« Free College for All and Other National Platform Proposals | Main | Women's World Cup (yetanotheropenthread) »

June 24, 2019

Comments

"has everyone else been in favor of open borders for the last 69 years?

Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 27, 2019 at 05:51 PM"

Nope, just since 1986 when the Democrats promised we wouldnt be here again. Pass an amnesty, we will close the border, we promise, trust us.

Yet, here we are. Same song and dance. We dont believe you anymore. You want open borders, you just know if you admit it even a lot of Democrats wont vote for it.

Even on the stage last night the idea of decriminalizing illegal immigration got no reaction, that is btw, open borders.

Nope, just since 1986 when the Democrats promised we wouldnt be here again. Pass an amnesty, we will close the border, we promise, trust us.

The above is mere propaganda verging on a lie.

You know who wants open borders? Employers. They are addicted to cheap labor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Marty,

Unless you favor a national ID card for everybody (including your native-ass self) your bleating about "open borders" is partisan clap-trap in the service of He, Trump.

Keep on fooling yourself about what "Democrats" won't vote for if you like, of course. We need comic relief around here.

--TP

Having not seen the debate, I'm unclear on what the decriminalization of illegal entry proposal was. Some violations are currently civil and some criminal; which criminal penalty was to be downgraded?

Actually TP we have those. They are passports. They give you the right to come into the country. Visas do too, but with conditions. Generally.

I have no idea what this id claptrap you're on about is supposed to mean.

Ok, it's US Code 1325, which has to do with entering other than through a designated point of entry.

Come through the front door and overstay, civil violation.

Come through the back door, criminal.

The proposal is to make both civil.

I'm pretty sure open borders means "it's not a violation, period", but IANAL.

Even on the stage last night the idea of decriminalizing illegal immigration got no reaction, that is btw, open borders.

I thought two Democrats had a disagreement over it - openly expressed in a way that might be called a reaction. Democrats need a better hivemind.

Marty,

I will explain "this id claptrap" one more time, just for you.

A real, mandatory, nationwide ID card that validates your presence in the US, not just your right to enter it, and without which you could not "take somebody's job" or "go on welfare" or do any of the things you imagine (or pretend) that "illegal immigrants" do to make He, Trump's America not-great, is what I'm "on about".

You enter the US legally, whether through a port of entry or through a maternity ward, and you get a card. Only card-carrying Americans get to work for pay, rent an apartment, drive a car, buy or sell property, etc. People who do not have a card don't get to do any of those things, so even if they manage to sneak in, they won't be able to live here very long. They will stick out like sore thumbs; you can easily find them and deport them.

People who come for a visit get a temporary card, valid for the length of their visa. Overstay your visa and it doesn't matter that you're a blond, blue-eyed Aryan; you're spotted as an "illegal immigrant" just like any swarthy Spanish-speaking person.

If you still want to claim you don't understand what I'm "on about", go ahead -- knock yourself out.

--TP

has everyone else been in favor of open borders for the last 69 years?

Perhaps someone can help me out here.

The vast majority of those who are here illegally came in legally, but overstayed their visa. So to keep them out, you have to literally close the border. That is, don't allow anyone in or out. (Note that even North Korea hasn't managed that. And they have a much shorter border.) Which is nonsense.

So what is actually meant by "open borders"? As far as I can tell (and this is where I need help) it means letting in "those people" -- regardless of how they get here. If not, what are we really, honestly, asking for? I mean, walls are pretty symbols and all, but everybody knows they actually don't do much at all to keep out the majority of those who are here illegally.

Personally, this is one area where I could do with a return to the middle of the last century. You know, that wonderful time Trump supporters seem to wax nostalgic over. We had programs in place to let people (primarily from Mexico) enter temporarily to work -- aka "take American jobs". Lots of people, mostly farm workers. And the Canadian border was so open that for most of it you could wander back and forth totally unnoticed. The only resemblance to controls were at airports and on major highways -- and even there you could mostly just drive on thru without even getting out of the car, no documents check or anything.

So, help me out with a definition of what "open borders" really means. (Other than a return to how we ran immigration for the first century or more of our nations history, of course. You know, our founding values and all.) If we're going to denounce it, it would be nice to have an honest definition of what it means.

A real, mandatory, nationwide ID card that validates your presence in the US, not just your right to enter it

Without this massive intrusion of the government into our lives, it's essentially impossible to enforce any kind of serious immigration restrictions. I mean, do YOU have anything (other than a passport, which lots of people don't have) which actually proves that you were born here and therefore have a right to be here?

I happen to have a copy of my birth certificate. Which only proves that someone with the name I am using was born here. But does nothing to prove that I am actually that person. And without a national ID card, issued at birth and, I assume, renewed regularly, there's no way to demonstrate that I am.

At most, I can swear under penalty of perjury that I am. But why would you believe me? Especially since I don't have any personal memories of the event. For all I know, my parents picked up an infant somewhere else and brought me back -- those being the days when getting in was pretty simple, especially if you were a blue eyed blond.

e-Verify:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-president-trump-will-have-us-all-carrying-federal-id-cards

E-Verify:

https://www.e-verify.gov/

From JDT's first link:

The cards will be “biometric,” of course, the IDs will have, at a minimum, a digital photo and digital fingerprints and machine-readable technology, which usually means a chip.
This is just so old-tech. The obvious biometric is a full DNA record. Much harder to scam than mere photographs or even fingerprints. Not to mention (great plus for Trumpists) you can use it to determine where someone's ancestors came from. What's not to like?

