Create a crisis and then resolve it. We've seen this reality show before.
Trump announced earlier this week that on Sunday, 6/23, ICE would begin raids that would ultimately result in the deportation of 1 million illegal immigrants. And then today, at the last minute, he announced that he was suspending that order so that Congress could have a chance to work out a deal on immigration.
This is just so much more Trumpian ca-ca. Create a crisis and then pretend to solve it.
First of all, deporting that many people is financially and logistically impossible. ICE and CBP are already stretched to the limits - there is no room to detain these people he wants to deport and there is no money allocated to pay for it. Trump apparently thinks that ICE can just grab these people and throw them out of the country. It doesn't work that way - they have to be detained until they can appear before a judge, even if they already have a final deportation order against them before they can be deported. ICE literally has nowhere to put them, so how could they carry out this order?
Although I know Trump doesn't believe in them, we have these things called laws in this country. Yes, we have laws against undocumented immigrants, but we also have laws about how to deal with them. Trump doesn't get to choose which ones we follow.
Second, these are families we're talking about, not violent criminals. For the most part, these are people who have been part of a community for years, have been paying taxes (even though they won't see the benefits), have raised a family of children who were born here and are American citizens by law. And now we rip those families apart? If we deport the parents, do we deport their children as well - children who are American citizens under the Constitution - or just leave them to fend for themselves?
Third, signaling what you're going to do before you do it is a really dumb idea - the people you're targeting are not going to be there when your thugs show up. Trump himself accused Obama of doing this - telegraphing what the US would do - and yet here he is doing the exact same thing.
I believe in strong immigration laws, but I also believe that we have to use common sense. If someone has entered the country illegally but has established him or herself as a member of the community - is working and contributing to the community - they deserve a chance. The dangerous ones are the criminals and gang members -that's where the deportation focus should be. But ICE doesn't go after those people because they're harder to find, so they go after the low-hanging fruit - the undocumented who are living here and obeying our laws. Are they here illegally? Yes. Should they be targeted ahead of violent criminals who are here illegally? No, but that's what Trump wants to do because it's easier and it pleases his base.
OK, so Iran shot down one of our dromes. Trump threatened to retaliate and an attack was planned for last night but was called off at the last minute.
Trump's initial explanation, via Twitter, was that he called it off 10 minutes before it was supposed to happen because he asked a general about casualties and was told that 150 might die. To his credit, he realized that 150 dead Iranians was not appropriate retribution for the loss of a single unmanned drone.
However, I have questions... while I have no personal knowledge of military operations, my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that part of the mission planning is a discussion of potential casualties on both sides. If that's the case, how is it that the Commander-in-Chief - on a mission of this nature - was completely unaware of the potential casualties on the Iranian side until 10 minutes before the attack was to take place?
Trump also walked back his earlier statements about the aborted attacks and told NBC's Chuck Todd that he never authorized the attacks and that the planes were never in the air - well, which was true? His tweets about what happened or what he said to Chuck Todd?
Personally, I think this was just another Trump special - create a crisis, and then claim to have resolved the crisis you've created. He has done this so many times before, most notably on the border. Remember those caravans of immigrants and terrorists he told us were coming during the run up to the 2018 election? They vanished into thin air the day after the election. Only Trump's followers and Fox News believed they were real. The rest of us knew that the whole thing was BS.
Don the Con is going to keep doing this - create a crisis to take attention off bad news about himself and then solve it, and the suckers are going to continue buying it and telling themselves how great he is.
Trump says he's going to live-tweet the Democratic primary debates next week. Ask yourself this - who watching those debates is going to care about what he has to say? And who that cares about what he has to say is going to be watching those debates? He just has this pathological need to be in the spotlight. The sad thing is that some of the media that he calls "fake news" and the "enemy of the people"will give him the exposure he wants.
Spent much of today bemused, contemplating the reactions of Republicans -- especially some of the denizens of this forum -- if Barack Obama had said he would accept political dirt from a foreign government on his opponent, and might not even pass that interaction on to the FBI. I'll be equally bemused, I'm sure, watching the aforesaid denizens tapdance around Trump's comments.
Saw a disturbing article today about faked videos. In response to Facebook's refusal to take down the obviously faked videos of Nancy Pelosi, which were an amateur effort, someone posted a video on Instagram of Mark Zuckerberg that is what's called a "deep fake" - it's Zuckerberg's face and sounds like his voice and his lips appeared to be moving properly to say the words most of the time. but it's not real. You had to watch it REALLY closely to detect minor discrepancies, and unless you compare it with the actual original video (in this case, a video from CBS), for the most part, you can't tell the difference.
This means we're entering an age where we can't necessarily trust what we see unless we're really vigilant.
I'm going to try to embed the Zucckerg video below. Chris said he was having problems with that, so if it doesn't work I'll add a message with a link.
There was also a reference in the article about another deep fake that was done just for fun - comedian Bill Haser of SNL dad an impression of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his face morphs into Arnold's. The software to do this is available free on the Internet. Again, trying to embed and if that fails the link to this one will be the following message.
