« Enough | Main | Who disabled an unmarked unit, with a banana? Op. Thr. »

May 30, 2018

Comments

But it isn't simply that Marty believes that butt hurt Dems are trying to pull down Trump, according to Marty, Holder and Obama, _before the Dems lost the election_, were conspiring. It's turtles all the way down...

To be fair, I should add that Trump's gut hasn't yet done anything as disastrous as Bush's did. If Mueller could keep it that way, that would be an unexpected blessing for us all.

The jury is out on that. Incarcerated children, where a US Senator was denied entry to see them, massive and underreported casualties from Hurricane Maria, 500 civilian casualties (reported by the Pentagon) from military operations abroad (which seems to be another subject of selective outrage in the IOKIYAR category), an attempt to dismember NATO in support of fascism, trade wars ...

The casualties are piling up.

I expect Trump is capable of keeping his mouth shut about bribes received, for example. Or past participation in money laundering.

He certainly knows how to keep his tax returns secret.

Marty is trolling.

Marty’s been drinking the Giuliani juice.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/03/politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-shoot-comey-impeachment/index.html

Not trolling.

"June 28, 2012 - The House of Representatives votes 255-67 to hold Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. This is the first time in American history that the head of the Justice Department has been held in contempt by Congress.

July 6, 2012 - The White House and the DOJ announce that Holder will not face criminal prosecution under the contempt of Congress citation."


White House interfering directly in the prosecution of the Attorney General.

Obama protects 10's of thousands of documents under executive privilege.

Oh wait, this can't be, he never had a scandal.

Finally, some underling writes report and falls on his sword to protect Holder and Obama.

The White House and the DOJ announce that Holder will not face criminal prosecution under the contempt of Congress citation

...following a precedent that goes back at least to St Reagan.

If very very few people are talking about a "scandal" (or were talking about it at the time) it's not really a scandal. Iran-Contra was a scandal. Watergate was a scandal. The Monica Lewinski affair was a scandal.

Use words according to their meanings, and your points might make more sense.

trivia:

know who else was cited in contempt of Congress?

Anne Gorsuch, mother of current usurper Justice, Neil Gorsuch.

This is the first time in American history that the head of the Justice Department has been held in contempt by Congress.

The first time that Congress has asked the Attorney General to prosecute himself? So either the 82nd Attorney General was uniquely criminal, or the 112th Congress was uniquely politicised.

Everything we've learned since 2012 confirms that it was the latter.

meh, embrace the openity

GE, from production facilities thru sensors in pipelines to shipping ports manages more daily data (Internet of Things) in its natural gas cloud services than Facebook. Temperature, viscosity, flow. But also some of the accounting, shipping, storage, futures market.

More than Facebook every day. And this is a large division of GE, but just one of many, and GE has competitors.

I wonder if by looking closely at natgas throughput, the numbers, one could tell when there was a storm, or a tech had a sick day. But these are other databases, along with Facebook and google and amazon, to be collated and aggregated and munched as the...

...the whole world is being monitored and recorded in real time...

...and the AI learns.

"The first time that Congress has asked the Attorney General to prosecute himself?"

Oddly there were only 67 votes against that. That's a scandal, perhaps people that hsh listens to weren't calling it a scandal.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

or maybe Wiki?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal


ranked for severity, F&F would appear in the low 600s on the list of things Trump has personally done while in office.

that the House branch of the Stupid Party got together to throw a tantrum about a pseudo-scandal manufactured in order to damage Obama isn't exactly news, or proof of anything about Obama.

Oddly there were only 67 votes against that

Most Ds boycotted the vote in protest at the blatantly politicised process. Did you not know that, or did you forget to mention it?

Marty is trolling.

no, he's not. he's all in on this stuff.

i invite everyone to go look at the substance of the issue for which holder was held in contempt of congress.

and you know what? obama's not the oresident anymore. bill clinton's not the president anymore. hillary's not the president, nor is she secretary of state.

donald trump is the president. his latest caper is asserting that (a) he can't obstruct justice because he is the chief executive, therefore the feds all work for him, so he's really running the investigation, so therefore how could he obstruct it, and (b) even if he was charged with something, even though he won't be, because he has done nothing wrong, he can just pardon himself.

he has out-nixoned nixon. which takes some doing.

he's a crook. he's a crook, the investigation will land where it lands, and we will all deal with whatever comes out of it. which could basically be almost anything.

i didn't vote for the guy. this is not my mess, i just have to deal, like everyone else. including all of trump's fans and supporters.

suck it up, buttercup. next time don't vote for a crook.