What's not to like?

The embarassment to all the Aryans, secure in their purity of blood, that find out that way that they have n-words, redskins, gooks and the like (worst of all: Hebrews) galore in their ancestry.
Icelanders were at least not overly surprised that their womenfolk was at least 1/3 Irish (it just verified what their own medieval chronicles said). US WASPS on the other hand used to be very diligent in hiding their race defilement, so the truth will hit hard. Of course, we already know they will cry conspiracy accusing the liberal government of falsifying the DNA analysis in order to sow discord among the true white merkins.

Open borders means something like the Schengen Agreement in the EU.

If it is against the law, whether civil or criminal, to enter a country, you don't have an open border.

Based on all that my answer to the id question is to shrug. To get a state id in Mass you pretty much have to have papers. One of the issues with some states providing illegals with ids is it makes moving more difficult because the new state cant take your old license as proof of legal residence.

But, At some point you could get a Texas birth certificate online with pretty minimal knowledge. Identification is pretty easy to buy.

The whole aryan blah blah is stupid. If you're illegal you're illegal, why does the color of your skin matter? Cops in most of the SW would be hard pressed to choose which Hispanic they should profile. Huge parts of Florida, Ny same thing. I'm just not sure this point is meaningful except to assign evil motives to those who disagree with you.

If you genuinely wanted to reduce illegal immigration, you'd go after employers - introduce strict liability for anyone employing an illegal immigrant, and enforce the law rigorously.

But you can't do that, or crops would rot in the ground and rich people would have to pay up for domestic staff.

More importantly, employers often see it as in their economic interests to vote Republican. You can't risk changing that.

The children of illegal immigrants don't have votes however. Lock them up and you gain votes from anyone who believes your lies that doing it improves their employment prospects.

Immigration is a problem. Locking up children is evil. One does not justify the other. I regret that so many Republicans find it so easy to approve of evildoing.

"open borders" is this week's "socialism" - a semantically meaningless phrase that the right uses as an insult against the left. but since it's an insult based on a caricature they've collectively created, it means nothing to anyone else. that's why we all all at them like they're fucking crazy when they use it.

"Locking up children is evil. One does not justify the other."

I agree with this, if that were happening. where do you suggest we house unaccompanied minors? 4.6B probably improves the ability to house them more comfortably, thank Pelosi for making that happen.

We dont want to put them on the streets, we placed a bunch of them last year and "lost" them. The mixture of overwhelming numbers and inadequate process created a crisis that just months ago people here denied existed. Preferring to pretend that some people would actually prefer that children be mistreated.

So, I expect the facilities and process will catch up with the numbers. It's great that there has been so much publicity as that certainly ensured the passage of the bill yesterday.

The whole aryan blah blah is stupid. If you're illegal you're illegal, why does the color of your skin matter?

It matters because, absent a universal national ID of some kind, the only way for those attempting to enforce laws against illegal presence in the country is to make assumptions about individuals that they encounter based on their looks.

Look Hispanic? Expect to get stopped repeatedly . . . even if you're a veteran whose family has been here for generations. Ditto any other non-Aryan population that the government of the day decides to get exercised about. You may think it's a challenge in some parts of the country. But it's happening currently. (That example of a Hispanic vet wasn't invented out of whole cloth.)

I completely agree with you that race shouldn't matter. But current reality is that it does.

decriminalizing illegal immigration got no reaction, that is btw, open borders.

no it isn't.

the people coming here now, seeking asylum, are not illegal in any sense. and no wall, no amount of thugs with balaclavas, is going to stop them.

people who come do come here illegally get deported - Obama deported millions of them.

you're so hung up on opposing the left, you've had to move the battle to your imaginations.

cleek,Except Kamala Harris last night took Obama to task for those deportations. It is your imagination that the people standing on that stage the last two nights weren't espousing policies that create an open border.

California has granted amnesty, drivers licences, free health care, non cooperation with ICE. The policies plus the outrage that ICE would actually enforce the law encourages illegal immigration.

No one I know objects to people going to a port of entry and requesting asylum. Not.one.person.

As for 'unaccompanied minors', it's not called 'family separation' for nothing. Plus a large number of those kids held in those camps we dare not properly name lest we insult crystalline water structures on the driver side of the road* have living relatives in the US and were provided with info of their whereabouts. It took external visitors to get the info from the kids and call those relatives who, it turned out, were in panic because they had no idea what happened to the kids because the detainers had seen no reason to inform them (or were possibly ordered not to by superiors).
I honestly just wait for the revelation that people connected to The Donald are working on an illegal adoption scheme to sell those kids for profit (á la Franco).
It's not incompetence or lack of resources, this is premeditated and the organizers are proud of it.

*unless you're a Limey or Jap.

"Look Hispanic? Expect to get stopped repeatedly "

Where the fnck does this happens? Not where I live, they would have to stop everyone in town. Not in Texas.