Trump looked like a sack of Idaho potatoes in that ill-fitting disaster of a tuxedo at the Buckingham Palace dinner. Or was it more like a sack of rocks? Oh, that's right, those would be in his head. I can't believe Melania let him out of the hotel room looking like that.
I went just in time last year and it was lovely but I guess our government is worried that their government is going to brainwash us in the couple of days that we are there??? or maybe we are going to be molested???? not sure what the reason is that the US has closed off the port. Guess we will hear more soon.
One would have thought we had reached the absolute nadir of polarized obscenities in this country when aides to the president of the United States tried to remove the name of a war hero and POW from camera range when the president was in view. Or when crew members of the destroyer John S. McCain were turned away from the president's speech on another ship. Or when the president, weighing in on the matter, said such efforts were "well-intentioned."
But no, we still had greater depths to plumb. One would think that at least members of that hero's own political party would rise in unison and demand, "At long last, have you no sense of shame? Have you no sense of where you drag us?"
Yet all we have heard is a cowardly, chilling silence.
One man can be a hate-filled, yellow-spined narcissist. But a whole party?
A federal judge in the SDNY ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One could provide Congress with the Trump family financial information. Deutsche Bank said it would comply with the court's ruling, although an appeal is expected.
What are they trying to hide? If you're not doing anything wrong, why are you trying to hide what you're doing? Congress gets the records, they review them, and if there's nothing there to suggest a problem they have to move on. because there's no evidence of wrong-doing. If you're innocent of any crime, why resist the investigation into those alleged crimes?
I wish I could post in leisure because it was just too funny, but would get kicked out for sure.
In fairness, when the meltdown was occurring and foreclosures were just beginning, I don't think many realtors new what an REO was. They were just not that common. I was at a realtor meeting back then and the Association president asked how many actually handled an REO. One person raised their hand and the rest (including me) had puzzled looks on their faces.
But that was 12 years ago and many, many thousands lost their homes since then.
A federal judge dismissed Trump's claims that Congress cannot demand information about his finances because there was no "legislative purpose" for the investigation. As the judge properly pointed out, Congress has ALWAYS had the right to investigate without "legislative purpose". Article 1, Section 8 lists what Congress can do to oversee the government aside from legislation. What the judge told Trump's lawyers was that they didn't have a viable argument to try to redefine what powers Congress has, that precedent since the Constitution was ratified has shown that Congress has always had the oversight they are challenging, and he also refused to grant a stay while they appealed his decision.
They will appeal, of course, but most legal experts say that they don't have a prayer - you cannot make the argument that Congress can only do things that have a "legislative purpose", because that's not what the Constitution says. Which Trump and his lawyers would know if they bothered to actually READ the Constitution.
Three co-equal branches of government, Checks and balances. The Executive branch does not get to decide what the other branches can and cannot do. The President s not the boss.
The NY legislature has amended its bill that would allow specific Congressional committees access to state tax returns. In response to concerns that it was overly broad, the amendments restrict the returns that can be shared to those of elected officials at the federal, state, and local level, as well as those of any businesses they have that are headquartered in NY. There are other changes as well, mostly minor, including one which would require that any Federal tax return information that was attached would have to be redacted.
The final bill is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow and is expected to pass since both houses of the legislature are controlled by Democrats. NY Gov. Cuomo, also a Democrat, has indicated he will sign it as soon as it hits his desk.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin has announced he will not turn over President Trump's tax returns to the House committee requesting them, even though the law cited in the subpoena for those returns requires him to do so (the law says he "shall" provide them, not "may" provide them). So now the House committee may have to go to court to enforce the subpoena.
Or maybe not. The NY Senate today passed a bill that would allow NY to provide state tax returns to any of three Congressional committees that request them. It's expected to pass in the Democrat-controlled Assembly next week and be signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who previously said he would not sign a bill that targeted Trump specifically. The bill doesn't mention Trump by name - it applies to the tax returns of ANY NY resident.
. . . believing that scientists, scholars, historians, economists, and journalists have devoted their whole lives to deceiving you, while a reality TV actor with decades of fraud and exhaustively documented lying is your only beacon of honesty.
I decided to start a new thread on this, simply because it could get long and very interesting. Someone challenged me that I did not know the difference between a “democratic socialist” and a socialist. I responded, “very little.”
So, then, I decided to do a little research, and I discovered that the only difference is time frame. A socialist wants it done now, while a democratic socialist wants to take it in steps. I visited Their website, and I will debunk their BS one item at a time, unless of course, if someone wants to argue their bogus points en masse.
Point 1. "You also understand that pure socialism means the state controls the means of production - something no Democrat is proposing, right?"
From the DSA website.
“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.”
Oh, then what pray tell is your “long term” objective.
So many contradictions on this site it is embarrassing.
And, before I get told to Sieg Heil again, let me explain something to the uneducated. My father landed on Normandy the day after D-Day and fought to the end. My Uncle was in the 101st Airborne, landed in Europe the day before D-Day. Another Uncle was in Armored, fought all the way through. Another Uncle was an MP, and guarded “the bomb.”
Because I have a German surname does not give you the right to assume anything. Sounds like racism to me.