Someone riddle me this. If Attorney General Holder was suppressing information at the Justice Department . . . why hasn't Attorney General Sessions made it available to Congress now? It's not like any Democrat could stop him.

For that matter, why hasn't Trump's State Department made public all the horrible facts about Benghazi? Wouldn't it be great for Republicans to prove that they were right all along? So why haven't they?

oh you

Marty is "all in" on "(Republican) policies", he tells us. In pursuit of those "(Republican) policies", any attack on any Democrat is justified, because if any Democrat has any power at all, those "(Republican) policies" are likely to be thwarted. And that would make Marty's butt hurt.

Furthermore, any malfeasance, incompetence, or outright criminality on the part of He, Trump must be defended, because no price is too high to pay for "(Republican) policies".

Does anybody see the common theme here?

--TP

Since it's an open thread, there's this (for anyone who hasn't seen it yet):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-would-not-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2018/06/04/50c68cf8-6802-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html

Note that it's a 7-2 decision, so not even a close call, let alone a strictly partisan one.

unfortunately, it wasn't a decision about the thing that troubles us here. they punted on that one.

Votes in the House do not make a scandal. General public outrage does. I was wondering how long it would take for Marty to bring up F&F, since that's usually the go-to for "conservatives" when anyone says that Obama's was a (relatively, at least) scandal-free presidency.

Trump is so bad that the scandal meter is way out of calibration, or perhaps has even blown a fuse. He's exhausting.

And just like that, another drop in the bucket for this circus of an administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/pruitt-asked-help-finding-apartment-used-mattress-trump-160204559--abc-news-topstories.html

unfortunately, it wasn't a decision about the thing that troubles us here. they punted on that one.

Yeah. Given that Kennedy wrote it, I suspect he decided this wasn't the case he wanted to use to set the precedent banning discrimination against same-sex couples and negotiated this as a placeholder. It's really an invitation for the lower courts to tee up one or more other cases that lack the (apparently) open hostility showed by some of the Colorado commissioners.

I also view this as an indicator that Kennedy will be back next term.

So why haven't they?

It's a Derp Deep State thing. We are not on the Need to Know list.

Will Saletan on Twitter:

Set a toddler loose in your home, and you’ll discover what needs to be childproofed. Set Trump loose in your government, and you’ll discover what needs to be crook-proofed.

(ht BJ)

Question for wj:

If it turns out that tomorrow's "non-partisan" primaries in California result in races where 2 Republicans advance to the general with single-digit vote percentages, will you be glad or sorry?

--TP

Mostly, and regardless of that outcome, I'm sorry that we haven't (yet!) combined open primaries with "single transferable vote". The open primary was a good idea . . . which, as happens, is proving to have some flaws when actually put into practice.

Think of California as just the latest in the states-as-experimental-sites thing. It will take us a few tries to get it right. But once we do, I suspect that whatever we come up with will get adopted in much of the rest of the country.

It would be nice, of course, if we managed to get it perfect the first time. And if folks like Nunes get re-elected this year thanks to the scenario that Tony lays out, it will be unfortunate.

Top two primary is a really dumb idea.

wj: ... it will be unfortunate

Benjamin Disraeli allegedly once remarked:

Well, if Gladstone fell into the Thames, that would be a misfortune; and if anybody pulled him out, that would be a calamity.
I mention that because calamities begin as misfortunes most of the time.

Imagine what would happen if, come November, you and everybody else in CA could only choose between two Republicans for governor, because the platoon of Democrats running in your jungle primary split about 70% of the vote fairly equally among themselves. What odds would you give on "single transferable vote" becoming law in the next 4 years?

Experimentation is all well and good, as long as any "unfortunate" consequences of the experiment can actually be undone. In the long run, of course, they will be undone in most cases -- which would be fine if
1) people lived forever; and
2) you discount all the fuss and bother, meanwhile.
I acknowledge that Californians -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- had every right to play with fire in the noble cause of "non-partisanship" or "bipartisanship" or whatever. If they decide they burned themselves, well, maybe they will figure out that "partisanship" is what elections are actually about.

--TP

The real Holder scandal was "too big to jail".

Colorado's mail-in ballots for the June 26 primaries go out today. Unaffiliated voters will get both a (D) and an (R) ballot, but can return at most one. I have a bet with my neighbor that few voters will screw up and return both; he expects a massive error rate.