Do I believe that it happens, sure. Being stopped repeatedly for being Hispanic? That is a stretch these days.

Unaccompanied minors and family separation overlap, but the majority of unaccompanied minors are just that.

Placing them with relatives is how they got "lost". So yes it is a process priblem. But, more important, does this mean that we should have a program where an unaccompanied minor shows up at the border with a note identifying some relative that we just call the relative and let them come pick up the child?

And no, no one is intentionally mistreating children.

Do I believe that it happens, sure. Being stopped repeatedly for being Hispanic? That is a stretch these days.

Crikey, Marty, Trump only pardoned Arpaio in August 2017. What kind of signal do you suppose that sent to like-minded bastards who wanted to carry on his good work? How recent does "these days" have to be?

Arpaio was convicted, and is now irrelevant. There are 350m people in the US, he represents no generalizable activity.

No one I know objects to people going to a port of entry and requesting asylum.

i guess i imagined the weeks of GOP pants-wetting over the CARAVAN™ .

say, when did crossing the border become a criminal matter?

2005?

how's that working out? made anyone's life any better? no.

has it lead to a policy of family separation? yes.

did we have Open Borders™ before then? no?

fuck the GOP

...if that were happening...

Preferring to pretend that some people would actually prefer that children be mistreated

Separating children from their families was a Trump administration policy, precisely to deter illegal immigration. "If you don't want your child separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally." And it's still happening.

Illegal immigrants make up 4.6% of the US workforce. The most effective deterrent would be to stop that by going after the employers. If you're not willing to do that, it must be because you realise that the US economy needs these workers. So stop locking people up, and look for a way of allowing the people you need to be in the country legally.

I have a state drivers license that, except that I'm grandfathered in, could be traced back to some point where I had to show a passport or birth certificate or other papers verifying I was entitled to permanent or long-term presence. If I were to let it lapse for long enough, I would have to go dig the documents out of the safe deposit box and prove my status again. In my state, if I can't prove that, I could still get a license under some circumstances, but it would note that I didn't prove permanent status.

On the subject of national id, too few of the supposedly informed people entirely miss the second part of the system that is needed. Biometrics simply confirm that a particular id is tied to a particular person. There needs to be a check of the id itself against a database, using some other special value(s), that verifies it's a legitimate id. Forgers will always be able to (eventually) reproduce an id. The big money, though, will be reserved for criminals who develop a way to insert ids into the database.

The mixture of overwhelming numbers and inadequate process created a crisis that just months ago people here denied existed.

Let's clear this up. The "crisis" that didn't and doesn't exist was one of hordes of rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and terrorists crossing the border to cause mayhem in the U.S. of A.

If you ignore the stupidity (i.e. Rump's rhetoric) that sparked the reaction, the reaction might, itself, sound stupid.

Arpaio was convicted, and is now irrelevant. There are 350m people in the US, he represents no generalizable activity.

I think this is wishful thinking, in order to make your argument. Arpaio was pardoned by the crook in the White House, and that sent a signal to other crooks who might be tempted to follow the same path, if very slightly more carefully. What does the pardon mean? POTUS doesn't think he did anything wrong, and 40% of the US public (and approx 80% of the GOP) seems to agree with him on most things, almost certainly including this.

"Arpaio was convicted, and is now irrelevant. There are 350m people in the US, he represents no generalizable activity."

His subhuman behavior was "generalized" by the conservative movement for a dang long time.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/21/arizona-phoenix-concentration-camp-tent-city-jail-joe-arpaio-immigration

The criminal pardon was a big congrats to Arpaio and a generalization of his fascist actions from the fucking Oval Office.

He spoke at the fucking 2016 GOP convention, which generally speaking, was reason to hope for an asteroid strike on the fucking place, though pretty far down the list of reasons.

FOX News generalized his criminal behavior by recommending him as an example to follow.

Brietbart generalized his criminal behavior by recommending him as an example to follow.

John McCain joined the generalization of Joe Arpaio as a fucking fascist conservative asshole.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/26/john-mccain-others-slam-president-trump-over-joe-arpaio-pardon.html

McCain could have further burnished his reputation, already heavily feathered-bedded, as a heroic American patriot by, as his last act on this Earth, shooting Arpaio in the head.

Arpaio's bullshit was the now totally generalized model for the way immigrants are being brutalized, murdered, and shit on since November 2016.

His execution, should the vermin live long enough, will serve as the generalized model of how the entire conservative movement is going to its rotten grave.

Immigrants come here for opportunity.
A job is part of that opportunity.
No "illegal" immigrant gets a job without employer consent.
Employers, for the most part, are Republicans.
Ergo, the GOP favors open borders.

That they pretend otherwise is racism.

Pure. And. Simple.

QED

"Being stopped repeatedly for being Hispanic? That is a stretch these days."

That was precisely Arpaio's criminal M.O.:

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

Cost to Maricopa County taxpayers: $140 million

He was front and center in campaigning to generalize that criminal behavior across America.

ICE licked his balls and here we are, very generally speaking.

"The president has turned the border of the United States into a symbol of nativist hostility that the whole world is looking at." - Candidate Michael Bennet, last night

we could have had a rational border debate. but Trump's lurid lies have led the GOP base into a hallucinogenic world of terror where they look at people fleeing for their lives and see WWZ-style hordes of rapists and murderers who are pouring over the border in order to pick strawberries and lettuce, murderously.

Specifically and generally and all points in between, the President of the United States just endorsed the murder of Soviet and American journalists for all to see:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-jokes-to-putin-they-should-get-rid-of-journalists?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

I'm for closed borders, Mexico's northern one they share with the former United States of America. Mexico should shoot on sight all white conservatives attempting to gain access to their country.

Profile their asses.

Just as Arpaio's victims were the general model for today's conservative immigration bullshit, so is Khashoggi's murder and dismemberment the now generalized model for what conservative vermin have in store for journalists around the world.

Just a note, as a Coloradan, Michael Bennet was considered at one time early in his public career to be perhaps the most conservative, non-insane, principled Democrat in America, in fact, liberals out here wondered why he didn't just move to the republican party and get it over with.

Then the Overton Window was boarded up and moved to
and a drive up window was installed to order and pick up a steady diet of takeout dog shit.

No one I know objects to people going to a port of entry and requesting asylum.

Fire up Google and search for "change US asylum law".

And no, no one is intentionally mistreating children.

You know this, how? And what is the bar for "intent"? If someone follows law or policy with a result that children are mistreated, are they somehow exempt from having done so "intentionally"?

why does the color of your skin matter?

A question for the ages if ever there was one.

Deny healthcare because the sick and the diseased might use it:

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/06/28/Foxs-Stuart-Varney-and-Tammy-Bruce-suggest-that-extending-health-care-to-undocumented-migr/224086

Precisely the same as their view regarding extending healthcare to sick and diseased American citizens who can't afford to see a doctor.

Health insurance is the leading cause of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease among the general public and the leading cause of STD's among conservative christians.

Stuart Varney still hasn't lost his poncy Russian accent, despite being in country talking American shit with flat-voweled, blonde confederate shitheads for years.

The mixture of overwhelming numbers and inadequate process created a crisis that just months ago people here denied existed.

That's because just months ago it didn't.

A recent (R) proposal to change asylum law.

tl;dr - applicants from Central America have to apply in their own country. Applications at US points of entry will be refused.

You need better information.

tl;dr - applicants from Central America have to apply in their own country. Applications at US points of entry will be refused.

I don't have time to track it down, but if I understand correctly, consulates, or wherever they would have to apply in their own country, are being shut down.

Like voting sites in black neighborhoods in some parts of the US. Like....a lot of things.

"why does the color of your skin matter?"

Makes it easier for law enforcement to profile.

Makes it easier to decide who gets paid less.

Makes it easier to keep the neighborhood pretty much one color.

Makes it easier for Bolsonaro of Brazil to get his mestizo on.

Makes it easier to tell the riff from the raff. No actually, it makes it much harder, if recent events are representative.

Makes it easier to solve crimes by arresting and prosecuting the wrong guy.

That's because just months ago it didn't.

Create the crisis, be it only imaginary or made real by you (in this case, both, in succession), so you can whine about it being someone else's fault and scare people into supporting you because you're the only one smart and tough enough to fix it.

Trump 101.

Trump 101.

Politics 101.

No, the crisis was exacerbated by the increasing numbers, particularly of unaccompanied minors. That doesnt mean it didng exist.

To make any other argument you have to focus on doofuses most outrageous tweet storms rather than reality.

The numbers were exacerbated by the conditions in the countries the people are fleeing. And Trump's response to those conditions is to cut aid and make the conditions worse rather than finding a way to help. That and making his policies regarding the people who do get here as inhumane as possible, plus incompetence for bonus points.

Politics 101.

Bullsh*t. Trump is beyond normal politics in this and any number of other regards.

No, the crisis was exacerbated by the increasing numbers

You say potato, I say patahto.

The reason "people around here" were saying a "crisis" didn't exist just "few months ago" is that it didn't.

The increased numbers are the crisis. Or, at least, the increased numbers are how the crisis manifests itself here, the actual crisis is south of there.

The "crisis" prior to that was historically low numbers of people entering illegally. Go look it up.

In any case, I see no point in discussing this stuff if we can't settle on a common set of basic facts. Mine come from the Customs and Border Protection and the congressional record. I'm sticking with those.

No, the crisis was exacerbated by the increasing numbers, particularly of unaccompanied minors.

lot of rapists, drug smugglers and murderers in that population? need a lot of armed yokels doing army cosplay to handle unarmed mothers and children, do ya?

p is the Meat "Beyond Meat" is attempting to get beyond.

This is a good article:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-supreme-court-census-case-well-played.html
Do not expect Roberts to write an opinion that spurs his conservative colleagues to accuse him of being a liberal revolutionary. Don’t expect Gorsuch to do it, either, when a case has political implications. The five justices who shut partisan gerrymandering claims out of federal court forever on Thursday will stick together in the big, front-page cases unless Republican officials lie so egregiously, or break the law so incompetently, that Roberts cannot rule in their favor without embarrassing himself and bringing shame upon the court. Avoiding humiliation, personal and institutional: That appears to be Roberts’ M.O. in the Trump years. Which means the Supreme Court will do everything it can to shore up the Trump administration’s pro-business, deregulatory, anti–civil rights, pro–religious establishment, and vote-suppressive goals without openly degrading itself in service of the president. If you’re counting small blessings, that’s more than Senate Republicans have been willing to do.

"To make any other argument you have to focus on doofuses most outrageous tweet storms rather than reality."

Attempts to focus directly in person on what is going in the concentration camps are turned away, thus the tweets are all we have.

The people's, the taxpayer's, representatives are prevented from their job and reporting back to Marty, who has expressed generalized disapproval of everything government does with his tax money, with the exception of this, as far as the record shows.

His money raining down on Yemen seems to go unremarked, so we can't be sure there, not that anyone's remarks are going to permeate this government, which will be savagely overthrown.

These representatives, these candidates, should be permitted to tour these facilities daily, as should the press, as they damned well please, just like they may tour the Hoover Dam, or Lockheed weapons production lines, or the local understaffed Social Security office.

For what value links are in these discussions, which is precisely bupkis in these waning days of the Republic, here:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/28/1868036/-Five-2020-candidates-tried-to-tour-the-Florida-prison-camp-for-migrant-kids-They-were-all-blocked

Yeah, showboating, like those candidates are doing, is normative politics 101 in a democracy, a Republic, so shove that insult.

What the p maladministration prefers is something along the lines of Walter Duranty of the New York Times being given a no-look-see briefing over a meal of top-shelf caviar on Ukraine crop yields and dietary conditions in the 1930s by Stalin gummint operatives.

I can't imagine where p got the idea.

If not from Putin, then from his hotel/restaurant business in which his subhuman lying unqualified arrogant gets usher city kitchen inspectors away from the creep-crawly bacteria laden scum and grime they feed their guests.

Nothing to see here.

What's that odor?


A Christian conservative showboater doing his own normative politics/religion 101:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/migrant-children-christ-with-the-meek/

This after condemning, after first misrepresenting, all of the Democratic candidates views on the immigration issue.

Suffer the little children.

But only on conservative terms.

Fuck off.

from Dreher comments:

I see such arguments for what they are: emotional, distinctly feminine "think of the children" appeals intended to demoralize any efforts at border enforcement. We have to harden our hearts against this sort of manipulation. We should be offended that the only time it's ever "politically correct" to appeal to Christianity is when the Left is trying to dupe Christians into doing what they want for them.

ladies and gentlemen: The American Conservative.

Do not expect Roberts to write an opinion that spurs his conservative colleagues to accuse him of being a liberal revolutionary. Don’t expect Gorsuch to do it, either, when a case has political implications. The five justices who shut partisan gerrymandering claims out of federal court forever on Thursday will stick together in the big, front-page cases unless Republican officials lie so egregiously, or break the law so incompetently, that Roberts cannot rule in their favor without embarrassing himself and bringing shame upon the court.

Roberts went out of his way to guarantee states that want to do something about it that they can.

Nine of 13 western states have commissions of some sort to draw the lines. Utah's commission can be overruled by the legislature, but the legislature must also publish a report explaining in detail every change they made. The four without commissions are NM, NV, OR, and WY -- three blue trifecta states and WY with only one US House seat. A 2020 ballot initiative that would create a commission in OR has reached the signature-collection stage.

My lunatic fringe theory today is that conservative justices have set out to create two Americas -- one consisting of states that will send enough Republicans to Washington to keep a conservative court majority intact, and the other of states where the justices and their families would prefer to live.

Roberts went out of his way to guarantee states that want to do something about it that they can.

and what exactly is NC supposed to do about it?

the GOP has a death grip on all legislative seats. there is no ballot initiative process. only the NC State legislature can put an amendment on the ballot.

what did Roberts guarantee NC?

he guaranteed that the GOP will stay in control forever.

Roberts went out of his way to guarantee states that want to do something about it that they can.

I do not believe that "This is not our problem" is the same as "going out of his way".

As it stands now, the only way this can be corrected in places like NC might well be political violence.

How's that for going out of the way?

Of course, it goes without saying that if Dems did such a thing, violence would be wholly justified....you know, those second amendment remedies we are reminded of all the time.

A situation in which blue states hold fair elections and red states don’t is less than optimal, especially for the House.

Roberts went out of his way to guarantee states that want to do something about it that they can.

Nine of 13 western states have commissions of some sort to draw the lines.

Of course, Roberts' comment about the people having ways to change things if they don't like gerrymandering (i.e. initiatives) ignores the detail that those are mostly only available west of the Mississippi. Guess eastern states don't count...?

Marty: Identification is pretty easy to buy.

Does the open-borders-blah-blah crowd (of which Marty appears to be a card-carrying member) consider that a problem? or not?

Would harder-to-obtain ID help Make America Great Again? or help ruin it for blond blue-eyed Aryans who love Liberty(TM)?

We already got Marty's answer: my answer to the id question is to shrug.

Marty is evidently not interested in assuring that only "legal" Americans can live in the US, but simply in backing He, Trump's "(Republican) policies".

Listen up, Democrats: Marty is the most "reasonable" True Conservative that America has to offer. If you think you can win anything politically by catering to, or compromising with, people like Marty -- let alone the MAGA maggots to his right -- you're kidding yourselves. I'm specifically talking to you, Nancy.

--TP

emotional, distinctly feminine "think of the children" appeals intended to demoralize any efforts at border enforcement.

It's so much simpler than that.

We "lefties" and "liberals" aren't afraid of Hispanic people who want to emigrate here. We don't necessarily think they should all be allowed to come here, we just aren't afraid of them. Because they have no intention to do us any harm.

And we don't think kids should be separated from their families, and we don't think they, or anyone, should be required to sleep on a fucking concrete bench while they wait for our half-assed underfunded understaffed immigration court system to catch up with the backlog.

That's about it.

If Rod Dreher can't restrain himself from trying to read my damned mind, I'll at least ask him to STFU and keep his weird imagination to himself.

The man apparently has issues. His problem, not mine.

Apologies to Rod Dreher, I see that the comment cleek cites is from FL Cottonmouth.

Dear Mr. Cottonmouth: piss up a rope.

We "lefties" and "liberals" aren't afraid of Hispanic people who want to emigrate here. We don't necessarily think they should all be allowed to come here, we just aren't afraid of them. Because they have no intention to do us any harm.

And we don't think kids should be separated from their families, and we don't think they, or anyone, should be required to sleep on a fucking concrete bench while they wait for our half-assed underfunded understaffed immigration court system to catch up with the backlog.

Allow me to observe that it is possible to be pretty damned conservative and still agree with all of that.

Stop calling me Nancy! %-)

On alot of those Dreher threads and elsewhere at TAC, you run into a lot of condemnations of the "feminization" of this and that in the culture and accompanying assertions that women must submit, also bitter male divorcees who can put their bitterness precisely where bitter female divorcees have been putting their bitterness since time began: where the sun don't shine.

I doubt that Dreher's wife submits, but nevertheless those (probably not all) comments make it through "moderation", while some of mine, sans my language, which call Dreher or commenters on this stuff go up in smoke.

I'd complain about being "de-platformed", but since I have no problem with Nazis being "de-platformed on social media, I've no problem with that.

Just as I've never complained when most of my letters to the editors to traditional media don't make it through to publication, otherwise they would be called "Letters to Those Who Don't Bother With Editors".

Conservatives: The victimized class.

Apparently if you can't grab yer balls while having it over on the liberals, the traditional God-given power differential has been flipped, and woe is them, though that doesn't seem to stop Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin from reaching for p's.

wj wrote:

"Allow me to observe that it is possible to be pretty damned conservative and still agree with all of that."

True, the cottonmouths, vipers, cobras and mambas lurking on low-hanging branches have given the other harmless snakes of conservatism a bad name.

I try ... try, to keep that in mind.

Maybe we should establish 'preservative' as an additional political category.
(not in German though since there it is a synonym for condom).

True, the cottonmouths, vipers, cobras and mambas lurking on low-hanging branches have given the other harmless snakes of conservatism a bad name.

This reminds me of the South African politician once in parliament, wishing to insult a fellow-parliamentarian but having been warned by the Speaker for un-parliamentary language when he called him a lying snake, started his next sentence by referring to his opponent as "the honourable mamba from xxx"

It's 91.5 degrees here in the land where there's very little air-conditioning, and never enough ice. Thank God it's not France, where yesterday was 115 degrees, the hottest on record.

RIP Raimondo:

His was a voice.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/justin-raimondo-rip/

The Democratic Party is a hydra-headed dope:

https://juanitajean.com/my-take/

Run and win back the Senate, for crying out loud.

Or be a Governor

I try ... try, to keep that in mind.

I'm aware that the reactionaries and xenophobes make it hard. Which is why I try not to harp on the subject too much.

Run and win back the Senate, for crying out loud.

Or be a Governor

Amen. Especially the latter in places where a gerrymandered current legislature means winning the governorship is the only way to get a fair redistricting after the next census.

Unless of course a lame duck state legislature strips the governorship of its powers when someone from the opposition wins it.

Always good to see those involved rejecting pervasive hypocrisy. Whether in politics or elsewhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/a-more-open-way-of-being-catholics-in-kenya-rebel-against-celibacy-vow-for-priests/2019/05/31/4cfa93a6-45d0-11e9-94ab-d2dda3c0df52_story.html

Given what we are seeing revealed about the Catholic Church of late, it seems like a seriously necessary step out of the shadows.

One of the (certainly way premature, but interesting nonetheless) ticket speculation I've run across the last couple of days is Harris/Buttigeig. More than anything else, I confess that a huge attraction for me would be the chance to see Pence in a debate up against a man who will look him in the eye and say:

For a party that associates itself with Christianity, to say that … God would smile on the divisions of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.

What you forget, wj, is that Pence is an OLD Testament christian. God did a lot of smiting and condemning in there, and since He seems to be falling down on the job these days, Pence and his ilk feel it's their duty to take His work on themselves.

--TP

I basically agree with Juanita Jean's analysis.

I have nothing but respect for folks like Warren, Harris, Booker, Butigeig. The crop of candidates on offer is a remarkable bench. Even so-called "second tier" folks like Castro and Inslee are bringing a much-needed focus on critical issues.

