A sociologist I read said that 'welfare' in the USA was resented by the middle class because they perceived themselves as paying for it but being excluded from it.
Yeah, Reagan picked up the right-wing media's 'Welfare Queen' trope from the mid 70s onwards.
Times of uncertainty bring forth dangerous right wing idiots. Right wing idiots bring forth times of uncertainty.
No, the dangerous right wing idiots you will always have with you. (h/t)
On a more serious note, economic downturns tend to produce an uptick in right wing politics, particularly violent right wing politics, but there's usually a multi-year lag. We're currently about as far away in time from the start of the Great Recession as the rise of the Nazis was from the Great Depression.
I think most histories of The Great Depression would have it going strong in Germany by the early 30s, at the latest, wouldn't they? The Nazis came to power in 1932, which would mean that their rise took place during the Depression.
I believe, however, that the Nazi rise was about a decade after the beginning of the infamous hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic, which got going around 1921 and ended in 1923. That's actually a separate, earlier event from the Great Depression, though the two are often conflated in popular renderings.
Is sending troops to the border all about visuals? A pre-emptive strike, so to speak, before the mid-terms, positioning Trump as a strong ruler?
Let them start shooting unarmed "illegal aliens" and the world (and hopefully the electorate) will see what it's all about.
But the right wing world (and electorate), would applaud, wouldn't they? The unarmed aliens would be portrayed as terrorists, and brown ones at that. I would think that Trumps vote would go up.
Is sending troops to the border all about visuals? A pre-emptive strike, so to speak, before the mid-terms, positioning Trump as a strong ruler?
Yes. The National Guard troops already there are mostly doing busywork. Given that there doesn't seem to be enough to keep the troops that are there now busy, sending more is all about the optics of "standing tough" against a few thousand desperate refugees who, if they make it to the U.S. at all, probably won't arrive until next year. I wonder how the optics of 5,200 empty chairs at 5,200 Thanksgiving tables is going to play? Since that's after the mid-terms I guess it doesn't matter.
I wonder how the optics of 5,200 empty chairs at 5,200 Thanksgiving tables is going to play? Since that's after the mid-terms I guess it doesn't matter.
I am of the opinion that most people who subscribe to the "Send in the troops!!" school of statecraft actually care very little about the welfare of the troops themselves. Seriously, I doubt they care if soldiers end up missing arms and legs, let alone something as ephemeral as Thanksgiving Dinner. (This is based on years of my own political observations, not just an offhand slag.)
I don't think the "Send in the troops" people don't care at all about the welfare of the troops; after all, some of them have loved ones in uniform. Rather, I think there is a disconnect in their minds, not making a connection. The one who does not care about the welfare of the troops is Trump himself.
I don't think the "Send in the troops" people don't care at all about the welfare of the troops; after all, some of them have loved ones in uniform. Rather, I think there is a disconnect in their minds, not making a connection. The one who does not care about the welfare of the troops is Trump himself.
Republicans not caring about the troops predates Trump by decades.
I don't think the "Send in the troops" people don't care at all about the welfare of the troops; after all, some of them have loved ones in uniform. Rather, I think there is a disconnect in their minds, not making a connection. The one who does not care about the welfare of the troops is Trump himself.
Republicans not caring about the troops predates Trump by decades.
I don't think the "Send in the troops" people don't care at all about the welfare of the troops; after all, some of them have loved ones in uniform. Rather, I think there is a disconnect in their minds, not making a connection. The one who does not care about the welfare of the troops is Trump himself.
Well, the difference between saying "They don't care about the troops" and saying "They do care, but there's a disconnect in their mind", is arguably a slight one. It might be a little like saying "Officer O'Malley didn't cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests because he thinks sexual abuse is okay; he knows it's wrong, but there's a disconnect in his mind". If the disconnect is that his Catholic conscience won't allow him to arrest a priest, what real difference is there between that, and saying that he thinks it's okay for priests to commit sexual abuse?
But the right wing world (and electorate), would applaud, wouldn't they? The unarmed aliens would be portrayed as terrorists, and brown ones at that. I would think that Trumps vote would go up.
Because the Trumpsters will accuse most of the refugees of being members of MS-13 or ISIS, and Donald the Great is protecting us from them.
Trump's latest set of lies may end up creating an interesting issue. So he is now declaring that he can end "birthright citizenship" with just an executive order (you know, just like a dictator could).
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Mr Trump said. "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
No idea who the "they" are other than "people who don't know the law." But even the idea that you can "definitely do it with an Act of Congress" is a lie. The idea that you can stop it with an executive order is...well, just the delusions of a wannabe dictator.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Now some conservatives try to argue that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that it does not apply to children of illegal immigrants. But that is a very dangerous (and incorrect) argument: that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Because if you make that argument (and that has to be the argument to avoid the otherwise clear language that you are a citizen if you are "born" here), then the US government has to STOP deporting illegal immigrants. Why? Because it has no jurisdiction over them. It cannot deport people over which it has no jurisdiction.
That is nonsense, of course. Illegal immigrants can be deported precisely because the US has jurisdiction over them once they enter the country. But, because it has jurisdiction over them, it then follows under the 14th Amendment that those who are born here (even if their parents are illegal immigrants) are citizens of the US. Because that is precisely what the strict construction of the words of the Constitution says.
Why do I say this sets up an interesting situation? Because these same conservatives have been busy appointing "strict constructionists" to the courts--judges who will apply the words of the Constitution as written. Namely, that if you are born here, you are citizen. It would take an "activist judge" to read the 14th Amendment any other way. And the conservatives have been making great efforts to get rid of all those darn "activist judges."
A sociologist I read said that 'welfare' in the USA was resented by the middle class because they perceived themselves as paying for it but being excluded from it. One of the benefits of medicare in Australia is that because everyone gets a clear benefit, they really really ark up if there is a sniff of the conservatives cutting it unduly. This is so, even though you pay a separate medicare levy and can see it in your tax each year. To cut medicare means death in Aussie politics, and so-called medi-scare campaigns will no doubt be a feature of the next Federal election. The ALP also likes using the American Right as a boogieman.
For decades, many needs-based government antipoverty programs were designed (explicitly or implicitly) to exclude racial minorities. This began to change in the 1960s, but around that time the right seized upon using dog-whistle language to equate the image of anyone who receives any kind of needs-based government assistance check with someone dark-skinned. I don't know enough about Australia to know if this is true there too.
Why do I say this sets up an interesting situation? Because these same conservatives have been busy appointing "strict constructionists" to the courts--judges who will apply the words of the Constitution as written.
Actually they have been busy appointing judges that will rule in favour of the government over an individual, and a corporations over everything else. 'Originalism' is ultimately just a means to an end - prepare for them to decide that Amendments aren't part of original intent.
At least two conservative media personalities appeared linked to an apparent hoax that may have been designed to ensnare Washington reporters, if not also cause political damage to Mueller. The story begins in mid-October, when an unsolicited email from a Gmail address popped into the inboxes of journalists around the capital city, including one used by NPR.
In the message, a person identifying herself as a woman from Florida describes having been contacted out of the blue by someone with detailed knowledge about her work history and her personal finances.
That person, according to the account, asks her to establish contact over an encrypted messaging application and then, in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars, to make false but potentially politically damaging misconduct claims against Mueller.
Sounds to me like certain people are getting scared and desperate.
A sociologist I read said that 'welfare' in the USA was resented by the middle class because they perceived themselves as paying for it but being excluded from it. One of the benefits of medicare in Australia is that because everyone gets a clear benefit, they really really ark up if there is a sniff of the conservatives cutting it unduly. This is so, even though you pay a separate medicare levy and can see it in your tax each year. To cut medicare means death in Aussie politics, and so-called medi-scare campaigns will no doubt be a feature of the next Federal election. The ALP also likes using the American Right as a boogieman.
For decades, many needs-based government antipoverty programs were designed (explicitly or implicitly) to exclude racial minorities. This began to change in the 1960s, but around that time the right seized upon using dog-whistle language to equate the image of anyone who receives any kind of needs-based government assistance check with someone dark-skinned. I don't know enough about Australia to know if this is true there too.
There is the dole-bludgers slur that is a staple of commercial current affairs TV, and people used to talk about Greeks on workcover scams. People can whinge too about all the 'stuff' that people who come here as refugees 'get', 'but real Aussies get nothing'. So yeah our racism is real. First generation migrants tend to cop it pretty bad, but then the focus shifts when the next immigrant group hits our shores and those previously targeted often join the ranks of the abuse-hurlers.
This impacts on our politics, over the last 30 years, by providing politically acceptable areas of welfare to cut. The Newstart allowance (unemployment benefit) has remained at the same level for years.
Krassenstein and other journalists also pointed to Jacob Wohl, a disgraced hedge fund manager turned pro-Trump conspiracy theorist and Surefire Intelligence, a company connected to him, as being involved with Burkman's alleged plot.
<snip>
Wohl declined to comment on his involvement with Surefire Intelligence. However, his email is listed in the domain records for Surefire Intelligence's website and calls to a number listed on the Surefire Intelligence website went to a voicemail message which provided another phone number, listed in public records as belonging to Wohl's mother.
Wohl stopped responding to NBC News after being told Surefire's official phone number redirects to his mother's voicemail.
Additional problems with the scam included using supermodel photos or pics of Christopher Waltz as photos of your "personnel", as if reverse image lookups aren't a thing.
Ratfucking used to be a well-honed and fine art in Washington. Now would be plumbers are using their mother's voicemail as a front?
Michael Avenatti is due some credit here. At least he is clever enough to find women willing to make dubious accusations and pay for the privilege.
@romanlion - have you read that article you link to?
The federal judge dismissed the case on First Ammendment grounds - i.e Trump is entitled to free speech and can call her 'dubious accusations' a "Total Con-Job" if he wants to. That is no way speaks to the veracity of her claims because the argument here is not that what she said isn't true. The judgment is whether Trumps words are defamatory or not (or - as with this ruling) whether the defamation is trumped (if you pardon the pun) by the First Ammendment.
I am no lawyer but I wonder if the defamation suit was a sensible idea? - it strikes me that someone defending themselves against allegations is highly likely to say they are not true in whatever way they choose. Be interested if any experts around would have said that this part was unwise?
However, that says absolutely nothing about the original accusation.
By ignorant, do you mean they didn't know the guy was a Messianic Jew, OR that they did know, but didn't realize that his claims to being Jewish would be regarded as an affront to most Jews?
I would think most political operators working with Bible-Beltish politics in the USA know what Messianic Judaism is, and how it's different from regular Judaism. Whether that degree of awareness extends to Pence, who is not a backroom boy per se, I don't know.
My guess, however, would be that Pence did know that the guy was Messianic, and thought having him give the prayer would be a good way to impress pro-Israel, philo-semitic Christians with how Jewish-friendly the GOP is, in the aftermath of Pittsburgh. Not sure if he'd be aware of how dubious most Jews would regard the choice. Maybe thought it would just fly under the radar anyway.
Yeah, the tip-off should have been when the "rabbi" offered prayers for four Republican politicians but didn't name any of the eleven victims of the shooting. Maybe he thought it useless since they were all going to Hell anyway?
“Loren Jacobs was stripped of his rabbinic ordination by the UMJC in 2003, after our judicial board found him guilty of libel,” Monique Brumbach said in an email.
Some religious groups take the commandment against bearing false witness very seriously. Then there are those who are willing to share a stage with Mike Pence.
This is hard-core anti-Semitic, isn't it? Messianic Judaism in effect erases Judaism, as an independent faith, plus of course, not even mentioning the names of the dead. It is hard to believe such crassness, but why would racists be non-crass?
This is hard-core anti-Semitic, isn't it? Messianic Judaism in effect erases Judaism, as an independent faith, plus of course, not even mentioning the names of the dead. It is hard to believe such crassness, but why would racists be non-crass?
So, on brand then. I suspected it - ‘playing to the base’ as always.
I would think most political operators working with Bible-Beltish politics in the USA know what Messianic Judaism is, and how it's different from regular Judaism. Whether that degree of awareness extends to Pence, who is not a backroom boy per se, I don't know.
My guess, however, would be that Pence did know that the guy was Messianic, and thought having him give the prayer would be a good way to impress pro-Israel, philo-semitic Christians with how Jewish-friendly the GOP is, in the aftermath of Pittsburgh. Not sure if he'd be aware of how dubious most Jews would regard the choice. Maybe thought it would just fly under the radar anyway.
What I don't understand is what Lena Epstein was thinking. She is the congressional candidate, who is Jewish, whose campaign the rally was for, who says she, not Pence, was the one who invited the Messianic Jewish rabbi (knowing, I assume, that he was Messianic). Here, from CNN, is her defense:
"My family's history as Jews and my commitment to my Jewish faith are beyond question." Epstein said she is a proud lifelong fourth generation member of her synagogue, and said earlier this year her daughter received "her Hebrew name on the bimah at Temple Beth El."
Epstein's statement said this was an "effort of unity," and said, "I invited the prayer because we must unite as a nation -- while embracing our religious differences -- in the aftermath of Pennsylvania," the statement continued. "Any media or political competitor who is attacking me or the Vice President is guilty of nothing short of religious intolerance and should be ashamed."
"Now is the time for people of all faiths, of all religions, to come together as one and reject hate and religious divisions," Epstein's statement continues.
Epstein added she looks "forward to serving as the only Jewish Republican woman in Congress."
I am not Jewish so I don't want to invalidate Epstein's opinions as a Jewish woman. But politically, this does not seem helpful. It seems much more political sense to me to have a mainstream Jewish Rabbi, or both a mainstream Jewish rabbi and an Evangelical Christian pastor, speak and pray in turn, if you are a Republican candidate.
What I don't understand is what Lena Epstein was thinking.
Here is a fuller background on Epstein. The short version is she comes from a fairly wealthy family of moderate Jewish Democrats and she herself seems to have taken a hard right turn, politically, about six or seven years ago. As the article notes, the senior rabbi of her congregation denounced the incident but refrained from mentioning Epstein by name.
"Melania and I were treated very nicely yesterday in Pittsburgh. The Office of the President was shown great respect on a very sad & solemn day. We were treated so warmly. Small protest was not seen by us, staged far away. The Fake News stories were just the opposite-Disgraceful!"
Michael Avenatti is due some credit here. At least he is clever enough to find women willing to make dubious accusations and pay for the privilege.
Avenatti and Trump are two peas in a pod. They are both self-interested ethics free zones. They both should be as far away from the Presidency as possible.
Yes, but I believe he mentioned the possibility of running for pres a couple of months ago. :rolleyes:
I have a question; if tRump could actually manage to negate the 14th amendment so that children of immigrants born in this country would not be citizens, would it be retroactive? And wouldn't that include him?
Major Charles Emerson Winchester, a snooty doctor on the TV series "M*A*S*H," once complained that his family had been having problems ever since they (his ancestors) had come to this country.
Trump is also trying to end "chain immigration" -- but only now that his current in-laws have become U.S. citizens.
It's indicative of something when even Foreign Policy magazine starts to run articles on Trump's support among evangelicals that look like this.
While white evangelicals have a long history of racism in America, such pervasive naked partisanship focused purely on advancing a cruelly reactionary agenda is still a striking shift.
...
Evangelicals have also viewed global institutions with suspicion and hostility, with a popular late 20th-century interpretation of end times prophecy suggesting that the Antichrist would rise to power through the U.N. With the Soviet Union now replaced by a conservative Russian state espousing support for “traditional values,” Muslims occupy a new place in their demonology.
I saw one person on Colbert who might make the crazy people do away: Nancy Pelosi. She did really well I thought, and as soon as she said that the song of San Francisco was the song of St Francis, I knew I was rusted on to her. That's my favorite hymn of all time, and it has been so since I was a child. I won't link it. It looks like a hard song to sing well. I like the words.
I saw one person on Colbert who might make the crazy people do away: Nancy Pelosi. She did really well I thought, and as soon as she said that the song of San Francisco was the song of St Francis, I knew I was rusted on to her. That's my favorite hymn of all time, and it has been so since I was a child. I won't link it. It looks like a hard song to sing well. I like the words.
I'm sorry to say that Pelosi is already a tremendous bogey(wo)man among the Right, even among relatively moderate Republicans. Name a Democratic candidate and the GOP will be running ads saying that that Democrat is one of Pelosi's lackeys. She is almost as toxic among Republicans (and conservative-leaning independents) as Hillary was/is. I think misogyny is definitely part of it.
Pro-lifers, and especially Conservative Catholics, also vehemently hate anyone who talks about being an devout Christian/Catholic while being pro-choice. They think of them as quislings or something like that. But that's going down a Dead Horse tangent.
Pro-lifers, and especially Conservative Catholics, also vehemently hate anyone who talks about being an devout Christian/Catholic while being pro-choice. They think of them as quislings or something like that. But that's going down a Dead Horse tangent.
It is and it isn't.
One of the things that drives me crazy and makes me very angry about the GOP is that they are not remotely pro-life.
There is a very real criticism of the GOP that if they were really pro-life, they would care about and enact policies to support born-children as well. I completely agree with that but it's not what I am getting at.
In the very narrow way that the GOP define 'pro-life' they are complete and total hypocrits. The GOP has consistently looked at evidence at how to reduce abortions (both in the short and long term) and done the opposite. I personally, don't think this an accident, I think the electoral advantage of claiming to be 'pro-life' is so huge that what they want more than ever is to be able to use it as a wedge issue.
As an example, Trump became 'pro-life' in an instant decision when planning his presidential run when he realised it was what he needed to do in order to be acceptable to the GOP base.
But that's probably a different (if not quite DH) tangent...
The political significance of opinions on abortion is definitely a Dead Horse topic, so feel free to join an existing thread there, or start a new one there. By extension, you can also discuss more widely the sincerity of pro-life or pro-choice views with greater freedom in a Dead Horse thread. Dead Horses is an extension of Purgatory to enable any aspect of the classic DH topics to be discussed freely, without bothering about Forum boundaries.
Apparently in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi is seen as too "moderate/conservative" by some on the left.
There is definitely more than two Americas.
She was willing to allow funding for increased border security, including funding for something Trump could call a wall but Democrats could call an extension of the fencing that is already along some stretches of the border - all this in exchange for a path to citizenship for Dreamers - children who were brought here without documentation (or illegally, as others call it) but who despite having been born abroad have lived their whole lives as Americans and would basically be foreigners in their parents' homeland if they were deported - and who were given a reprieve from deportation and permits to work/study under the Obama administration. Because Trump is taking all the license he can with any and all forms of immigration enforcement, groups of Dreamers themselves (I'm not sure how much they speak for all Dreamers) were calling her a traitor.
And there are other areas in which, because she leads Democrats in the House on a national level (earlier as Speaker of the House and now as House Minority Leader), she has made compromises with more moderate wings of the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent with Republicans (there isn't that much room for compromise between the parties). And that has angered more left-leaning parts of the party, as well as many of her constituents in San Francisco, which is one of the more liberal cities in the country (although it is quickly becoming unaffordable because of a. the crazy pressure on housing costs put by people moving in to work in the tech industry and b. the limited housing supply and the many legal and other constraints on getting new affordable housing built).
Pelosi is also representative of an older generation with a different, less confrontational style of doing politics. A lot of young Democrats just want younger people in leadership, period. I may not agree with all of her positions or with all the choices she has made but I must admit she has held her own against the considerable odds against her admirably. As a legislative leader, she has been pretty effective. The problem is that when Obama was president, even if stuff got through the house, it faced the hurdle of getting 60/100 votes in the Senate, which was difficult even when Democrats had a supermajority of that amount (or close to that amount), which they did briefly under Obama.
Apparently in San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi is seen as too "moderate/conservative" by some on the left.
There is definitely more than two Americas.
She was willing to allow funding for increased border security, including funding for something Trump could call a wall but Democrats could call an extension of the fencing that is already along some stretches of the border - all this in exchange for a path to citizenship for Dreamers - children who were brought here without documentation (or illegally, as others call it) but who despite having been born abroad have lived their whole lives as Americans and would basically be foreigners in their parents' homeland if they were deported - and who were given a reprieve from deportation (not official status as legal immigrants, though) and renewable permits to work/study under the Obama administration - before Trump ended that program. Because Trump is taking all the license he can with any and all forms of immigration enforcement, groups of Dreamers themselves (I'm not sure how much they speak for all Dreamers) were calling her a traitor, even if that meant that there would be no compromise and Dreamers would be under threat of deportation (there wound up being no compromise, because Trump decided to demand a reduction in legal immigration and a complete overhaul of the legal immigration process (and a lot more money for funding of his wall) - and he could not even get enough his party in Congress to agree on a compromise, let alone the Democrats). Dreamers are not being deported en masse for the time being (although a number have been deported for getting into even minor troubles with the law) because of stays imposed by the courts.
There are other areas in which, because she leads Democrats in the House on a national level (earlier as Speaker of the House and now as House Minority Leader), she has made compromises with more moderate wings of the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent with Republicans (there isn't that much room for compromise between the parties). And that has angered more left-leaning parts of the party, as well as many of her constituents in San Francisco, which is one of the more liberal cities in the country (although it is quickly becoming unaffordable because of a. the crazy pressure on housing costs put by the large numbers of people moving in to work in the tech industry and b. the limited housing supply and the many legal and other constraints on getting new affordable housing built).
Pelosi is also representative of an older generation with a different, less confrontational style of doing politics. A lot of young Democrats just want younger people in leadership, period. I may not agree with all of her positions or with all the choices she has made but I must admit she has held her own against the considerable odds against her admirably. As a legislative leader, she has been pretty effective. The problem is that when Obama was president, even if stuff got through the House, it faced the hurdle of getting 60/100 votes in the Senate, which was difficult even when Democrats had a supermajority of that amount (or close to that amount), which they did briefly under Obama.
Barack H Obama? And the real shame about the Pittsburgh murders is that they stopped a GOP voting momentum? Just two further atrocities from POTUS. To quote my late father, he is so low he could crawl under a snake's belly wearing a top hat.
Aaaand . . . in a development both predictable and terrifying, we now have armed-to-the-teeth "citizen militias" mobilizing to go "help" the Border Patrol with the coming invasion:
what could possibly go wrong?
Oh yes. Of course. We have seen those lunatics on TV over here. Many laugh and point, some cry and pray, and others take refuge behind the couch. As I recall there was an ex-meth addict organising one posse. Good on him for getting clean, but his actions suggest he should not be in control of a weapon, let alone one of those nasty letter and number combinations.
On the subject of rocks, a Nigerian official used Trump's comments to justify firing on a crowd of protesters, I understand from facebook. It might have been Politico.
Comments
Yeah, Reagan picked up the right-wing media's 'Welfare Queen' trope from the mid 70s onwards.
I think most histories of The Great Depression would have it going strong in Germany by the early 30s, at the latest, wouldn't they? The Nazis came to power in 1932, which would mean that their rise took place during the Depression.
I believe, however, that the Nazi rise was about a decade after the beginning of the infamous hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic, which got going around 1921 and ended in 1923. That's actually a separate, earlier event from the Great Depression, though the two are often conflated in popular renderings.
But the right wing world (and electorate), would applaud, wouldn't they? The unarmed aliens would be portrayed as terrorists, and brown ones at that. I would think that Trumps vote would go up.
Yes. The National Guard troops already there are mostly doing busywork. Given that there doesn't seem to be enough to keep the troops that are there now busy, sending more is all about the optics of "standing tough" against a few thousand desperate refugees who, if they make it to the U.S. at all, probably won't arrive until next year. I wonder how the optics of 5,200 empty chairs at 5,200 Thanksgiving tables is going to play? Since that's after the mid-terms I guess it doesn't matter.
I am of the opinion that most people who subscribe to the "Send in the troops!!" school of statecraft actually care very little about the welfare of the troops themselves. Seriously, I doubt they care if soldiers end up missing arms and legs, let alone something as ephemeral as Thanksgiving Dinner. (This is based on years of my own political observations, not just an offhand slag.)
Republicans not caring about the troops predates Trump by decades.
Or, as Gary Legum put it:
Well, the difference between saying "They don't care about the troops" and saying "They do care, but there's a disconnect in their mind", is arguably a slight one. It might be a little like saying "Officer O'Malley didn't cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests because he thinks sexual abuse is okay; he knows it's wrong, but there's a disconnect in his mind". If the disconnect is that his Catholic conscience won't allow him to arrest a priest, what real difference is there between that, and saying that he thinks it's okay for priests to commit sexual abuse?
Because the Trumpsters will accuse most of the refugees of being members of MS-13 or ISIS, and Donald the Great is protecting us from them.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part, Now some conservatives try to argue that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that it does not apply to children of illegal immigrants. But that is a very dangerous (and incorrect) argument: that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Because if you make that argument (and that has to be the argument to avoid the otherwise clear language that you are a citizen if you are "born" here), then the US government has to STOP deporting illegal immigrants. Why? Because it has no jurisdiction over them. It cannot deport people over which it has no jurisdiction.
That is nonsense, of course. Illegal immigrants can be deported precisely because the US has jurisdiction over them once they enter the country. But, because it has jurisdiction over them, it then follows under the 14th Amendment that those who are born here (even if their parents are illegal immigrants) are citizens of the US. Because that is precisely what the strict construction of the words of the Constitution says.
Why do I say this sets up an interesting situation? Because these same conservatives have been busy appointing "strict constructionists" to the courts--judges who will apply the words of the Constitution as written. Namely, that if you are born here, you are citizen. It would take an "activist judge" to read the 14th Amendment any other way. And the conservatives have been making great efforts to get rid of all those darn "activist judges."
For decades, many needs-based government antipoverty programs were designed (explicitly or implicitly) to exclude racial minorities. This began to change in the 1960s, but around that time the right seized upon using dog-whistle language to equate the image of anyone who receives any kind of needs-based government assistance check with someone dark-skinned. I don't know enough about Australia to know if this is true there too.
Actually they have been busy appointing judges that will rule in favour of the government over an individual, and a corporations over everything else. 'Originalism' is ultimately just a means to an end - prepare for them to decide that Amendments aren't part of original intent.
Sounds to me like certain people are getting scared and desperate.
There is the dole-bludgers slur that is a staple of commercial current affairs TV, and people used to talk about Greeks on workcover scams. People can whinge too about all the 'stuff' that people who come here as refugees 'get', 'but real Aussies get nothing'. So yeah our racism is real. First generation migrants tend to cop it pretty bad, but then the focus shifts when the next immigrant group hits our shores and those previously targeted often join the ranks of the abuse-hurlers.
This impacts on our politics, over the last 30 years, by providing politically acceptable areas of welfare to cut. The Newstart allowance (unemployment benefit) has remained at the same level for years.
It didn't just backfire, it was embarrassingly half-assed.
Additional problems with the scam included using supermodel photos or pics of Christopher Waltz as photos of your "personnel", as if reverse image lookups aren't a thing.
Ratfucking used to be a well-honed and fine art in Washington. Now would be plumbers are using their mother's voicemail as a front?
Segretti wept!
@romanlion - have you read that article you link to?
The federal judge dismissed the case on First Ammendment grounds - i.e Trump is entitled to free speech and can call her 'dubious accusations' a "Total Con-Job" if he wants to. That is no way speaks to the veracity of her claims because the argument here is not that what she said isn't true. The judgment is whether Trumps words are defamatory or not (or - as with this ruling) whether the defamation is trumped (if you pardon the pun) by the First Ammendment.
I am no lawyer but I wonder if the defamation suit was a sensible idea? - it strikes me that someone defending themselves against allegations is highly likely to say they are not true in whatever way they choose. Be interested if any experts around would have said that this part was unwise?
However, that says absolutely nothing about the original accusation.
Hey-ho
AFZ
On brand or just totally ignorant?
By ignorant, do you mean they didn't know the guy was a Messianic Jew, OR that they did know, but didn't realize that his claims to being Jewish would be regarded as an affront to most Jews?
I would think most political operators working with Bible-Beltish politics in the USA know what Messianic Judaism is, and how it's different from regular Judaism. Whether that degree of awareness extends to Pence, who is not a backroom boy per se, I don't know.
My guess, however, would be that Pence did know that the guy was Messianic, and thought having him give the prayer would be a good way to impress pro-Israel, philo-semitic Christians with how Jewish-friendly the GOP is, in the aftermath of Pittsburgh. Not sure if he'd be aware of how dubious most Jews would regard the choice. Maybe thought it would just fly under the radar anyway.
Yeah, the tip-off should have been when the "rabbi" offered prayers for four Republican politicians but didn't name any of the eleven victims of the shooting. Maybe he thought it useless since they were all going to Hell anyway?
I put scare quotes around "rabbi" above not because Jacobs is a Messianic Jew, though some might argue that alone merits them, but because he was stripped of his ordination by the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations fifteen years ago. So not only did the Pence event use a fake rabbi, they used a fake fake rabbi.
Some religious groups take the commandment against bearing false witness very seriously. Then there are those who are willing to share a stage with Mike Pence.
So, on brand then. I suspected it - ‘playing to the base’ as always.
What I don't understand is what Lena Epstein was thinking. She is the congressional candidate, who is Jewish, whose campaign the rally was for, who says she, not Pence, was the one who invited the Messianic Jewish rabbi (knowing, I assume, that he was Messianic). Here, from CNN, is her defense:
I am not Jewish so I don't want to invalidate Epstein's opinions as a Jewish woman. But politically, this does not seem helpful. It seems much more political sense to me to have a mainstream Jewish Rabbi, or both a mainstream Jewish rabbi and an Evangelical Christian pastor, speak and pray in turn, if you are a Republican candidate.
Here is a fuller background on Epstein. The short version is she comes from a fairly wealthy family of moderate Jewish Democrats and she herself seems to have taken a hard right turn, politically, about six or seven years ago. As the article notes, the senior rabbi of her congregation denounced the incident but refrained from mentioning Epstein by name.
Everything? And it focuses on him.
Avenatti and Trump are two peas in a pod. They are both self-interested ethics free zones. They both should be as far away from the Presidency as possible.
I have a question; if tRump could actually manage to negate the 14th amendment so that children of immigrants born in this country would not be citizens, would it be retroactive? And wouldn't that include him?
Trump is also trying to end "chain immigration" -- but only now that his current in-laws have become U.S. citizens.
I'm sorry to say that Pelosi is already a tremendous bogey(wo)man among the Right, even among relatively moderate Republicans. Name a Democratic candidate and the GOP will be running ads saying that that Democrat is one of Pelosi's lackeys. She is almost as toxic among Republicans (and conservative-leaning independents) as Hillary was/is. I think misogyny is definitely part of it.
Pro-lifers, and especially Conservative Catholics, also vehemently hate anyone who talks about being an devout Christian/Catholic while being pro-choice. They think of them as quislings or something like that. But that's going down a Dead Horse tangent.
It is and it isn't.
One of the things that drives me crazy and makes me very angry about the GOP is that they are not remotely pro-life.
There is a very real criticism of the GOP that if they were really pro-life, they would care about and enact policies to support born-children as well. I completely agree with that but it's not what I am getting at.
In the very narrow way that the GOP define 'pro-life' they are complete and total hypocrits. The GOP has consistently looked at evidence at how to reduce abortions (both in the short and long term) and done the opposite. I personally, don't think this an accident, I think the electoral advantage of claiming to be 'pro-life' is so huge that what they want more than ever is to be able to use it as a wedge issue.
As an example, Trump became 'pro-life' in an instant decision when planning his presidential run when he realised it was what he needed to do in order to be acceptable to the GOP base.
But that's probably a different (if not quite DH) tangent...
AFZ
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
There is definitely more than two Americas.
She was willing to allow funding for increased border security, including funding for something Trump could call a wall but Democrats could call an extension of the fencing that is already along some stretches of the border - all this in exchange for a path to citizenship for Dreamers - children who were brought here without documentation (or illegally, as others call it) but who despite having been born abroad have lived their whole lives as Americans and would basically be foreigners in their parents' homeland if they were deported - and who were given a reprieve from deportation and permits to work/study under the Obama administration. Because Trump is taking all the license he can with any and all forms of immigration enforcement, groups of Dreamers themselves (I'm not sure how much they speak for all Dreamers) were calling her a traitor.
And there are other areas in which, because she leads Democrats in the House on a national level (earlier as Speaker of the House and now as House Minority Leader), she has made compromises with more moderate wings of the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent with Republicans (there isn't that much room for compromise between the parties). And that has angered more left-leaning parts of the party, as well as many of her constituents in San Francisco, which is one of the more liberal cities in the country (although it is quickly becoming unaffordable because of a. the crazy pressure on housing costs put by people moving in to work in the tech industry and b. the limited housing supply and the many legal and other constraints on getting new affordable housing built).
Pelosi is also representative of an older generation with a different, less confrontational style of doing politics. A lot of young Democrats just want younger people in leadership, period. I may not agree with all of her positions or with all the choices she has made but I must admit she has held her own against the considerable odds against her admirably. As a legislative leader, she has been pretty effective. The problem is that when Obama was president, even if stuff got through the house, it faced the hurdle of getting 60/100 votes in the Senate, which was difficult even when Democrats had a supermajority of that amount (or close to that amount), which they did briefly under Obama.
She was willing to allow funding for increased border security, including funding for something Trump could call a wall but Democrats could call an extension of the fencing that is already along some stretches of the border - all this in exchange for a path to citizenship for Dreamers - children who were brought here without documentation (or illegally, as others call it) but who despite having been born abroad have lived their whole lives as Americans and would basically be foreigners in their parents' homeland if they were deported - and who were given a reprieve from deportation (not official status as legal immigrants, though) and renewable permits to work/study under the Obama administration - before Trump ended that program. Because Trump is taking all the license he can with any and all forms of immigration enforcement, groups of Dreamers themselves (I'm not sure how much they speak for all Dreamers) were calling her a traitor, even if that meant that there would be no compromise and Dreamers would be under threat of deportation (there wound up being no compromise, because Trump decided to demand a reduction in legal immigration and a complete overhaul of the legal immigration process (and a lot more money for funding of his wall) - and he could not even get enough his party in Congress to agree on a compromise, let alone the Democrats). Dreamers are not being deported en masse for the time being (although a number have been deported for getting into even minor troubles with the law) because of stays imposed by the courts.
There are other areas in which, because she leads Democrats in the House on a national level (earlier as Speaker of the House and now as House Minority Leader), she has made compromises with more moderate wings of the Democratic Party, and to a lesser extent with Republicans (there isn't that much room for compromise between the parties). And that has angered more left-leaning parts of the party, as well as many of her constituents in San Francisco, which is one of the more liberal cities in the country (although it is quickly becoming unaffordable because of a. the crazy pressure on housing costs put by the large numbers of people moving in to work in the tech industry and b. the limited housing supply and the many legal and other constraints on getting new affordable housing built).
Pelosi is also representative of an older generation with a different, less confrontational style of doing politics. A lot of young Democrats just want younger people in leadership, period. I may not agree with all of her positions or with all the choices she has made but I must admit she has held her own against the considerable odds against her admirably. As a legislative leader, she has been pretty effective. The problem is that when Obama was president, even if stuff got through the House, it faced the hurdle of getting 60/100 votes in the Senate, which was difficult even when Democrats had a supermajority of that amount (or close to that amount), which they did briefly under Obama.
what could possibly go wrong?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-militia-groups-head-to-border-stirred-by-trumps-call-to-arms/2018/11/03/ff96826c-decf-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.2532b4fd25b8&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
On the subject of rocks, a Nigerian official used Trump's comments to justify firing on a crowd of protesters, I understand from facebook. It might have been Politico.