Top two primary is a really dumb idea.

Absolutely. IF you accept the premise that political parties, as institutions, are important for a democracy. Something, it might be pointed out, that our Founding Fathers didn't believe.

The question for those arguing for "free association" has to be: What about those who choose not to associate? Should they be denied a say in who can be nominated? Bear in mind that, in California today, they outnumber all but one of the political parties.

The question for those arguing for "free association" has to be: What about those who choose not to associate? Should they be denied a say in who can be nominated?

They could sign the petition to get an independent candidate on the ballot. Is that not possible in California? Or should I say *was* it not possible?

I would say that if you're going to allow an effectively unlimited # of candidates on the ballot, you should at least have some kind of run-off system instead of taking only the top two, who could get in with 9% or 7% of the vote, etc.

Tony, it's entirely possible to change our current experiment. Or abandon it entirely. So far, a majority of the voters don't seem inclined to abandon it altogether.

We shouldn't be surprised if it takes an unhappy result to convince people that we need to change something. That tends to be true for any proposed change.

Will the change take longer than you (or I) might prefer? Sure. Will there be negative consequences meanwhile? Possibly. For example, it is entirely possible that thete will be no Republicans up for Governor or Senator in November. Which is expected to reduce turnout among Republicans. Whether or not you consider that a bug or a feature kind of depends on who you favor in the down-ballot races.

They could sign the petition to get an independent candidate on the ballot. Is that not possible in California?

There's nothing to stop an independent from running in the primary. And a couple are.

As for the general election, there is a provision for write-in candidates (i.e. someone other than the top two). Their name won't appear, but votes for them will be counted.

Which suggests that, if Democrats are sufficiently unhappy with a choice of two Republicans, or vis versa, they are not totally without options.

I would say that if you're going to allow an effectively unlimited # of candidates on the ballot, you should at least have some kind of run-off system instead of taking only the top two, who could get in with 9% or 7% of the vote, etc.

In Colorado, you can get on the general election ballot as a candidate for President for $5,000. In 2016, IIRC, there were 22 candidates. I have a friend who fancifully claims to be a member of the Cocktail Party, dedicated to drinking one's way through election season. I've offered to put up $50 towards getting him on the ballot, and making phone calls looking for 99 other people who think that's a reasonable platform. If I were to win the lottery, I'd just do it, for the purely selfish pleasure of watching his reaction on the Skype call when I told him, "The Cocktail Party's on the ballet in CO, you for Prez and me for VP. The one-page web site's up. How many votes do you think we can get?"

Getting on the ballot for a Congressional office, or for a state office, is considerably more difficult. Being a member of one of the recognized political parties is an enormous step up.

"why hasn't Attorney General Sessions made it available to Congress now? It's not like any Democrat could stop him."

Because during the end of his Presidency when no one much paid attention, Obama was forced by the courts to release them.

Then Trump came in and said we should move forward instead of look backward. Besides, a couple of ATF people got fired for it, gave up a few dealers and now when they find one of those guns it's "no big deal".

Dumba$$, that helped a lot.

The actual scandal is us, that we're sitting around talking about whether "Fast and Furious" was a scandal [can you actually describe that "scandal in your own words, Marty?].

What's really a scandal is that we're not all flying down to Texas, where Jeff Merkley was, to ask WTF is happening with these kids whose parents valiantly tried to come to the US to save them from pervasive gang violence and certain murder.

I gave you a link from National Geographic, FFS. Let's get it together and decide right now to say something to our representatives, and to each other, and to our twitter friends, and facebook people: We do not tolerate this Nazi bullshit.

No, we don't tolerate it. And any of us who can do some street protests, we need to do that now. Maybe show up in Texas? Maybe grab some friends, and take a sign somewhere else. I'm an introvert, but I'm going to figure out something to do (besides call my Senators, which I've already done. Tom Garrett, my Congressman is a bust.) by this weekend. Because I'm done. Aren't we all done?

Livefeed on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jeffmerkley/videos/10155510407061546/

Bush: adopted torture as government policy. Invaded Iraq on false pretences. Started two wars with no idea how to end them. Asleep at the wheel while the financial system blew up...

Trump: knows nothing. Lies, boasts, demeans. Uses his office to make money for his shady businesses. Separates children from their parents as a matter of immigration policy...