And, I don't know if any of them can beat Trump. They all stand for change of one kind of another. Change freaks people out. Good change, bad change, doesn't matter. It freaks people out, and it will be a disincentive at the voting booth.

I think Warren basically gave up the race when she raised her hand on the "replace private insurance" question. Right, wrong, doesn't matter. People who have private insurance and are generally happy with it don't trust that whatever she has in mind is going to be better, or even as good.

Plus, (a) woman, plus (b) Massachusetts, plus (c) Harvard.

Harris kicks ass and takes names, but she's burdened by (a) woman, plus (b) California, plus (c) black. And yeah, I know Obama was black, but trust me, it's still a thing.

Nobody really knows who Booker is. Lots of people like Butigeig, but the jump from mayor of small midwestern city to POTUS is too freaking large.

IMO Biden could beat Trump because he's an old school white guy who can hang with old school white dudes, without utterly turning off all the folks who are going to vote (D) no matter who runs. Biden could beat Trump because he can run on "let's get back to normal". Which lots of people - people whose votes will be needed to get the freaking toxic malevolent weirdo who currently fills the role of POTUS out - will find appealing.

For good or ill, "let's get back to normal" beats "I have a great plan for you". Even if "normal" is/was problematic and "great plans" are sorely needed.

Let's get back to normal would, in fact, be a great freaking first step toward wherever the hell it is we need to get. Baby steps.

And I sort of don't even care if that sucks or not. We can't afford to care about whether that sucks or not. There are other things to address that are more urgent, and we all know what they are.

If Biden is the guy who is most likely to get grifting sleazebag Trump and his grifting sleazebag family the hell out of public life, then so be it. Run, Joe, run.

Warren, Booker, and Harris are freaking warriors in the Senate. Let it be. If Beto can hand somebody their @ss in TX, all good. Mayor Pete actually seems like a pretty good mayor, and has acquitted himself damned well on the national stage. He's young, he's got years ahead of himself to make his mark.

If a ham sandwich will beat Trump, then nominate that ham sandwich. No ham sandwiches are running, so if Sleepy Joe is the guy to get it done, nominate Sleepy Joe. Probably not the best guy, also not the worst.

Just get Trump the hell out of there. Get it done.

And hell yeah, the other 20 or so folks have had their 15 minutes, time for them to get out of the way.

What you forget, wj, is that Pence is an OLD Testament christian. God did a lot of smiting and condemning in there, and since He seems to be falling down on the job these days, Pence and his ilk feel it's their duty to take His work on themselves.

Granted. But a) "Old Testament Christian" is an oxymoron, and b) even among (white) evangelicals, especially younger ones, it's an increasingly losing vision of their faith.

all the folks who are going to vote (D) no matter who runs.

What tends to be meant by this (sorry if it wasn't the case for you) is "folks who won't vote (R)". The problem is, getting them to show up at all. If, for example, blacks** had turned out in 2016 in the numbers that turned out for Obama, Clinton would be President. They certainly didn't vote for Trump. The problem was that they didn't vote at all.

What I expect to be critical for whoever is the Democratic nominee is inspiring their supporters to bestir themselves on election day. With the not-inconsequential side benefit of improving Democrats' chances down ballot. Which is where Congressional representation for the next decade will be determined.

** Yes, this applies to other groups as well. Younger voters, for one.

immigrants.

Trump was just as effusive when discussing Kim Jong Un, probably the most repressive ruler on the planet. Trump made clear that he is jealous of the heavily fortified demilitarized zone separating North Korea from South Korea — and preventing North Korean citizens from escaping to freedom. “When you talk about a border, that’s what they call a border,” Trump gushed. “Nobody goes through that border.” Acting as if he were asking a girl on whom he has a crush to meet him at the ice cream parlor, Trump went on Twitter to invite Kim “to meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!” The United States and North Korea have had hardly any contact since the failed Hanoi summit in February. But no matter: Trump makes clear that his one-sided bromance with Kim remains very much alive.

fuck the GOP

Russell,

If you can get McTX, Seb, bc, and Slarti on record that they will vote for Biden in 2020 then I'm all in with you. (I think wj already said he would, and Marty that he won't.) If not, then we might as well go with the ham sandwich.

I like Biden. Back in 2008, I was saying that Biden would make a better president than he ever was a candidate. In 2016 I was asking whether Biden was constitutionally barred from serving as VP another term or two. If elected POTUS in 2020, he will of course go down in history as the man who saved America from He, Trump; whether he would also save it from Mitch McConnell -- or "work with him" to "get things done" -- is a different question. And as you have pointed out yourself, "we" want different "things" to get "done".

Anyway, I worry a bit about "electability" arguments. I mean, look at Corporal Bonespur: was he "electable" in any but a post hoc sense? Was Obama called "The Electable One" in 2007? So, until our conservative regulars are willing to say "We will vote for Biden -- and not some fringe Libertarian(TM) -- in 2020", I hesitate to call for Democrats to clear the field for Biden.

BTW, even if a President Biden picks Kamala Harris as his AG and gives her free reign to prosecute Individual_1 and his mob family, the MAGA maggots will still be ahead of the game. To save the Republic, defeating He, Trump is necessary but not sufficient.

--TP

If you can get McTX, Seb, bc, and Slarti on record that they will vote for Biden in 2020 then I'm all in with you. (I think wj already said he would, and Marty that he won't.)

Heck, I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Even though I think he would be a disaster as President. (Because, compared to Trump, pretty much anyone running would be a step forward. Yes, even a farce like Williamson. Shudder.)

That said, my preference wouldn't be Biden. I'd put him somewhere below 5th on my personal, still quite vague, list.

If I could vote in the US, my current favourite would be Warren. She has many of what I consider the right ideas, and is competent so could probably get a lot done as POTUS.

But since it's clearly right that it's a 5 alarm emergency to get rid of Trump before he does even more damage to the US domestically and internationally, the big question is, as several of you have pointed out, who could beat him. And, as wj points out, this entails getting people out to vote who often don't. Despite Biden's advantage with old white guys, I'm very nervous that he has too many negatives with women, and black women in particular (Anita Hill, recent remarks on working with segregationists, etc etc). So calculating and contrasting the negatives, as russell does above, seems to be what has to be done. Which feels so crazy: absolutely any of them would be a miraculous improvement (and I say that confidently, while being absolutely ignorant about most of them).

Three things, if I were confident the Senate was going to stay Republican I might vote for Biden.

Second, one of the guys I know that was a staunch Hillary supporter, loved Obama, and is clearly one of the smart kids by self definition tweeted after the debate"Is it me or is Booker kind of a tool,". I dont think that bodes well for him.

I still see nothing that makes me think Kamala Harris isnt the most competent person on either stage, and likely the next President.

And would you vote for her, Marty, on the same condition as your vote for Biden?

if I were confident the Senate was going to stay Republican I might vote for Biden.

much appreciated. no snark.

I still see nothing that makes me think Kamala Harris isnt the most competent person on either stage, and likely the next President.

we'll see how it plays out, but agreed that she is formidable. in a good way. we could do much, much worse.

Our sub Presidente:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/06/28/russian-state-tv-implies-the-president-is-a-woman-subservient-to-putin/

Whether the Senate stays Republican depends, it seems to me, on two leading indicators:
1) Does Moore manage to get the Alabama GOP Senate nomination? Thus raising the otherwise slim-to-none chance of Jones holding the seat.
2) Does McConnell's ongoing low approval ratings (-10 in Kentucky at least count) result in him actually losing the seat?

If both those things come to pass, it's pretty much certain that the Democrats control the Senate. If neither happens, the chances are slim to none. Not because either is likely to be the tipping point, but because they would tend to be indicators of what is happening nationwide.

(I suppose I should add that, disgusting as I consider Moore, I would consider it a net plus for the nation if he won while McConnell lost. McConnell is that bad.)

GftNC,No. She is too competent.Although she could turn out to be unlikable enough to be a one term President.

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

He threatens to come out with some sort of busing-related policy.

No doubt the back of the bus will be involved in this for many.

Whatever you do, don't slow down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJa-KQNjQU

Thanks for answering, Marty.

I never came back to you on Rolling Thunder, by the way: I only saw him live twice, once at a kind of festival at Blackbushe Aerodrome, and once at Earl's Court. My sister and I slept out on the streets in line to get tickets for the latter, along with thousands of other people. It was an excellent crowd, people with guitars, people sharing food, dope etc. The police were very tolerant.

and what exactly is NC supposed to do about it?

I'm assuming you mean what can NC Democrats do; the NC Republicans are probably OK with the current situation.

Take the matter up in NC state courts -- the NC supreme court has six registered Democrats and one registered Republican and may see things differently than the SCOTUS did.

The Dems need to flip six state House seats and five state Senate seats to gain majorities. There's been at least one book written on the way it happened in Colorado -- three local hundred-millionaires put up the money through PACs and focused on electing Democrats where the Republicans were weakest, even if those Dems weren't perfect on the millionaires' personal policy preferences. But they were Dems and voted with the party on procedural matters. There must be liberal rich folks living in the Research Triangle. Who are the weakest Republicans?

Elect Dems to the US Senate. Win the state's EC votes. Help put Dems in charge in Congress and the Oval Office and see if the national Dems are willing to take on the problem.

I am not entirely convinced that a Dem Congress and President will take it on. Absent an extremely unlikely outcome in 2020, the Senate would have to nuke the legislative filibuster. There may be enough Democratic Senators that are more scared of what a Republican Congress and President would do with the filibuster gone than of NC gerrymanders. (Just as there's been no hill valuable enough that McConnell is willing to die on it to kill the legislative filibuster.) There may be too many Dems in the House who are afraid of losing their own gerrymandered advantage.

GftNC,

I forgot to thank you for the F.E. Smith quotes. Or the "Honourable Mamba" one, for that matter. I also wish I knew who to credit for saying of some bombastic complainer of a politician that "He is a man who Reverend Spooner would have called a shining wit".

wj,

Of course "Old Testament Christian" is an oxymoron. You get that; I get that; but I wonder about the kind of people who say "Judeo-Christian" with a straight face.

Anyway, I have to harp once again on the sad fact that Pence has no less a right to define what a "good Christian" is than Buttigieg does. Same issue arises for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. It seems to me that humans invented religion just so they'd have something to argue about in the long winter nights, even with their co-religionists.

--TP

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad