going to rock your boat, go find a place to hide for a while.
Enjoy your tax cut.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
I’m fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
I’m also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. …
I’m more or less in agreement with that, too.
If you can be barred from various establishments for (e.g.) not wearing a tie, or wearing jeans, it would be very strange if the silly/offensive hat couldn’t also be a reason.
The dining thing is a different case, excluding someone for who she is rather than how she behaved at the time – and Pro Bono’s suggestion that rather than 86ing Sanders, telling her how she makes you and your staff feel is arguably the better, and non-litigable alternative.
But again, this comes down to power imbalances, which McKinney’s counterexamples ignore… and Sanders had no compunction about using her official position to whinge about her treatment.
I’m not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s, so Trump is by far and away the most divisive President I can remember. That the woman the White House employs to lie on his behalf should catch some flack is not exactly a surprise.
McKT has got a point – rules on what you can and can’t do have to be independent of outlook.
I’m fine with banning MAGA hats from a bar. But it means that a different bar might choose to ban BLM T-shirts.
I’m also fine with with politely telling Sanders what you think of her support for her vile master. …
I’m more or less in agreement with that, too.
If you can be barred from various establishments for (e.g.) not wearing a tie, or wearing jeans, it would be very strange if the silly/offensive hat couldn’t also be a reason.
The dining thing is a different case, excluding someone for who she is rather than how she behaved at the time – and Pro Bono’s suggestion that rather than 86ing Sanders, telling her how she makes you and your staff feel is arguably the better, and non-litigable alternative.
But again, this comes down to power imbalances, which McKinney’s counterexamples ignore… and Sanders had no compunction about using her official position to whinge about her treatment.
I’m not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s, so Trump is by far and away the most divisive President I can remember. That the woman the White House employs to lie on his behalf should catch some flack is not exactly a surprise.
Something about what Russell said reminded me of Grahme Frost
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html
That was during the Bush presidency. Funny how we forget.
Something about what Russell said reminded me of Grahme Frost
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html
That was during the Bush presidency. Funny how we forget.
i’ll say it again: what happened to Sanders is “conservatives” getting a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.
it’s bitter?
yeah, no shit. now learn the lesson, stupids.
i’ll say it again: what happened to Sanders is “conservatives” getting a taste of their own discriminatory medicine.
it’s bitter?
yeah, no shit. now learn the lesson, stupids.
I’m not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s
I was.
The divisions were not necessarily determined by party affiliation, and there were more options, for example, on Vietnam
1) Bomb them to stone age
2) Rep Peace with honor
3) Dem Peace with honor
4) Surrender to Ho with Jane (my choice)
There were more, but issues were actually discussed, within and between groups, rather than being only converted into affiliations and identity markers. Another example, it wasn’t only MLK vs Malcolm, there were many other places to be. And of course internationally there were a larger number of national positions available, like Pan-Arabism and Bandung
I am not sure if the megaphones were fewer and quieter, but there was obviously more energetic street activity, so to speak, leading to the adventurism and quixotic failures of the Red Brigades etc in the 70s.
Violence and its threat were globally ubiquitous.
My first political memory:probably the daisy ad. I was 13, and I knew who Goldwater was, that he was a dangerous hawk, and at the least an apologist for segregation. I hated him, in an extended family that was Republican and racist. I cannot understand any 17 year old not knowing, and condoning, although some I suppose make more concessions to sociality than I.
I’m not quite old enough to remember the politics of the late 60s
I was.
The divisions were not necessarily determined by party affiliation, and there were more options, for example, on Vietnam
1) Bomb them to stone age
2) Rep Peace with honor
3) Dem Peace with honor
4) Surrender to Ho with Jane (my choice)
There were more, but issues were actually discussed, within and between groups, rather than being only converted into affiliations and identity markers. Another example, it wasn’t only MLK vs Malcolm, there were many other places to be. And of course internationally there were a larger number of national positions available, like Pan-Arabism and Bandung
I am not sure if the megaphones were fewer and quieter, but there was obviously more energetic street activity, so to speak, leading to the adventurism and quixotic failures of the Red Brigades etc in the 70s.
Violence and its threat were globally ubiquitous.
My first political memory:probably the daisy ad. I was 13, and I knew who Goldwater was, that he was a dangerous hawk, and at the least an apologist for segregation. I hated him, in an extended family that was Republican and racist. I cannot understand any 17 year old not knowing, and condoning, although some I suppose make more concessions to sociality than I.
I thought Bush II set a level of incompetence and evil in the POTUS which would not be repeated in my lifetime. But Trump is plainly worse, albeit luckier. Who knows what the Republicans will manage to get elected next.
Wherever they go, I want our side not to follow them.