Obama: a terrible president because, er, he withheld some documents about what law-enforcement guys in Arizona had done for a while. Documents which Congress has now had for two years and made nothing of.

Seriously Marty?

Absolutely. IF you accept the premise that political parties, as institutions, are important for a democracy.

I would accept that premise. You do not? Please do name one nation with a fully functioning form of democracy that does not have political parties.

I would say that fact pretty much extinguishes Something,

Yeah. Just what is extinguished here?

it might be pointed out, that our Founding Fathers didn't believe.

You mean the same FFer's that formed into political parties before the ink was dry on the document? Seriously? The document pretty much lays down institutional arrangements that mandate two dominant political parties.

The question for those arguing for "free association" has to be: What about those who choose not to associate?

What about them?

Should they be denied a say in who can be nominated?

They are not "denied" anything. They can nominally join the party to participate in the nomination process. They can form their own party (pssst...THEY DON'T DO THIS!!!!). They can retain their individual purity by abstention. They have agency. They have choices. If the goal is to increase 'participation' top 2 does not cut it.

Bear in mind that, in California today, they outnumber all but one of the political parties.

Bear in mind most of them don't participate at all. If they don't care, why should we?

hey, hey, wj, how many deep red states have adopted "top two" today?

NONE!

Think about it.

Documents which Congress has now had for two years and made nothing of.

That is indeed a puzzler. I can only surmise they exceeded the Constitutionally mandated scandal quota, and could go no further.

Then Trump came in and said we should move forward instead of look backward.

Asserts facts not in evidence.

Well Obama did expand one of those two wars, he even claimed it. Then had no plan out. In fact ran on the premise Bush had used resources for the wrong war. And we're still there.

So is that one Bushes or Obamas?

Marty,

Was offing Usama bin Laden something you object to? Was backing off Tora Bora to gear up for Iraq a good "(Republican) policy"? Do you support or oppose He, Trump's "(Republican) policy" of shoveling billions more into the Pentagon?

My new slogan is
Make America Decent Again.
I bet you agree with it. But I suspect that "decent" means something different to you than it does to people who think a "(Republican) policy" of separating asylum-seekers from their children is indecent, and that a president who asserts he has the power to pardon himself is not (r)epublican.

--TP

I blame Bush for getting us into multiple "boots on the ground" messes overseas. I blame Obama for not getting us out. I expressed concerns during primary season that Clinton, likely to be relegated on domestic matters to caretaking Obama's legacy, had shown a tendency to such overseas misadventures. Trump said many things, often contradictory (but included things like snatching troops out of Europe, the Middle East, and South Korea, not of which seems to have received any serious consideration post-election). A pox on all their houses. But I voted for Clinton because I believed she would be a stout wall against an insane Republican Congress on domestic matters.

To date, I am surprised that Republican leadership in Congress were themselves surprised that kicking millions off their health insurance, a debt-funded tax cut, and an environmental policy based on propping up coal and nuclear turned out to be broadly unpopular. Enough so that getting a simple majority together has proven difficult.

wj: What about those who choose not to associate? Should they be denied a say in who can be nominated?

"Nomination" is like the "formula" for Coke or Pepsi. It is a private "association" deciding, privately, what to offer to the general public -- which then gets to decide which "formula" it likes better. You want a say in what Coke's (or Pepsi's) "formula" should be? Buy stock in Coke (or Pepsi). You want a 3rd "formula"? Buy stock in Dr Pepper. If you choose not to, you are still free to buy whichever beverage you prefer, when you get thirsty.

I wish that "we" could come up with a voting system wherein, if you vote in a particular party's primary, your vote automatically goes to that party's ultimate nominee in the general election. Will that drastically reduce participation in primaries? Sure. But any party that hopes to win the general election will have a strong incentive to nominate somebody who can attract "independents".

Under such a system you (wj) would need to gamble that your chance to help nominate a "moderate" Republican outweighs the risk that your vote will help elect a RWNJ in the general. That would put you in a tough spot, but would it be any tougher than the spot Donald or novakant would be in?

The true "partisans" -- the voters who are not squeamish about locking in their votes ar primary time -- would doubtless include sapient, and Marty. And me. And McKinney, I bet. And the general election might come down to a SJW vs RWNJ contest. And, oh happy day, the "independents" would pick the winner, being by far the biggest voting bloc (if you'll pardon the expression) under my proposal.

BTW, it's my strong preference that Government stay strictly out of the business of facilitating "primaries". But I would happily endorse Government making public facilities available to political parties if we could get "lock-in" in exchange.

--TP

Was offing Usama bin Laden a partisan goal? Was it Obama's incredible intellect or superior sleuthing capabilities that made the difference there? He single handedly halo jumped into Pakistan and took him out?

I am actually against increasing the Defense budget. I think the surplus generated by the tax cuts should pay down the debt and expand social security.

I think separating asylum seekers from their children while processing may be the best solution to protecting some of the children. The specific accommodations need to be acceptable and timelines shortened.

Every President in my lifetime believed their power was essentially unlimited.

Trump can't figure out how to be powerful for real. Clinton was a philanderer who used the power for easier, Bush used it for revenge, Obama used it for personal gain, Trump is not capable of figuring out how to use it except for personal aggrandizement. He's like the skinny kid that becomes Mr Olympia, kicking sand in everyone's face because he can.

He's a douche but probably not a dangerous one. Meanwhile some of the stuff he signs is ok with me.

To date, I am surprised that Republican leadership in Congress were themselves surprised that kicking millions off their health insurance, a debt-funded tax cut, and an environmental policy based on propping up coal and nuclear turned out to be broadly unpopular.

One of the serious risks of getting into an information bubble is that it makes it real easy to assume that the whole world thinks the same way you do. Until actual implementation abruptly means that all those real people start paying attention to the insanity you have been spouting. And are moved to express their views at the ballot box. Awkward, that.

I think separating asylum seekers from their children while processing may be the best solution to protecting some of the children. The specific accommodations need to be acceptable and timelines shortened...

They gave you special access to approve the program, did they ?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/sen-jeff-merkley-turned-away-from-border-facility-for-children.html

It is blatantly clear even from this side of the Atlantic that the thrust of the policy is punishment rather than child safety.

Maybe not so clear from a closer up view. This isn't a new policy.

The only policy change is that they don't deport you as a first option, they detain and prosecute if you're denied asylum. That change I disagree with strongly.

What happens while you are detained is the same as it was under the last administration, for safety reasons for the children.

“Under such a system you (wj) would need to gamble that your chance to help nominate a "moderate" Republican outweighs the risk that your vote will help elect a RWNJ in the general. That would put you in a tough spot, but would it be any tougher than the spot Donald or novakant would be in?”

I haven’t read all the thread, but I already do this— that is, lock myself into voting Democratic despite often disliking them. It occurred to me sometime back that we put way too much stress on the duty of individuals to vote and not nearly enough stress on the duty of parties and politicians to be worthy of our votes. This is where you get all the ridicule and disapproval of people too pure to vote and much less criticism of the politicians and parties for low turnout. We owe them our support. They owe us nothing except to be better than the other party. I personally accept that when November rolls around you have three choices—Democrat, Republican, third party or not voting where the last two are effectively the same. So the Democrats use this to argue that you have a moral duty to vote for them. Republicans prefer a low turnout and you don’t hear as much from them about how everyone must vote. From them you hear claims about people voting who supposedly aren’t citizens.. The system, including the moral browbeating on the Democratic side, is in the interest of the people who run the parties as they are— that’s the Iron Law of Institutions at work. I suppose that goes back to Milton. Better to reign in Hell, etc....

Whether there is some mechanical fix to this I don’t know.

This isn't a new policy.

that's utterly disingenuous.

yes, Obama could have legally done things the way Trump is, and for the same reasons, but he didn't.

that's the difference. same rules, different interpretations and implementations.

for another example: the rules for using your position as President for enriching yourself and your family while you're in office were the same for Obama as for Trump; Trump is interpreting them differently.

I think the surplus generated by the tax cuts should...

There is no surplus generated by the tax cuts. The tax cuts have increased the deficit.

The last time there was a budget surplus was at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. Because he increased taxes.

Let's leave discussion of how to spend a surplus until there's some prospect of its happening. It would be wrong of me to advise you to hold your breath.

Was offing Usama bin Laden a partisan goal?

Yes. The question of what to do if bin Laden were found in Pakistan came up in one of the debates between Obama and the Republic candidate McCain. Obama said the US should act unilaterally if necessary. McCain said it shouldn't.

The actual scandal is us, that we're sitting around talking about whether "Fast and Furious" was a scandal

bingo

I think the surplus generated by the tax cuts

show me the money

What happens while you are detained is the same as it was under the last administration...

