These motherfuckers all have the ugliest souls, I swear. Just rotten like an old stump.
Like based on what we know about Conway’s personal life it seems like it’s all an act for her, too
There’s panels during the primaries where she just absolutely trashed Trump before his campaign hired her.
She is utterly a mercenary and every last bit of this is her eroding the soul of the nation to make a buck and have a seat at the levers of executive power
These motherfuckers all have the ugliest souls, I swear. Just rotten like an old stump.
Like based on what we know about Conway’s personal life it seems like it’s all an act for her, too
There’s panels during the primaries where she just absolutely trashed Trump before his campaign hired her.
She is utterly a mercenary and every last bit of this is her eroding the soul of the nation to make a buck and have a seat at the levers of executive power
Well, to be fair (to the American electorate), this is probably her only chance to get that close. Unlike Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, who might be able to use her dad to get elected, KAC is probably at the peak of her career here. Sure, unless she really screws up, she'll still make money on conservative welfare, but she'll likely never have such a significant role in a future powerful position.
So she's riding her position like it were a hired mule.
These motherfuckers all have the ugliest souls, I swear. Just rotten like an old stump.
Like based on what we know about Conway’s personal life it seems like it’s all an act for her, too
There’s panels during the primaries where she just absolutely trashed Trump before his campaign hired her.
She is utterly a mercenary and every last bit of this is her eroding the soul of the nation to make a buck and have a seat at the levers of executive power
Well, to be fair (to the American electorate), this is probably her only chance to get that close. Unlike Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, who might be able to use her dad to get elected, KAC is probably at the peak of her career here. Sure, unless she really screws up, she'll still make money on conservative welfare, but she'll likely never have such a significant role in a future powerful position.
So she's riding her position like it were a hired mule.
Husband is on the opposite track as well isn't he? So as a unit they're covered either way.
These motherfuckers all have the ugliest souls, I swear. Just rotten like an old stump.
Like based on what we know about Conway’s personal life it seems like it’s all an act for her, too
There’s panels during the primaries where she just absolutely trashed Trump before his campaign hired her.
She is utterly a mercenary and every last bit of this is her eroding the soul of the nation to make a buck and have a seat at the levers of executive power
Ya she is a horrible person. She doesn't believe any if the things she says necessarily, but she spouts it for money, and has done a damn good job at her job. I credit her in part for trump winning. She truly sold her soul for a dollar.
I saw several conservative columnists defend Trump by basically stating his comments weren't racist, because the congresswomen SHOULD go live in their ancestral countries of origin.
Sigh.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I saw several conservative columnists defend Trump by basically stating his comments weren't racist, because the congresswomen SHOULD go live in their ancestral countries of origin.
Sigh.
Did they by chance also say this about any white folks
They're holding the vote now to condemn the presidents tweets as racist. It's been pretty much down party lines with 1 republican voting with the Democrats so far
Unfortunately, the simple act of calling for the vote caused Nancy Pelosi to violate the rules of the House.
I saw several conservative columnists defend Trump by basically stating his comments weren't racist, because the congresswomen SHOULD go live in their ancestral countries of origin.
Sigh.
Did they by chance also say this about any white folks
Like, say, the Trump family? Who have been in the US less timethan some of the families he's whining about?
They're holding the vote now to condemn the presidents tweets as racist. It's been pretty much down party lines with 1 republican voting with the Democrats so far
Unfortunately, the simple act of calling for the vote caused Nancy Pelosi to violate the rules of the House.
I saw several conservative columnists defend Trump by basically stating his comments weren't racist, because the congresswomen SHOULD go live in their ancestral countries of origin.
Sigh.
Did they by chance also say this about any white folks
Like, say, the Trump family? Who have been in the US less timethan some of the families he's whining about?
Yes, Trump should go back to Scotland or Germany instead of whining about America not being great anymore.
They're holding the vote now to condemn the presidents tweets as racist. It's been pretty much down party lines with 1 republican voting with the Democrats so far
Unfortunately, the simple act of calling for the vote caused Nancy Pelosi to violate the rules of the House.
It's also infuriating how the Republicans are trying to use these parliamentary rules to try and defend Trump, considering how they've violated countless other rules and traditions for years. Yes, I know, they're shameless hypocrites who ignore rules when they get in the waty and cling to them when it suits their purposes. Even being well aware of it, I still get pissed at it.
Trump is racist. Period. End of discussion. I don't care if some obscure rules say you can't call him racist.
+29
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
That entire page is basically, "You may not criticize the President." It's creepy.
Probably a hold over from Parliament. You can disagree with a person's views, but not question their character - kind of holds now as them being representatives of the people.
As a member of the opposition, you have to publicly accept that the opposition is operating in good faith otherwise the whole system breaks down and people start shooting again.
Outside of the system of government you can call him all you want, but within - you can't call him a racist or liar, but you can publicly put into record how the facts are not what he says and he should have known this very obvious thing.
And the fact that he didn't know this, shows him to be completely incapable and unfit for office, and thus impeachment. You can't question his character, hence "I'm sure as honourable gentleman as the President must be - he clearly would have apologised after being made aware of the fact that the people he insulted here US citizens and even 3 of the 4 were born here. That he doubled down after being made aware of this fact shows that he must have severe memory issues that render him unfit to be President"
But Republicans haven't acted in good faith since at least 2008. Probably earlier, but they were more or less somewhat in charge before then.
It seems as if barring a congressional representative from expressing a political opinion on the floor shouldn't be a thing
Eh... it kinda makes sense from the perspective that congress is a lawmaking body, and the various rules regarding disparaging remarks starting from 1880 may have been intended to force members to talk about bills under discussion rather than personal attacks on the representative(s) who support/oppose said bills. That's what the campaign trail is for.
It makes less sense when you consider that congress is also an oversight body, and that function requires them to pass judgement on members of the congressional and executive branches. I guess it's a small mercy that we didn't get to endure 7 years of symbolic "Obama is a filthy socialist" versus "Obamacare is filthy socialism" votes.
It seems as if barring a congressional representative from expressing a political opinion on the floor shouldn't be a thing
Eh... it kinda makes sense from the perspective that congress is a lawmaking body, and the various rules regarding disparaging remarks starting from 1880 may have been intended to force members to talk about bills under discussion rather than personal attacks on the representative(s) who support/oppose said bills. That's what the campaign trail is for.
The problem is that the president is not one of those representatives, and defining accurate descriptions of the president's actions as unparliamentary language spits all over the intent of those kinds of rules.
Also, said rules on unparliamentary language never accounted for the possibility of (1) a president actually behaving the way the current one has or (2) the party in control of the chamber adding rules as necessary specifically to prohibit criticism of him.
It seems as if barring a congressional representative from expressing a political opinion on the floor shouldn't be a thing
Eh... it kinda makes sense from the perspective that congress is a lawmaking body, and the various rules regarding disparaging remarks starting from 1880 may have been intended to force members to talk about bills under discussion rather than personal attacks on the representative(s) who support/oppose said bills. That's what the campaign trail is for.
The problem is that the president is not one of those representatives, and defining accurate descriptions of the president's actions as unparliamentary language spits all over the intent of those kinds of rules.
Also, said rules on unparliamentary language never accounted for the possibility of (1) a president actually behaving the way the current one has or (2) the party in control of the chamber adding rules as necessary specifically to prohibit criticism of him.
It doesn't actually seem like they were adding rules actually. This thread here:
Chafetz is apparently a law professor
if I'm reading this correctly, suggests the rule is the basic "don't insult people" one. What we are seeing in the Trump-specific things being prohibited is the interpretation of that rule as it pertains to specific language.
Basically, the rule is you can't insult the president. The list is basically an enumeration of ways you could possibly insult Trump because they are things people have said about him. And since you can't insult the President, you can't say those things.
So where are the congresspeople screaming about freedom of speech? You'd get plenty of that if these rules were in place on say, Facebook.
And only one of these is governmental, so under the area of free speech in the first place.
Yeah that is pretty terrible for an oversight body to make serious criticism of the entity they are overseeing thoughtcrime.
Like imagine if a DA or police department was never allowed to suggest (even outside of court in internal department communications) someone might be a murderer or criminal.
Jealous Deva on
+2
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Yeah that is pretty terrible for an oversight body to make serious criticism of the entity they are overseeing thoughtcrime.
Like imagine if a DA or police department was never allowed to suggest (even outside of court in internal department communications) someone might be a murderer or criminal.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
I understand that the veneer of gentility and grace seemingly adds a gravitas and augustness to proceedings in governmental bodies and is meant to show that members of said bodies are demonstrably the best of those they're chosen to represent. But the time for such trappings in the US Congress has come and gone (in terms of immigration policy and policy in general) and harsh times can call for a more vigorous response, even if it means cracking that veneer and showing that at the very least those making up a legislative body are still at their core passionately human and capable of being spurred to action when times call for it.
I'm not saying allow donnybrooks or cane assaults to become the norm and require the Sargent-at-Arms to need something more substantial than an ornamental mace, but you can't so willingly allow such shackles to be placed on freedom of expression in a body that is supposed to speak to and for the people, when said expression is not a fallacious attack or call for active violence. Sometimes, you need to be able to call a spade a spade, when the time for eloquence and nuance have fled, and IMO in this country that time is now.
Even those renowned for weaponizing language and wielding it like a scalpel (Churchill, Cicero, Daniel Webster, etc...) were not above blunt and direct speech when a situation required a response in kind, either due to the timbre of proceedings, or the need for swift action was required. Looking at the southern border and what ICE and CPB are being allowed to do, both criteria are clearly being fulfilled.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
I understand that the veneer of gentility and grace seemingly adds a gravitas and augustness to proceedings in governmental bodies and is meant to show that members of said bodies are demonstrably the best of those they're chosen to represent.
However else it's rationalized in terms of creating an atmosphere of yadda yadda, rules like that are also an artifact of a time when making arrangements to murder a colleague who spoke to you in a way you considered disrespectful was still illegal, but would generally be overlooked because it was socially acceptable. I dunno if we need to take the protections required from dueling culture into account anymore?
The "but you can't! no matter what! in any circumstances!" insistence on those rules, especially when it's applied broadly enough that you can't describe the president, much less insult him, has gotten more than a little absurd, especially when the current interpretations of those rules really are being weaponized specifically to shield the president from any serious criticism. Hell, if he pushes the goings-on in the camps far enough, would the House even be able to talk about it? Saying people in the White House were specifically encouraging abuses or worse might be - gasp - unparliamentary, after all.
I mean, I would counter-argue that it's not an insult, but an accurate description of his actions
It's both. That's why Republicans are fighting so hard against it. "Racist" is one of the very worst insults possible in America. Republicans don't get this upset when Trump is called stupid or or petty or whatever.
I mean, I would counter-argue that it's not an insult, but an accurate description of his actions
It's both. That's why Republicans are fighting so hard against it. "Racist" is one of the very worst insults possible in America. Republicans don't get this upset when Trump is called stupid or or petty or whatever.
not to republicans lol
it's the same as 'deplorable' and a lot of them are furiously proud of it.
I mean, I would counter-argue that it's not an insult, but an accurate description of his actions
It's both. That's why Republicans are fighting so hard against it. "Racist" is one of the very worst insults possible in America. Republicans don't get this upset when Trump is called stupid or or petty or whatever.
not to republicans lol
it's the same as 'deplorable' and a lot of them are furiously proud of it.
'poor' is the worst insult to them
Racist was the worst insult about a decade ago. These days, you have a lot of Republicans proudly reclaiming the word and arguing that it should be okay to be a bigot.
Which was actually the norm until about the early 90s. I definitely remember the days when conservatives would roll their eyes, because they knew that their racism was the real, hard truth while the liberals were just living out some equality fantasy.
+7
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Okay, a whole lot of this discussion has nothing to do with immigration policy.
Pro-tip: When it's necessary to scroll up and check the thread title because you forgot what thread you're in, the conversation has probably drifted offtopic.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+21
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
We can talk about those who help decide immigration policy though right? Specifically in the administration, specifically the office of the VP Mike Pence? Because the card they're playing right now is "Omar is a bad immigrant, McConnell's wife is a good immigrant."
There’s a key difference between Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), according to Darin Miller, the deputy press secretary for Vice President Mike Pence: Chao is a good immigrant who “worked hard and assimilated,” but Omar “seems content to criticize America at every turn.”
It’s really frustrating to see the resurgence of the “if you don’t like it, then leave” bullshit.
Because I can certainly remember about 8 years where Republicans had quite a lot they complained about with regard to the state of our country, and I’m pretty sure All sorts of pearl clutching would have gone on if Obama had told them that if they didn’t like it they could get the fuck out.
It’s really frustrating to see the resurgence of the “if you don’t like it, then leave” bullshit.
Because I can certainly remember about 8 years where Republicans had quite a lot they complained about with regard to the state of our country, and I’m pretty sure All sorts of pearl clutching would have gone on if Obama had told them that if they didn’t like it they could get the fuck out.
Because it's not about that. It's white supremacy flat out. They've been doing this for centuries.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Meanwhile in Chicago, CBP is literally holding three children -- all U.S. citizens -- hostage until their parents turn themselves in for deportation.
Chicago lawyers, a representative from the Mexican Consulate and a congresswoman from Illinois have all met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to find out why three American citizen children are being detained at O’Hare Airport. They’ve argued for the release of the children.
Several immigration lawyers, advocates and reporters have gathered inside the international terminal at O’Hare to await the outcome of what is shaping up as a standoff between federal officials and the undocumented parents of the three children, all girls, ages 9, 10 and 13.
Activists here say the children were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials and will not be released until their parents pick them up. They’ve been detained since 3 a.m. The children flew back from Mexico early this morning with a cousin who had a valid visitor visa, the activists say. The girls’ cousin is being detained, too.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers deemed the cousin "inadmissible," according to a statement issued by a department spokesperson. The statement didn't offer further details about why the cousin's status. "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers have attempted numerous times today to reach family members to pick up the children. As of 2 pm [Central time] CBP Officers are still awaiting a legal guardian to arrive and pick the children up," the statement read.
Activists say that’s a trap and the parents are afraid of being detained and placed in deportation proceedings.
...
Ruiz-Velasco [executive director of PASO West Suburban Action Project] said she presented a letter from the parents authorizing federal officials to release the children to her. But officials have refused to release the children to her, she said.
It’s really frustrating to see the resurgence of the “if you don’t like it, then leave” bullshit.
Because I can certainly remember about 8 years where Republicans had quite a lot they complained about with regard to the state of our country, and I’m pretty sure All sorts of pearl clutching would have gone on if Obama had told them that if they didn’t like it they could get the fuck out.
If a Democratic president said something like that, the Republicans would do weekly calls for impeachment until he was out of office, and then probably do the same thing to his successor if he wasn't a Republican.
The winkingly obvious hypocrisy about things like this is pretty fundamental to how they operate these days. Reactions to it really need to start taking into account that the GOP bad faith on, well, everything is deliberate.
It’s really frustrating to see the resurgence of the “if you don’t like it, then leave” bullshit.
Because I can certainly remember about 8 years where Republicans had quite a lot they complained about with regard to the state of our country, and I’m pretty sure All sorts of pearl clutching would have gone on if Obama had told them that if they didn’t like it they could get the fuck out.
Naked, rank hypocrisy isn't much of a gotcha anymore, if it ever really was. This is especially true for modern republicans.
Meanwhile in Chicago, CBP is literally holding three children -- all U.S. citizens -- hostage until their parents turn themselves in for deportation.
Chicago lawyers, a representative from the Mexican Consulate and a congresswoman from Illinois have all met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to find out why three American citizen children are being detained at O’Hare Airport. They’ve argued for the release of the children.
Several immigration lawyers, advocates and reporters have gathered inside the international terminal at O’Hare to await the outcome of what is shaping up as a standoff between federal officials and the undocumented parents of the three children, all girls, ages 9, 10 and 13.
Activists here say the children were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials and will not be released until their parents pick them up. They’ve been detained since 3 a.m. The children flew back from Mexico early this morning with a cousin who had a valid visitor visa, the activists say. The girls’ cousin is being detained, too.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers deemed the cousin "inadmissible," according to a statement issued by a department spokesperson. The statement didn't offer further details about why the cousin's status. "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers have attempted numerous times today to reach family members to pick up the children. As of 2 pm [Central time] CBP Officers are still awaiting a legal guardian to arrive and pick the children up," the statement read.
Activists say that’s a trap and the parents are afraid of being detained and placed in deportation proceedings.
...
Ruiz-Velasco [executive director of PASO West Suburban Action Project] said she presented a letter from the parents authorizing federal officials to release the children to her. But officials have refused to release the children to her, she said.
Meanwhile in Chicago, CBP is literally holding three children -- all U.S. citizens -- hostage until their parents turn themselves in for deportation.
Chicago lawyers, a representative from the Mexican Consulate and a congresswoman from Illinois have all met with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to find out why three American citizen children are being detained at O’Hare Airport. They’ve argued for the release of the children.
Several immigration lawyers, advocates and reporters have gathered inside the international terminal at O’Hare to await the outcome of what is shaping up as a standoff between federal officials and the undocumented parents of the three children, all girls, ages 9, 10 and 13.
Activists here say the children were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials and will not be released until their parents pick them up. They’ve been detained since 3 a.m. The children flew back from Mexico early this morning with a cousin who had a valid visitor visa, the activists say. The girls’ cousin is being detained, too.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers deemed the cousin "inadmissible," according to a statement issued by a department spokesperson. The statement didn't offer further details about why the cousin's status. "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers have attempted numerous times today to reach family members to pick up the children. As of 2 pm [Central time] CBP Officers are still awaiting a legal guardian to arrive and pick the children up," the statement read.
Activists say that’s a trap and the parents are afraid of being detained and placed in deportation proceedings.
...
Ruiz-Velasco [executive director of PASO West Suburban Action Project] said she presented a letter from the parents authorizing federal officials to release the children to her. But officials have refused to release the children to her, she said.
Posts
There’s panels during the primaries where she just absolutely trashed Trump before his campaign hired her.
She is utterly a mercenary and every last bit of this is her eroding the soul of the nation to make a buck and have a seat at the levers of executive power
Well, to be fair (to the American electorate), this is probably her only chance to get that close. Unlike Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, who might be able to use her dad to get elected, KAC is probably at the peak of her career here. Sure, unless she really screws up, she'll still make money on conservative welfare, but she'll likely never have such a significant role in a future powerful position.
So she's riding her position like it were a hired mule.
Husband is on the opposite track as well isn't he? So as a unit they're covered either way.
Ya she is a horrible person. She doesn't believe any if the things she says necessarily, but she spouts it for money, and has done a damn good job at her job. I credit her in part for trump winning. She truly sold her soul for a dollar.
Sigh.
Did they by chance also say this about any white folks
"the president doesn't care about black people" line was added the week after Katrina, jesus fucking christ.
The rest feel like preparation for in case Trump won, or made not long after he ran.
Like, say, the Trump family? Who have been in the US less timethan some of the families he's whining about?
the president, remember, is above the law
Yes, Trump should go back to Scotland or Germany instead of whining about America not being great anymore.
The nice thing about video is that we can keep the records that the racists have stricken.
So, what are the rules for removing those rules? As they all read as extremely petty things.
The president is a racist, he reconfirms that on a nearly daily basis. Sometimes, several times in one day. Everyone should be able to all him that.
Trump is racist. Period. End of discussion. I don't care if some obscure rules say you can't call him racist.
But Republicans haven't acted in good faith since at least 2008. Probably earlier, but they were more or less somewhat in charge before then.
It makes less sense when you consider that congress is also an oversight body, and that function requires them to pass judgement on members of the congressional and executive branches. I guess it's a small mercy that we didn't get to endure 7 years of symbolic "Obama is a filthy socialist" versus "Obamacare is filthy socialism" votes.
The problem is that the president is not one of those representatives, and defining accurate descriptions of the president's actions as unparliamentary language spits all over the intent of those kinds of rules.
Also, said rules on unparliamentary language never accounted for the possibility of (1) a president actually behaving the way the current one has or (2) the party in control of the chamber adding rules as necessary specifically to prohibit criticism of him.
It doesn't actually seem like they were adding rules actually. This thread here:
Chafetz is apparently a law professor
if I'm reading this correctly, suggests the rule is the basic "don't insult people" one. What we are seeing in the Trump-specific things being prohibited is the interpretation of that rule as it pertains to specific language.
Basically, the rule is you can't insult the president. The list is basically an enumeration of ways you could possibly insult Trump because they are things people have said about him. And since you can't insult the President, you can't say those things.
However, this stuff is more like "Don't criticize the president" which is real dumb if part of your job is oversight.
And only one of these is governmental, so under the area of free speech in the first place.
Like imagine if a DA or police department was never allowed to suggest (even outside of court in internal department communications) someone might be a murderer or criminal.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
I understand that the veneer of gentility and grace seemingly adds a gravitas and augustness to proceedings in governmental bodies and is meant to show that members of said bodies are demonstrably the best of those they're chosen to represent. But the time for such trappings in the US Congress has come and gone (in terms of immigration policy and policy in general) and harsh times can call for a more vigorous response, even if it means cracking that veneer and showing that at the very least those making up a legislative body are still at their core passionately human and capable of being spurred to action when times call for it.
I'm not saying allow donnybrooks or cane assaults to become the norm and require the Sargent-at-Arms to need something more substantial than an ornamental mace, but you can't so willingly allow such shackles to be placed on freedom of expression in a body that is supposed to speak to and for the people, when said expression is not a fallacious attack or call for active violence. Sometimes, you need to be able to call a spade a spade, when the time for eloquence and nuance have fled, and IMO in this country that time is now.
Even those renowned for weaponizing language and wielding it like a scalpel (Churchill, Cicero, Daniel Webster, etc...) were not above blunt and direct speech when a situation required a response in kind, either due to the timbre of proceedings, or the need for swift action was required. Looking at the southern border and what ICE and CPB are being allowed to do, both criteria are clearly being fulfilled.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
However else it's rationalized in terms of creating an atmosphere of yadda yadda, rules like that are also an artifact of a time when making arrangements to murder a colleague who spoke to you in a way you considered disrespectful was still illegal, but would generally be overlooked because it was socially acceptable. I dunno if we need to take the protections required from dueling culture into account anymore?
The "but you can't! no matter what! in any circumstances!" insistence on those rules, especially when it's applied broadly enough that you can't describe the president, much less insult him, has gotten more than a little absurd, especially when the current interpretations of those rules really are being weaponized specifically to shield the president from any serious criticism. Hell, if he pushes the goings-on in the camps far enough, would the House even be able to talk about it? Saying people in the White House were specifically encouraging abuses or worse might be - gasp - unparliamentary, after all.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
It's both. That's why Republicans are fighting so hard against it. "Racist" is one of the very worst insults possible in America. Republicans don't get this upset when Trump is called stupid or or petty or whatever.
not to republicans lol
it's the same as 'deplorable' and a lot of them are furiously proud of it.
'poor' is the worst insult to them
Racist was the worst insult about a decade ago. These days, you have a lot of Republicans proudly reclaiming the word and arguing that it should be okay to be a bigot.
Which was actually the norm until about the early 90s. I definitely remember the days when conservatives would roll their eyes, because they knew that their racism was the real, hard truth while the liberals were just living out some equality fantasy.
Pro-tip: When it's necessary to scroll up and check the thread title because you forgot what thread you're in, the conversation has probably drifted offtopic.
Because I can certainly remember about 8 years where Republicans had quite a lot they complained about with regard to the state of our country, and I’m pretty sure All sorts of pearl clutching would have gone on if Obama had told them that if they didn’t like it they could get the fuck out.
At least one person is upset about what's going on. Elijah Cumming's remains the best of us.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Because it's not about that. It's white supremacy flat out. They've been doing this for centuries.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/platform/amp/2019/7/18/20699893/children-detained-immigration-ohare-customs-border-protection-undocumented?__twitter_impression=true
Link: https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/ohare-standoff-border-patrol-detaining-three-children-of-undocumented-parents/285e32de-2516-4be2-b660-fd7b0419e913?fbclid=IwAR34M70WOS1tZEcja462KyQTioEdViit1QXwLEKVnud5J2fuvA-CBSt1-x4
I'm fucking shaking in anger over this.
edit: Looks like the children have been released. They were detained for 13 hours. Fucking hell.
If a Democratic president said something like that, the Republicans would do weekly calls for impeachment until he was out of office, and then probably do the same thing to his successor if he wasn't a Republican.
The winkingly obvious hypocrisy about things like this is pretty fundamental to how they operate these days. Reactions to it really need to start taking into account that the GOP bad faith on, well, everything is deliberate.
Naked, rank hypocrisy isn't much of a gotcha anymore, if it ever really was. This is especially true for modern republicans.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
I say throw kidnapping charges at these assholes