I thought Bush II set a level of incompetence and evil in the POTUS which would not be repeated in my lifetime. But Trump is plainly worse, albeit luckier. Who knows what the Republicans will manage to get elected next.
Wherever they go, I want our side not to follow them.
Wearing a MAGA hat is a choice.
Being the press secretary to a POS is a choice.
Having brown skin is not a choice.
Holding unpopular views and assembling to express them is protected by the Constitution.
Conservatives in this country have gotten on board with the idea that you can discriminate against people who have attributes they did not choose to have based on their “deeply held moral convictions.”
They have opened the doors to the gates of Hell.
Wearing a MAGA hat is a choice.
Being the press secretary to a POS is a choice.
Having brown skin is not a choice.
Holding unpopular views and assembling to express them is protected by the Constitution.
Conservatives in this country have gotten on board with the idea that you can discriminate against people who have attributes they did not choose to have based on their “deeply held moral convictions.”
They have opened the doors to the gates of Hell.
I imagine many readers here have seen this.
I imagine many readers here have seen this.
Have indeed, bobby.
While there’s merit in this:
The Very Serious People who serve as tone police in DC need to decide what they value more: democracy or civility. Because we’re just sliding, sliding, sliding down this slope, pretending all the while that things are still Normal. To get off the slide …
The issue to me is not whether these folks deserve to be treated with civility, but what will win in November, and the one a couple of years after that.
The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls. Fail at that and things will get truly ugly.
Have indeed, bobby.
While there’s merit in this:
The Very Serious People who serve as tone police in DC need to decide what they value more: democracy or civility. Because we’re just sliding, sliding, sliding down this slope, pretending all the while that things are still Normal. To get off the slide …
The issue to me is not whether these folks deserve to be treated with civility, but what will win in November, and the one a couple of years after that.
The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls. Fail at that and things will get truly ugly.
The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls.
As a child of the sixties, I disagree.
1) Is it about Trump, or about the policies, some of which are partially shared by Democratic leadership. The policies can be resisted in many ways independently of the Party.
2) Making it about Trump only, and electoral politics only, makes one dependent on and complicit with the Party
3) And what if we lose? As “we” lost in 1968 and 1972.
Only One Clear Way to Get Rid of Trump Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson,
whiteman“It should now be obvious, almost beyond dispute, that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders in 2016. During the primary, he polled better in match-ups against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton did. The argument made by Clinton supporters was that this was only because America did not yet fully know Bernie Sanders. This argument turned out to be false. The more America gets to know Bernie Sanders, the more it likes him: Since Trump’s election, Sanders has been the most popular politician in the country, and a poll from last year showed he “would defeat Trump by 13 percentage points if a general presidential election was held at that time.” Suggestions that only white people like Bernie Sanders are also false: In fact, his favorability rating is far higher among people of color than white people and “is highest among hispanics (66 percent) and African-Americans (77 percent).” The phrase “Bernie Would Have Won” can be a bit of a nasty, unhelpful taunt, but it seems to be the case. That’s especially true considering how important turnout was in deciding the 2016 outcome. If Democrats are to win in 2020, they don’t just need someone with high favorability ratings, they need someone people will show up for”
As much as would enjoy the establishment watching Sanders giving the Inaugural address in 2020, showing what could have been, what should have been, what might have been avoided…
…they will never let it happen. They’d rather lose.
The only solution to Trump is to defeat him at the polls.
As a child of the sixties, I disagree.
1) Is it about Trump, or about the policies, some of which are partially shared by Democratic leadership. The policies can be resisted in many ways independently of the Party.
2) Making it about Trump only, and electoral politics only, makes one dependent on and complicit with the Party
3) And what if we lose? As “we” lost in 1968 and 1972.
Only One Clear Way to Get Rid of Trump Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson,
whiteman“It should now be obvious, almost beyond dispute, that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders in 2016. During the primary, he polled better in match-ups against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton did. The argument made by Clinton supporters was that this was only because America did not yet fully know Bernie Sanders. This argument turned out to be false. The more America gets to know Bernie Sanders, the more it likes him: Since Trump’s election, Sanders has been the most popular politician in the country, and a poll from last year showed he “would defeat Trump by 13 percentage points if a general presidential election was held at that time.” Suggestions that only white people like Bernie Sanders are also false: In fact, his favorability rating is far higher among people of color than white people and “is highest among hispanics (66 percent) and African-Americans (77 percent).” The phrase “Bernie Would Have Won” can be a bit of a nasty, unhelpful taunt, but it seems to be the case. That’s especially true considering how important turnout was in deciding the 2016 outcome. If Democrats are to win in 2020, they don’t just need someone with high favorability ratings, they need someone people will show up for”
As much as would enjoy the establishment watching Sanders giving the Inaugural address in 2020, showing what could have been, what should have been, what might have been avoided…
…they will never let it happen. They’d rather lose.
Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn’t going to change any minds.
Ah. A point made by more than one of the lefty assholes on this blog. Then again, as JanieM mentioned, maybe the bar-owner just wanted the guy out and couldn’t have given a rat’s ass about changing his mind.
But let’s not blur the lines any more than they necessarily already are between practical political considerations, social norms, and what should or should not be legal. (Unless doing so is just a rhetorical device for keeping your opponents off balance.)
Lefty assholes self-righteously lecturing MAGA hat wearers isn’t going to change any minds.
Ah. A point made by more than one of the lefty assholes on this blog. Then again, as JanieM mentioned, maybe the bar-owner just wanted the guy out and couldn’t have given a rat’s ass about changing his mind.
But let’s not blur the lines any more than they necessarily already are between practical political considerations, social norms, and what should or should not be legal. (Unless doing so is just a rhetorical device for keeping your opponents off balance.)
https://www.ft.com/content/75319cee-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f?segmentId=ea1dd4c0-c7c8-c198-8a10-2ba258aa73e0
So many restaurants in the world, and so many fascists dining in them.
So little time to kick their asses to the curb.
https://www.ft.com/content/75319cee-761d-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f?segmentId=ea1dd4c0-c7c8-c198-8a10-2ba258aa73e0
So many restaurants in the world, and so many fascists dining in them.
So little time to kick their asses to the curb.
You can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders because he would (supposedly) have won.
On the same type of alternate history, you can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Hilary Clinton in 2008 instead of Barack Obama. She would also have won, but wouldn’t have polarized the country over the race of the President.
The trouble with this kind of alternate history is that it’s really hard to make a convincing case that the alternative would actually have worked out as you believe.
You can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Bernie Sanders because he would (supposedly) have won.
On the same type of alternate history, you can argue that the Democrats should have nominated Hilary Clinton in 2008 instead of Barack Obama. She would also have won, but wouldn’t have polarized the country over the race of the President.
The trouble with this kind of alternate history is that it’s really hard to make a convincing case that the alternative would actually have worked out as you believe.
In my copious spare time, I’m participating remotely in the ICANN meetings. (Didn’t want to brave Panama City this week.)
A speaker just ran a little experiment, supposedly to show how much we trust technology.
“Who do you trust, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, or Sophie (an AI)?”
1 person for Zuckerberg, nobody for Trump (hey, it’s an international gathering and pretty much everybody has a college education). And a fair number for Sophie.
Which just goes to show how much support you can claim if you carefully pick the alternatives you are polling about.
In my copious spare time, I’m participating remotely in the ICANN meetings. (Didn’t want to brave Panama City this week.)
A speaker just ran a little experiment, supposedly to show how much we trust technology.
“Who do you trust, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, or Sophie (an AI)?”
1 person for Zuckerberg, nobody for Trump (hey, it’s an international gathering and pretty much everybody has a college education). And a fair number for Sophie.
Which just goes to show how much support you can claim if you carefully pick the alternatives you are polling about.
Your mind boggle for today:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/25/the-eye-popping-definition-of-what-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-increases-again/
“Low income,” per HUD (thank you Dr Carson!), is now $117k for 3 counties in my local area. My mind boggles.
Your mind boggle for today:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/25/the-eye-popping-definition-of-what-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-increases-again/
“Low income,” per HUD (thank you Dr Carson!), is now $117k for 3 counties in my local area. My mind boggles.
So much for politely addressing someone:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/maxine-waters-political-violence/
So much for politely addressing someone:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/maxine-waters-political-violence/
A fairly informative discussion of the Sanders thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/06/25/was-sarah-huckabee-sanders-denied-public-accommodation-when-a-restaurant-kicked-her-out/
“Restaurants and stores turning away queer and trans people is part of the systemic discrimination that these customers face in all facets of their life,” Brodsky said. “Sarah Sanders is one of the most powerful people in the country right now, and the ideology she espouses and for which she was asked to leave is the reason we have public accommodations laws for other people.”
Those laws often differ on a state-to-state basis, though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes race, religion, national origin and color as factors that make discrimination illegal everywhere, according to Washington University law professor Elizabeth Sepper. While political affiliation is a protected trait in the District, the same cannot be said for Lexington, Va., where Sanders visited the Red Hen. According to the ACLU, only the District, Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology…
A fairly informative discussion of the Sanders thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2018/06/25/was-sarah-huckabee-sanders-denied-public-accommodation-when-a-restaurant-kicked-her-out/
“Restaurants and stores turning away queer and trans people is part of the systemic discrimination that these customers face in all facets of their life,” Brodsky said. “Sarah Sanders is one of the most powerful people in the country right now, and the ideology she espouses and for which she was asked to leave is the reason we have public accommodations laws for other people.”
Those laws often differ on a state-to-state basis, though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes race, religion, national origin and color as factors that make discrimination illegal everywhere, according to Washington University law professor Elizabeth Sepper. While political affiliation is a protected trait in the District, the same cannot be said for Lexington, Va., where Sanders visited the Red Hen. According to the ACLU, only the District, Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology…
And from the Left:
https://www.salon.com/2018/06/25/nancy-pelosi-turns-on-maxine-waters-criticizes-her-unacceptable-anti-trump-rhetoric/
My favorite (the comments are great!):
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/1011282252087611393
And from the Left:
https://www.salon.com/2018/06/25/nancy-pelosi-turns-on-maxine-waters-criticizes-her-unacceptable-anti-trump-rhetoric/
My favorite (the comments are great!):
https://twitter.com/mitchellreports/status/1011282252087611393
Well, after all, the point everyone has been trying to make is that Maxine Waters is incapable of saying anything stupid ever.
Well, after all, the point everyone has been trying to make is that Maxine Waters is incapable of saying anything stupid ever.
So much for politely addressing someone
Is Maxine Waters commenting here?
For that matter, did Maxine Waters actually call for political violence, as the author claims, or is the author full of crap?
When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15’s to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for “2nd amendment remedies” from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent, I’ll take your concern for national civility more seriously.
You cannot simultaneously crap all over social and political norms of tolerance and civility, and then complain when they aren’t observed to your benefit. Not in good faith, anyway.
You can expect to see more stuff like this. It’s called “push back”. Just like you said.
So much for politely addressing someone
Is Maxine Waters commenting here?
For that matter, did Maxine Waters actually call for political violence, as the author claims, or is the author full of crap?
When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15’s to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for “2nd amendment remedies” from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent, I’ll take your concern for national civility more seriously.
You cannot simultaneously crap all over social and political norms of tolerance and civility, and then complain when they aren’t observed to your benefit. Not in good faith, anyway.
You can expect to see more stuff like this. It’s called “push back”. Just like you said.
And from the Right:
We need to be able to discriminate against gays based on whatever ever-changing and conveniently-GOP-strategy-aligned “deeply held religious convictions” we’re sporting today.
shove it, right.
And from the Right:
We need to be able to discriminate against gays based on whatever ever-changing and conveniently-GOP-strategy-aligned “deeply held religious convictions” we’re sporting today.
shove it, right.
When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15’s to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for “2nd amendment remedies” from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent,
I’ll take your concern for national civility more seriously.I’ll start hoping again.Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.
Why Clinton Does Not Deserve the Black Vote Feb 2,2016 pro-Sanders without endorsing, cause:
“The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires.
I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.”
When I see some outrage about dudes carrying AR-15’s to Congressional town hall meetings and calls for “2nd amendment remedies” from VPOTUS candidates, or a POTUS candidate running on a platform of incarcerating his opponent,
I’ll take your concern for national civility more seriously.I’ll start hoping again.Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.
Why Clinton Does Not Deserve the Black Vote Feb 2,2016 pro-Sanders without endorsing, cause:
“The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires.
I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.”
I’ll start hoping again.
bob said it better.
I’ll start hoping again.
bob said it better.
PS: I have put my Redenbacher’s in the microwave, waiting to push the timer because the last 2-3 NYT columnist hires have elicited lengthy outrage from LGM…
…but they have not said one word about Alexander, either in posts or comments.
PS: I have put my Redenbacher’s in the microwave, waiting to push the timer because the last 2-3 NYT columnist hires have elicited lengthy outrage from LGM…
…but they have not said one word about Alexander, either in posts or comments.
What ya think, the NYT handing some of their prime real estate to a black woman scholar…is just not interesting cause it happens all the time or sumpin? Heck, she is from the Northwest and has relatives at the University of Oregon. Loomis and Lemieux might know her personally.
Their silence is embarrassing. Damning.
What ya think, the NYT handing some of their prime real estate to a black woman scholar…is just not interesting cause it happens all the time or sumpin? Heck, she is from the Northwest and has relatives at the University of Oregon. Loomis and Lemieux might know her personally.
Their silence is embarrassing. Damning.
Poor, poor, put-upon Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, insulted with impunity by those terrorists on the left.
Not.
Poor, poor, put-upon Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, insulted with impunity by those terrorists on the left.
Not.
Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.
Hyperbole and bobm, a match made in dialectical materialism heaven…..I look forward to her stuff. Should be a refreshing change….if I can get far past their paywall (usually I am beyond 10 articles by the 3rd of the month).
Michelle Alexander getting one of those NYT lifetime columnist jobs Friday was the best news I have heard in a decade.
Hyperbole and bobm, a match made in dialectical materialism heaven…..I look forward to her stuff. Should be a refreshing change….if I can get far past their paywall (usually I am beyond 10 articles by the 3rd of the month).
…if I can get far past their paywall
Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.
…if I can get far past their paywall
Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.
I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.
This is news? LOL! I am inclined to believe that the US version of “The Left”* needs to get its head out of its ass, but that is a topic for another day.
*A term that is in dire need of clarifying definition, but definitely includes armchair socialist revolutionaries (many varieties) who speak blithely about the “working class” undertaking “violent revolution” in the USA as a currently viable political strategy.
I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.
This is news? LOL! I am inclined to believe that the US version of “The Left”* needs to get its head out of its ass, but that is a topic for another day.
*A term that is in dire need of clarifying definition, but definitely includes armchair socialist revolutionaries (many varieties) who speak blithely about the “working class” undertaking “violent revolution” in the USA as a currently viable political strategy.
Hey, what the hell, I’ll beat the dead horse.
Everything – every damn thing – I’ve tried to say in this thread, is said better in the piece I link to here. People should read it.
If anyone takes the time to read it and assumes I’m all about sticking it to the man, and venting my self-righteous anger on J random dudes wearing MAGA hats, save it. I’m a pretty well paid white upper middle class straight married white man in my early 60’s with a pretty good 401k and a not-bad household income and net worth.
I AM THE FUCKING MAN.
I will not be coming after anybody. It’s not worth my time to hassle MAGA dudes, as long as they don’t hassle me. I have better things to do. Wear your damn hat, I don’t give a shit.
The people who are going to be in folks’ faces are going to be much, much, much angrier than me. Much.
They’re going to me in *my* face. And I will, frankly, have it coming, because I occupy a position of no little privilege.
So if you have a beef with what the author is saying, don’t be bringing it to me. I’m too busy trying to make my own peace with the fucking mess we’re making of the world, and of our country. I live here too, I own my own piece of this crap, and I’m obliged to answer for it. I got not time to appease your need to feel better about it all.
You cannot piss on the social and political institutions that create an open and tolerant society, and expect the benefits and protections that such a society affords.
You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy
You cannot fuck with people and not expect them to respond
You can’t be a dick, and assume that others will not be a dick to you.
Get that through your fucking heads, MAGAs. Study it, learn it, tattoo it on your freaking eyelids.
Or it will be tattooed there for you.
And I will not be the one doing it, so don’t give me any shit about it. I have no interest in denying you a fucking beer, I have no interest in you at all. I’m too busy trying to thread my own needle through this fucking calamity.
Enjoy your tax break.
Hey, what the hell, I’ll beat the dead horse.
Everything – every damn thing – I’ve tried to say in this thread, is said better in the piece I link to here. People should read it.
If anyone takes the time to read it and assumes I’m all about sticking it to the man, and venting my self-righteous anger on J random dudes wearing MAGA hats, save it. I’m a pretty well paid white upper middle class straight married white man in my early 60’s with a pretty good 401k and a not-bad household income and net worth.
I AM THE FUCKING MAN.
I will not be coming after anybody. It’s not worth my time to hassle MAGA dudes, as long as they don’t hassle me. I have better things to do. Wear your damn hat, I don’t give a shit.
The people who are going to be in folks’ faces are going to be much, much, much angrier than me. Much.
They’re going to me in *my* face. And I will, frankly, have it coming, because I occupy a position of no little privilege.
So if you have a beef with what the author is saying, don’t be bringing it to me. I’m too busy trying to make my own peace with the fucking mess we’re making of the world, and of our country. I live here too, I own my own piece of this crap, and I’m obliged to answer for it. I got not time to appease your need to feel better about it all.
You cannot piss on the social and political institutions that create an open and tolerant society, and expect the benefits and protections that such a society affords.
You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy
You cannot fuck with people and not expect them to respond
You can’t be a dick, and assume that others will not be a dick to you.
Get that through your fucking heads, MAGAs. Study it, learn it, tattoo it on your freaking eyelids.
Or it will be tattooed there for you.
And I will not be the one doing it, so don’t give me any shit about it. I have no interest in denying you a fucking beer, I have no interest in you at all. I’m too busy trying to thread my own needle through this fucking calamity.
Enjoy your tax break.
the US version of “The Left”
The “US version of The Left” is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.
If you want to go way, way, way out to the fringe, you’re talking Noam Chomsky.
Even Angela freaking Merkel is a lefty compared to the US left. Macron is a lefty compared to the US left.
By any international or historical standard, THERE IS NO AMERICAN LEFT. For good or ill.
the US version of “The Left”
The “US version of The Left” is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.
If you want to go way, way, way out to the fringe, you’re talking Noam Chomsky.
Even Angela freaking Merkel is a lefty compared to the US left. Macron is a lefty compared to the US left.
By any international or historical standard, THERE IS NO AMERICAN LEFT. For good or ill.
Thanks for the link, Russell. Good stuff.
You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy
Those with “cantaloupe calves” will never forget, nor forgive. Never. Why the fuck should they?
Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.
In all fairness…not exactly. Ike was very very uncomfortable with “civil rights” and certainly was not big fan of the New Deal, and really, “massive retaliation?” LOL, lefty NOT….but he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. So there you go.
But yes, I would say there is no effective mass based “American Left”, unlike that brief period prior to WWI (Gene Debs, which see). Maybe it’s time we had one.
The current version of the “Green Party” is showing how NOT to get there.
Thanks for the link, Russell. Good stuff.
You cannot advocate for policies that slander and demonize other people and expect that you will be dealt with from a position of respect and courtesy
Those with “cantaloupe calves” will never forget, nor forgive. Never. Why the fuck should they?
Which is to say, approximately Dwight David Eisenhower.
In all fairness…not exactly. Ike was very very uncomfortable with “civil rights” and certainly was not big fan of the New Deal, and really, “massive retaliation?” LOL, lefty NOT….but he had to deal with a Democratic Congress. So there you go.
But yes, I would say there is no effective mass based “American Left”, unlike that brief period prior to WWI (Gene Debs, which see). Maybe it’s time we had one.
The current version of the “Green Party” is showing how NOT to get there.
Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.
Thanks, CharlesWT. I keep looking for the slot to slip in the dime. Like a 12-stepper, I may be in the grip of a higher power….the olden days.
Regards,
Open NYT links in a private, incognito, etc window depending on the browser.
Thanks, CharlesWT. I keep looking for the slot to slip in the dime. Like a 12-stepper, I may be in the grip of a higher power….the olden days.
Regards,
The other thing that works (and you may have to do it first, before starting with the incog window) is to go into the Option, or Settings, etc. and look under Privacy. Delete/clear the cookies — either just the ones for the Times, or all of them. If you get 3 free views per month, then every after every third one. (Works with the Washington Post, too.)
The other thing that works (and you may have to do it first, before starting with the incog window) is to go into the Option, or Settings, etc. and look under Privacy. Delete/clear the cookies — either just the ones for the Times, or all of them. If you get 3 free views per month, then every after every third one. (Works with the Washington Post, too.)
You cannot argue with what conservatives believe because they believe in fairy tales.
You cannot argue with what conservatives believe because they believe in fairy tales.
Yes, good piece russell. That about sums it up. McKinney’s drive-bys are a good example: it’s perfectly clear that the right wing does not understand that we have now passed way beyond business as usual (business as usual being that RWNJs do this stuff to liberals, and liberals deplore it).
Yes, good piece russell. That about sums it up. McKinney’s drive-bys are a good example: it’s perfectly clear that the right wing does not understand that we have now passed way beyond business as usual (business as usual being that RWNJs do this stuff to liberals, and liberals deplore it).
As has been noted elsewhere, Karl Popper had some thoughts on this seven decades back:for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant….”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;
As has been noted elsewhere, Karl Popper had some thoughts on this seven decades back:for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant….”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
“Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;
Gee. This sounds like something.
Gee. This sounds like something.
Take that, dead horse.
This is not about punishing people for differences of opinion. We are far beyond differences of opinion.
Take that, dead horse.
This is not about punishing people for differences of opinion. We are far beyond differences of opinion.
Thank you, Nigel, for that quotation. I will be sure to read Karl Popper further. I’m familiar with his name. It seems that many of us must have learned all of this before.
Thank you, Nigel, for that quotation. I will be sure to read Karl Popper further. I’m familiar with his name. It seems that many of us must have learned all of this before.
You know how under the law violence is acceptable in self-defense or the defense of another? Wouldn’t that be a pretty good analogy for tolerance?
You know how under the law violence is acceptable in self-defense or the defense of another? Wouldn’t that be a pretty good analogy for tolerance?
I will be sure to read Karl Popper further
Not popular with Bob, I suspect.
I will be sure to read Karl Popper further
Not popular with Bob, I suspect.
The “tolerance paradox” was also taken up by Rawls, to some degree in response to Popper.
Rawls is for allowing more tolerance of intolerance, as it were, but also recognizes that at some point things tip.
You cannot undermine the institutions that foster a tolerant society, and also insist that you should receive the benefits and protections of a tolerant society. Not because anybody is “out to get you”, but because tolerance is a mutual arrangement.
I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.
The “tolerance paradox” was also taken up by Rawls, to some degree in response to Popper.
Rawls is for allowing more tolerance of intolerance, as it were, but also recognizes that at some point things tip.
You cannot undermine the institutions that foster a tolerant society, and also insist that you should receive the benefits and protections of a tolerant society. Not because anybody is “out to get you”, but because tolerance is a mutual arrangement.
I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.
From russell’s link:
Well and pithily said. I will keep this handy for various discussions I’ve been having in real life.
The next bit is interesting too: As long as our rulers wage war on cosmopolitan culture, they shouldn’t feel entitled to its fruits.
First, fuck the word “rulers.” SRSLY. But it does crystallize something I’ve been thinking about since the start of the MAGA hat discussion the other night. My initial reaction had something to do with the difference between some ordinary bloke wearing a hat, and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. When this is all over (if it ever *is* over, and I’m still alive at that point), I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat, whereas if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.
From russell’s link:
Well and pithily said. I will keep this handy for various discussions I’ve been having in real life.
The next bit is interesting too: As long as our rulers wage war on cosmopolitan culture, they shouldn’t feel entitled to its fruits.
First, fuck the word “rulers.” SRSLY. But it does crystallize something I’ve been thinking about since the start of the MAGA hat discussion the other night. My initial reaction had something to do with the difference between some ordinary bloke wearing a hat, and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. When this is all over (if it ever *is* over, and I’m still alive at that point), I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat, whereas if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.
I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat
Likewise.
if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.
I’ll be happy with out of government.
But agreed that crimes deserve an accounting.
In other news, Trump’s latest Muslim country travel band has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
I’d like to point out that that would likely not have happened had the SCOTUS seat not been held open for Gorsuch.
Obama, a man who was elected to the presidency with solid electoral and popular majorities, was denied the opportunity to appoint Garland to the seat vacated by Scalia.
Trump, a man who achieved that office despite losing the popular vote, and the integrity of whose election remains at this point an open question, was therefore able to appoint Gorsuch.
Denying the will of the people is not sustainable. If you think the person, policies, statements, and actions of Donald J Trump and his crew are representative of the majority of the people in the US, you should expect to be surprised on a regular basis going forward.
I expect to be co-existing as a fellow citizen of the guy in the MAGA hat
Likewise.
if justice is done, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders et hoc genus omni, starting with the criminal-in-chief in his no longer plastic headpiece, will be in prison.
I’ll be happy with out of government.
But agreed that crimes deserve an accounting.
In other news, Trump’s latest Muslim country travel band has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
I’d like to point out that that would likely not have happened had the SCOTUS seat not been held open for Gorsuch.
Obama, a man who was elected to the presidency with solid electoral and popular majorities, was denied the opportunity to appoint Garland to the seat vacated by Scalia.
Trump, a man who achieved that office despite losing the popular vote, and the integrity of whose election remains at this point an open question, was therefore able to appoint Gorsuch.
Denying the will of the people is not sustainable. If you think the person, policies, statements, and actions of Donald J Trump and his crew are representative of the majority of the people in the US, you should expect to be surprised on a regular basis going forward.
I liked this:
The idea of mendacious press secretaries as a protected class is absurdly amusing.
I liked this:
The idea of mendacious press secretaries as a protected class is absurdly amusing.
Yup, that Michelle Goldberg NYT piece is good, I don’t disagree with a word of it. Perhaps the McKinneys of this world will finally understand what’s going on, or they won’t. The outcome will be what it will be, for better or for worse, whether they do or not. Personally, I’m just hoping that a civil war can be averted.
Yup, that Michelle Goldberg NYT piece is good, I don’t disagree with a word of it. Perhaps the McKinneys of this world will finally understand what’s going on, or they won’t. The outcome will be what it will be, for better or for worse, whether they do or not. Personally, I’m just hoping that a civil war can be averted.
Sometimes, their strategies may be poorly conceived. But there’s an abusive sort of victim-blaming in demanding that progressives single-handedly uphold civility, lest the right become even more uncivil in response.
Murc’s law: only Democrats have agency.
Sometimes, their strategies may be poorly conceived. But there’s an abusive sort of victim-blaming in demanding that progressives single-handedly uphold civility, lest the right become even more uncivil in response.
Murc’s law: only Democrats have agency.
Worst goddarn court since civil war
Worst goddarn court since civil war
I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.
I’m willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that. Specifically for their culture overall; not about their particular biases and prejudices per se.
Personally, I think that the reality is more “ignored” than “disrespected.” But I think that’s where they are coming from, at least in their own minds.
I will not respect you and the things you value, but you must respect me and mine, is not a sustainable path.
I’m willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that. Specifically for their culture overall; not about their particular biases and prejudices per se.
Personally, I think that the reality is more “ignored” than “disrespected.” But I think that’s where they are coming from, at least in their own minds.
I should add that the culture in question here is no “white, wealth, privileged” so much as “small town / rural.”
I should add that the culture in question here is no “white, wealth, privileged” so much as “small town / rural.”
“So much for politely addressing someone.”
Yes, so goes reporting from the magazine whose founder defended the racial segregation of the racist f@cking Southern Democrats and Goldwater’s condemnation of Civil Rights legislation, not to mention harboring racist writers on their payroll until virtually last week.
That Buckley was not gunned down in the street for his contribution to the ruination of black lives in this country over a couple of generations at the very least should be counted as a miraculous blessing by his fellow travelers.
But it’s not. It’s just more reason for the current lot of racists and homophobes and immigrant slanderers to think they are going to make it through what is coming alive.
Waters is pushing back against a hell of a lot more than mp, Sanders and company have any cause for victimhood.
Got a question, MCTX. When you secured your visas to Costa Rica and the other Central American countries, did the leaders of those countries take time out to call you a rapist and a criminal?
“So much for politely addressing someone.”
Yes, so goes reporting from the magazine whose founder defended the racial segregation of the racist f@cking Southern Democrats and Goldwater’s condemnation of Civil Rights legislation, not to mention harboring racist writers on their payroll until virtually last week.
That Buckley was not gunned down in the street for his contribution to the ruination of black lives in this country over a couple of generations at the very least should be counted as a miraculous blessing by his fellow travelers.
But it’s not. It’s just more reason for the current lot of racists and homophobes and immigrant slanderers to think they are going to make it through what is coming alive.
Waters is pushing back against a hell of a lot more than mp, Sanders and company have any cause for victimhood.
Got a question, MCTX. When you secured your visas to Costa Rica and the other Central American countries, did the leaders of those countries take time out to call you a rapist and a criminal?
I’m willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that.
My understanding is that the typical Trump supporter, statistically speaking, is a white dentist with a boat and a golf club membership.
The folks you are talking about here are, again as I understand it, the marginal Trump voters. The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but switched in 2016.
I think they have good cause to feel that their interests have been ignored. And not just, or even primarily, by “the left”, such as it is.
I’m willing to bet that there is a substantial portion of Trump followers for whom a significant part of their motivation is precisely that they feel like the left has been doing exactly that.
My understanding is that the typical Trump supporter, statistically speaking, is a white dentist with a boat and a golf club membership.
The folks you are talking about here are, again as I understand it, the marginal Trump voters. The folks who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but switched in 2016.
I think they have good cause to feel that their interests have been ignored. And not just, or even primarily, by “the left”, such as it is.
I’ll add that, for any practical purpose, there is not a whole lot of daylight between “ignored” and “disrespected”.
Trump promised those folks the moon. I’m not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.
I’ll add that, for any practical purpose, there is not a whole lot of daylight between “ignored” and “disrespected”.
Trump promised those folks the moon. I’m not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.
Trump promised those folks the moon. I’m not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.
Quite. But it will take something like closing factories due to trade war to get past the information bubbles.
Trump promised those folks the moon. I’m not looking forward to seeing what happens when everybody wakes up and smells the coffee.
Quite. But it will take something like closing factories due to trade war to get past the information bubbles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/europe/javier-solana-us-visa.html
It’s come to this. The former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US. Apparently because he traveled to Iran (he was involved in negotiating the treaty).
Note that it’s not just travelling to Iran, since I work with a European who has travelled to Iran on business. He got some hassle getting a visa, but “on business” was sufficient . . . eventually.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/europe/javier-solana-us-visa.html
It’s come to this. The former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US. Apparently because he traveled to Iran (he was involved in negotiating the treaty).
Note that it’s not just travelling to Iran, since I work with a European who has travelled to Iran on business. He got some hassle getting a visa, but “on business” was sufficient . . . eventually.
I will be sure to read Karl Popper further
Not popular with Bob, I suspect.
Bob might get a little green about the gills regarding The Open Society, but Popper had some good stuff, esp. wrt scientific inquiry.
I also see from the Wikki that he advocated the inclusion of socialists in the Mt. Perin Society. My kind of guy!
I will be sure to read Karl Popper further
Not popular with Bob, I suspect.
Bob might get a little green about the gills regarding The Open Society, but Popper had some good stuff, esp. wrt scientific inquiry.
I also see from the Wikki that he advocated the inclusion of socialists in the Mt. Perin Society. My kind of guy!
former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US…
Strictly speaking, his ESTA application was rejected – he may well yet be granted a visa.
former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, was denied entry into the US…
Strictly speaking, his ESTA application was rejected – he may well yet be granted a visa.