Not so much disingenuous, as flat out untrue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/30/fact-checking-immigration-spin-on-separating-families-and-1500-lost-children/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8d0914f4ba72

And, while we're on the subject of his majesty Donald I ...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/law-professors-torch-trump-memo-624157
"The Office of the President is not a get-out-of-jail free card for lawless behavior," the professors wrote in their letter, obtained by POLITICO. "Indeed, our country’s Founders made it clear in the Declaration of Independence that they did not believe that even a king had such powers; they specifically cited King George’s obstruction of justice as among the 'injuries and usurpations' that justified independence. Our Founders would not have created — and did not create — a Constitution that would permit the President to use his powers to violate the laws for corrupt and self-interested reasons."...

Maybe not so clear from a closer up view. This isn't a new policy.

The only policy change is that they don't deport you as a first option.

No, the (or, at least, one major) change is that it is now applied to families who have NOT entered illegally, but have merely showed up at a regular border station and duly applied for asylum. They haven't broken they law, they've followed it to the letter.

Not meaning to pile on, but the jungle primary system seems, from my cursory examination of it, one of those ideas that California seems to specialize in: Addressing a problem in such a way as to cause a lot more problems down the road. cf Prop 13.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-friedersdorf-prop-13-20180604-story.html

I should add, the article is by Conor Friedersdorf, who I don't really think much of, but what he says about Prop 13 I think is correct.

Vancouver
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/business/economy/vancouver-housing.html

Obama used it for personal gain,

[citation required]

I think the surplus generated by the tax cuts should pay down the debt and expand social security.

Others have addressed this, so this is poor form on my part, I suppose. But, Jesus H. Christ on a Ritz cracker, what the H.E. double-hockey-sticks are you smoking, Marty?

Just remember, people: Marty is better-informed than the average Republican. Also kinder, gentler, and less inclined to venerate He, Trump.

If that doesn't scare the bejeesus out of you ...

Make
America
Decent
Again

ITMFA

--TP

as long as we're not demanding that our representatives give clear and direct statements about Trump's assertion that he is above the law, we're doomed.

I'm pretty sure Trump would have applauded initially, in a state of cluelessness equal to that of the rest of the crowd, were he in attendance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/04/a-kentucky-crowd-cheered-a-valedictorian-for-quoting-trump-then-he-told-them-it-was-obama/?utm_term=.5e7baed7933a

Trump is not capable of figuring out how to use it except for personal aggrandizement.

For "personal aggrandizement" please read (a) making money for himself and his kids, and (b) trying to stay out of jail.

I agree that Clinton abused his office. For that, he was impeached and disbarred.

Bush is lucky he avoided being called to account for war crimes. Obama wanted to look forward, not back.

Obama has... made lots of money by writing books and giving speeches. Like every other national figure I can think of.

Trump's fate remains to be seen.

No, the (or, at least, one major) change is that it is now applied to families who have NOT entered illegally, but have merely showed up at a regular border station and duly applied for asylum. They haven't broken they law, they've followed it to the letter.

This is a plain fact.

curious, i googled "Ryan tax cuts surplus".

this showed up:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government swung to a surplus of $214.3 billion in April, primarily reflecting the revenue from that month's annual tax filing deadline.

The Treasury Department reported Thursday that last month's surplus increased 17.4 percent from a year ago. The April surplus reflected both an increase in tax revenue and a decrease in the costs of certain health care and benefit programs that were pulled forward to March.

that's not unusual, since taxes are due in April.

the article concludes with:

For the first half of this budget year, the deficit totaled $385.4 billion. This marked 12 percent jump from the same period last year, an increase largely driven by the tax cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget deficit this year will total $804 billion, a $140 billion increase from last year. The yearly budget deficit is projected to approach $1 trillion in 2019 and remain above that threshold for the foreseeable future.

Thoughts on listening to Time Has Told Me and re-reading the biographies.

I massively relate to this guy, except for the three albums thing. Wherefrom does this damn compulsion to do stuff come from? Why ambition and disappointment? I blame socializing, and not enough reading. I have always been careful to repress any early stirrings of creativity

What we got is the lyrics and music, the voice. There is a whole lot more here than shy and withdrawn, there's observation and empathy and compassion and sometimes optimism.

Been thinking about, listening to, similar but different writers, well geniuses, Drake and Townes vZ and Guy Clark, the different kinds of nouns these three use as metaphors. Clark is in a world of objects and things and tools ie Randall Knife Boats to Build; Townes uses relationship and feeling words as material in a very abstracted mise en scene with place words mountain river but not the nature lyricism Drake likes.

I do go on.

IIRC, Louisiana also has a "jungle primary".

Those LA types just got mixed up, I guess.

Those who think that they have the perfect electoral system need to bone up on Arrow's Theorem, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

Consider the following scenario:

1) Mueller indicts He, Trump.

2) Next day He, Putin pulls the trigger on an international provocation He has been holding in reserve against such an emergency.

3) Americans dutifully rally around "our president" in light of the crisis.

4) He, Trump rides the wave of "patriotism" long enough to pay His master back by pulling the US out of NATO, say.

5) Republicans rejoice.

Any bets on whether He, Putin is too dumb, Americans are too smart, or Republicans are too honorable, for this scenario to be impossible?

--TP


"No, the (or, at least, one major) change is that it is now applied to families who have NOT entered illegally, but have merely showed up at a regular border station and duly applied for asylum. They haven't broken they law, they've followed it to the letter.
This is a plain fact."

Pretty much just what I said. Those people used to just get told to go home. Now they get held. That's the difference. I object. They should just get told to go home.

Marty, do you disapprove of granting asylum in all cases, no matter what? Or do you have very specific conditions under which you think it should be granted, and if so, can you elaborate on what they are?

Where wil it all end??? Now this: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/06/05/miss-america-competition-eliminates-swimsuit-category-and-wont-judge-on-physical-appearance/

The other day I wrote that America, the murderous conservative vermin among us, who must be destroyed, is the kingpin of gunrunners in the world.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/06/nras-active-participation-mexican-crime

The Mexican government should send assassins across the border to hunt down and kill American gun purveyors, manufacturers and gunshop owners, and the NRA officials who officiate over the pigfucking republican party, all of whom who supply the arms.

Count,
why should the Mexican government "send assassins", when they could just remotely drone-strike gun shows terrorist arms depots?

It's just so much easier to mess with the video and claim "they looked islamic, see??!?"

And people wonder why there's gun violence in Chicago.

They should just get told to go home.

I take it the real Marty meaning here is "they" should be denied entry to the US of A ON THE SPOT.

For those who claim to worship "the rule of law" (cough, cough) it might do once and while to actually, you know, look it up.

Pretty much just what I said. Those people used to just get told to go home. Now they get held. That's the difference.

no.

people attempting to enter the country without a proper visa used to be sent home. with their kids. or, they may have been released into the local community, depending. also with their kids. now they are held, without their kids.

but those aren't the people that were actually being discussed.

the people being discussed were people who present themselves, at the border, at an official point of entry, and apply for asylum based on a credible (to them at least) fear of harm. all in compliance with US law.

folks requesting asylum are and were *also* often held by USCIS, sometimes in a detention center, sometimes in a hotel. until Sessions' policy changes, those folks were not separated from their kids. now, they are.

No russell, if they were held they were separated from their kids. The incidence of people being held is what has changed.

Marty,

As a naturalized citizen, I have two things to say to you:
1) The US is my country at least as much as it is yours; and
2) You, the execrable Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and nativist yahoo He, Trump sure talk a lot alike about people who want to become Americans.

WTF do you mean by "The incidence of people being held is what has changed" by the way?

--TP

He gives the tune a 6 out of 10. The lyrics aren't memorable, but you can dance to it. Maybe grab a pussy or two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozz7K-QNF4Q

Deport his kneeling nigger Mexican rapist, faggot ass from this shithole full of republican animals and for God's sake, separate that poor kid Baron from him, because we don't know what sort of conservative molestation is going on there.

In case anyone missed it
https://www.theonion.com/ice-agent-decides-he-wants-kids-after-seeing-incredible-1826461558?

and this new one

https://www.theonion.com/ice-agent-trying-to-think-of-fun-name-for-jail-cell-bef-1826545410

I have a bad feeling that the Onion will continue to have material to work with for the long haul.

This, from LGM, points out some home truths
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/06/nras-active-participation-mexican-crime

No russell, if they were held they were separated from their kids.

Do have cites for any of these assertions you make, Marty. Do you think there’s no way to detain families in facilities for families?

Marty: No russell, if they were held they were separated from their kids.

hsh: Do have cites for any of these assertions you make, Marty. Do you think there’s no way to detain families in facilities for families?

I don't have a ton of time for doing someone else's homework right now, and it's hard to find any hard data in a hurry, just lots of assertions. But this post from the Detention Watch Network gives the lie to Marty's categorical "if they were held they were separated." Because clearly, there was in fact a period where holding families together in family detention facilities was seen as a step down from the prior practice of not holding them in detention at all.

There's also this.

So...any evidence that these people who are focused on immigration are wrong and that in fact "if they were held they were separated from their kids" would be welcome.

Or, what hsh said.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fact-check-trump-blames-democrats-his-policy-separating-kids-parents-n880091


"That is correct. But under U.S. protocol, if parents are jailed, their children are separated from them because the children aren't charged with a crime.

So while separating families might not have been the administration's intention, it is an obvious consequence of the policy."

NIS policy, and subsequently DHS policy, has consistently been that, if an adult relative or qualified third party was available, minors would be placed with them rather than held in an institutional setting.

accompanied minors were to be held with parents apart from the adult population.

you can look it up.

Seeking asylum is not a crime.

From that same short mishmash of a piece:

The U.N. human rights office has called on the Trump administration to "immediately halt" the separations, saying "detention is never in the best interests of the child and always constitutes a child rights violation."

From here:

Are children being taken from their parents after they cross the border into the United States?

Yes. On May 7, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would begin prosecuting every person who crossed the Southwest border illegally — or at least attempt to prosecute “100 percent” — even if some of them could or should be treated as asylum seekers, as the American Civil Liberties Union has argued.

My emphasis.

This is a vicious policy perpetrated by vicious, cruel people.

Corrected a missing tag-ending, and with that I'm done multi-tasking for the night and especially done wasting my time arguing about whether vicious cruelty is vicious or not.

Seeking asylum is not a crime.

in many cases, neither is entering into or remaining in the US without proper documentation.

this bullshit appeals to some people. to the degree that those folks vote, they probably vote for trump.

he knows his audience.

I think it's important to be as precise as possible in what we object to. To repeat, the directive to arrest anyone attempting to enter the country without documentation is what I object to as I said upstream.

The basic policy to separate children from parents who have been arrested is a perfectly logical policy, and not new.

The result is unnecessary and, thus cruel, separation of children from parents.

However, every time there is a big to do about a policy that turns out to be not precise HE gets a free pass for ten more lies because, see THEY just exaggerate everything. Besides are we supposed to put these people up in a Holiday Inn? HE already condemned the separation, it isn't his choice, that's all fake news.

first, you seem to be under the impression that everyone is defending obama-era immigration policy. Obama was a freaking hard-ass and I think his policies were crap. trumps are just worse.

prior to 9/11 normal practice was to not detain families at all. after 9/11 we all lost our minds and decided the thing to do was to hold families, typically in reprised jails run by private companies, see also hutto detention center.

accompanied minors are in a weird gray area. there is clear law about unaccompanied minors, see Flores v reno. minors arriving with adult family members are, perversely, kind of a legal jump ball. DHS handles them based on internal policy.

the things that have changed under sessions are the expansion of the use of for-profit holding centers, for everyone, the decision to detain everyone rather than release non-dangerous arrivals pending their status hearings, and the decision to pursue all cases - including asylum applications and civil violations - as criminal cases.

the net result of all of that has been the increased separation of parents and children. among other things.

I object to holding asylum applicants and civil violators, whether adults or children, in detention for more than one or two overnights.

I object to separating children from family members in any case other than criminal incarceration, full stop.

I object to the use of private for-profit prisons, whether for civil or criminal detention, for immigration violations or any other violation.

hope that helps.

regarding trumps objection to separating families due to "Democrat laws", the fact that Trump is a lying sack if crap is a given. if he is talking, it can be assumed he is lying, any further discussion of the veracity of his statements is superfluous.

background.

background

ICE policy

repurposed, not reprised, jails.

if there's anything I can't stand, it's a freaking machine that thinks it knows what I really meant to say.

I spell better than it does, too.

jumped-up pile of sand.

that's all fake news

"fake news" has become the term of art used by trump and his fans to dismiss any information they don't care to engage.

to me it is, prima facie, an indication of bad faith.

if you want to claim you're not picking a side, then don't pick a side.

Marty, it looks to me like you are ignoring my comments at the moment (there was one before my 02.37 above), but on the offchance you aren't, I'd be grateful if you could just confirm whether you are against granting asylum in all cases, and if not, what the exceptions are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad