Reason Roundup

Trump Says Congresswomen He Told to 'Go Back' to Countries They 'Originally Came From' Should 'Apologize to Our Country'

Plus: blockchain battles in Congress, mandating diaper tables in men's rooms, and more...

|

U.S.-born politicians come "from most corrupt and inept" country? Unsurprisingly, when the president of the United States tweets that American-born women of color in Congress should go back to their own countries, it touches off a round of holy crap, this is bad even by Donald Trump standards condemnation. Also unsurprising: Trump and his administration have responded with a weird mix of doubling down, playing dumb, and insisting that it's everyone criticizing them who are the real racists.

The story began Sunday, when Trump complained on Twitter about the "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen" who "originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world." These women were now "viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

Trump never calls out the "'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen" by name, but references in this and a subsequent round of tweets make it clear that he's talking about some or all of the left-leaning "squad" of congresswomen in a high-profile tiff with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D–N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.), Ilan Omar (D–Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.). All are women of color, and all except Omar—who came here as a teenager—were born in the U.S.

"To tell these American citizens (most of whom were born here) to 'go back' to the 'crime infested places from which they came' is racist and disgusting," tweeted Rep. Justin Amash in response.

"At this point, after those tweets, what is the factual objection to describing the president as a white nationalist?" asked economist and writer Dan Drezner.

The British prime minister's office said Trump's tweets were "completely unacceptable." Joe Biden tweeted that "racism and xenophobia have no place in America" and Bernie Sanders said that "this is what I'm talking about" when he calls the president racist. "2020 candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Kamala Harris (D–Cali.), Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and nearly every other Democratic presidential hopeful stood together in calling Donald Trump a 'racist' on Sunday," notes Newsweek.

Monday morning, the administration went into spin mode, with flacks like Mike Pence's chief of staff, Marc Short, going on TV to argue that Trump had no "racist motives" and was simply condemning certain women's lack of love for America. As evidence, Short offered up the fact that Elaine Chao, "an Asian woman of color," is transportation secretary.

This morning, Trump refused to back down, tweeting that "the Radical Left Congresswomen" need to "apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!" He condemned Democrats for "unit[ing] around the foul language & racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular & unrepresentative Congresswomen," adding that "I can tell you that they have made Israel feel abandoned by the U.S."

In classic Trumpian style, the president ignores the substance of the criticisms of him while doubling down on the spirit of the original complaint (that these women are insufficiently deferential to America) and adding another angle (language, ladies!). Pay no attention to those comments about their shithole countries, it's just that they cuss to much…

A few more responses:


FREE MINDS

"If we are to secure our data in an increasingly digital world, should we expect government to singularly and effectively do the job for us? I would argue, no," writes House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in The New York Times. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy with pro-decentralization, pro-blockchain op-ed. More:

Some politicians, primarily those running for president, have called for brute government intervention, including breaking up big companies like Google or Facebook. This clarion call has the benefit of simplicity, but has failed to explain how it will increase security for our data. What does forcing Facebook to sell WhatsApp have to do with Facebook or WhatsApp collecting, exploiting and selling our data?

Others are calling for invasive congressional regulation. But as history tells us, overly broad and indiscriminate regulation often insulates the incumbents and boxes out the upstarts and smaller firms—a consequence we've experienced with the Dodd-Frank financial regulations law. Even Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, acknowledged this possible outcome to Congress a year ago.

Unsurprisingly, these remedies lean on the premise that only government can solve market inefficiencies that lead to irresponsible corporate behavior.

I don't think we should feel confident that the bureaucratic leviathan has what it takes to develop or enforce nimble responses to rapid change in the technology industry.

Whole thing here.


FREE MARKETS

Democrats want to keep "Big Tech" and cryptocurrency from mixing. Facebook's plans for "Libra" have prompted a backlash among congressional Democrats. Reuters reports:

A proposal to prevent big technology companies from functioning as financial institutions or issuing digital currencies has been circulated for discussion by the Democratic majority that leads the House Financial Services Committee, according to a copy of the draft legislation seen by Reuters.

Reuters says that Republicans would hate it, but who knows these days, given the anti-tech, anti-market conservatism that's been manifesting more and more.


QUICK HITS

  • D.C. "may join New York and California in passing a law that makes bathroom changing tables equally available to fathers," reports The Washington Post.
  • More details on the federal sex crime allegations against singer R. Kelly, who is charged, among other offenses, with violating the Mann Act. "A weird and forgotten case from the 1990s shows how connected Jeffrey Epstein was to power"; the case, writes Rosie Gray, features "a mansion that embroiled him in a dispute involving a lawyer for French Connection heroin ring suspects, the State Department, and transitively the government of Iran."
  • Peter Thiel is accusing Google of treason.
  • The mass ICE raids threatened by the Trump administration thankfully failed to materialize.

NEXT: San Francisco's Top Economist Confirms Vape Ban Means More Smoking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

443 responses to “Trump Says Congresswomen He Told to 'Go Back' to Countries They 'Originally Came From' Should 'Apologize to Our Country'

  1. Trump and his administration have responded with a weird mix of doubling down, playing dumb, and insisting that it’s everyone criticizing them who are the real racists.

    Trump isn’t backing down? There was an outcry!

    1. He shouldn’t back down. He just said something most of the country was thinking.

      1. The fact that is was factually wrong makes it harder to stick to your guns. But I’m sure Trump will be up to the task.

        1. It wasn’t factually wrong. They do hate the country and it is fair to ask them why they came here or to continue to stay here.

          1. The assumption that all of them are from somewhere else and chose to come here is wrong.
            I agree there isn’t anything wrong with asking someone who talks as if the US is a terrible place why they want to stay here. I suspect the answer is that they really don’t believe that it’s worse than any other place and actually think they are doing good. But I can’t really claim to understand the motivations of people like that.

            1. The assumption that all of them are from somewhere else and chose to come here is wrong.

              No its not. Even if they didn’t choose to come, they certainly choose to stay. No one is telling them they can’t.

              1. It’s like I say below. They think they are crusaders for what’s right. They stay because they are on a mission to fix stuff. Which is more dangerous than just being cynical complainers bashing on America.

              2. Trump’s tweets are brilliant.
                He poured a whole barrel of gasoline on the raging dumpster fire that is the Democrat party

            2. In Omar’s case, MN has been excellent in funneling taxpayer money from fraudulent billing at daycare centers to Somalia. Why wouldn’t you want to stay here?

            3. He’s at least 1/4 right. Ilhan Omar can GTFO back to Somalia

          2. Keep it up, John, and your replacement may be expedited.

            I will be content either way because I side with your betters. Carry on, clinger.

            1. You are the dumbest toothless hick I have ever seen.

              1. One of the more insufferable characteristics we’ve had ’round here I reckon.

                1. characters.

            2. Shove a shotgun in your mouth and blow your fucking brains out, you useless cunt.

        2. Yes he was factually wrong on the origins of 3 of 4 and for that he needs a Tweet coach. However Omar is in fact an extremely obscene, ungrateful anti-American who is in fact a refugee and worse a member of Congress who seemingly supports terror groups that have killed Americans. She should go back to Somalia and try to fix that crap hole rather than spending time parading in front of cameras blasting America as an institutionally racist country. This is what it appears he was trying to say. The fact most Americans do not care for her silly and inane rhetoric and blather gives me hope that Americans are not that stupid. Trump did shed light on these idiotic socialist anarchists. Something Reason doesn’t seem to get.

      2. Kinda sad that most of the country is full of racist morons.

        1. I don’t see how you are a racist. Don’t be so hard on yourself. You are just an ordinary moron.

        2. No, what’s kind of sad is that you have adopted Anti-racism as your religion.

        3. What race are Americans again?

          1. what race is anybody wtf?

            1. race
              \ ˈrās
              noun
              1 : a breeding stock of animals
              2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
              b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
              3a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species also : a taxonomic category (such as a subspecies) representing such a group
              b : breed
              c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

              1. yes we’ve done this before. don’t accept the premise people are races.

                1. race Is a myth.

              2. LC you can do better than a cut and paste dictionary quote. Any sixth grader can do that.

                Tell me the race of this person based on these images.

                https://www2.med.wayne.edu/diagRadiology/Anatomy_Modules/brain/Brainaxial.html

                Hint. If you scroll down to pelvis you can tell me sex.

        4. The good news is that the bigoted slack-jaws will take all or most of the Republican Party platform down with them. Gun nuts, anti-abortion zealots, and the south hardest hit — especially after we kick them when they’re down a few times.

          1. Yes, it’s the zealots who think we shouldn’t kill viable babies, even after they are outside the mother

          2. The good news is there’s still time for you to realize that every sane decent human being on the planet would point and laugh if you were brutally murdered and your useless corpse thrown into a garbage dumpster.

          3. “”especially after we kick them when they’re down a few times.””

            A vile tactic used by bigots and haters.

      3. So you are as vile a piece of shit as he is?!?

        He’s the fucking President of the US now. And he is STILL picking on people who are essentially unimportant and powerless. He is doing remarkably little beyond backfiring rhetoric to actually drain the swamp – which was SUPPOSEDLY the reason people voted for him. Instead, he’s doing the same old reality TV shtick – drunken asshole bully in a bar with no impulse control who’s ‘saying what you are thinking’.

        He is a PERFECT example of an immature entitled loudmouth who’s always been protected by daddy’s trust fund and a bunch of lawyers. If he had ever ACTUALLY been a drunken teenager in a bar (which is admittedly a bit insulting to most drunken teens) saying this shit to women or others smaller/weaker than him; then someone who’s ACTUALLY served this country would’ve knocked his teeth out and left him incapacitated in his own urine and everyone would’ve applauded that.

        Instead, he’s now an angry old man – who’s the most powerful person in the world – pulling the same shtick – and you are munching his dingleberries like an obsequious little maggot.

        1. Wow, is your bum ever sore.
          I like the all-caps accentuation though. I forgot capslock was cruise-control for cool.

        2. This temper tantrum looks pretty exceptional now after the four hos in question spent 40 minutes this afternoon burning their party to the ground at their press conference.

          When they can’t even get the nerve to say “Al Qaeda bad,” they pretty much confirmed everything Trump said about them.

        3. AOC, Tlaib, and Omar are the PERFECT examples of immature entitled loudmouths who have always been protected by their female privilege, the welfare state, and modern social justice ideologies, and who have come to power as figureheads of the Justice Democrats, because they sure as hell wouldn’t have been able to get elected on their own merit.

          And if you don’t think that these four representatives both have power and that their ideologies are immensely dangerous, you really haven’t been paying attention.

      4. There’s no defending Trump on this one. Telling 3 native born American Congresswomen to “go back to their country” is just stupid.

        1. Who cares where they go so long as they get the fuck out?

        2. Telling 3 native born American Congresswomen to “go back to their country” is just stupid.

          In what way is it “stupid”? Many “Blank-Americans” talk about how “proud they are of their Blank heritage” and about “going back to Blank-land” for a visit, whether Blank is Irish, Italian, Somali, etc. That’s what Trump was telling these people: “go back to Blank-land, see the dysfunctional culture that you claim to be so proud of, put it right, and then come back to the US and try to govern”.

      5. “He just said something most of the country was thinking.”

        Which is why Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the left are so eager to censor, they don’t want people to know what most of the country is thinking.

      6. Totally agree. That is one of Trump’s greatest strengths – saying out loud what most people think but are too bludgeoned by our politically-correct culture to say.

    2. Do you know who else won’t back down?

      1. Except when the Red Army was at the doorstep.

      2. Tom Petty?

        1. Damn your faster fingers

        2. He did sorta back down though.

          1. 6 feet under?

      3. Tom Petty?

      4. Tom Petty?

        1. *shakes Fist at Eddy*

          Fine then.

          Johnny Cash?

          1. Eminem?
            (I’ll admit, I had to search for that one)

          2. Dude, put down Fist. Last thing we need is for you to rattle his brain and have his joke quality go down.

            1. As long as I’m not stirred… BY A BLACK FEMALE JAMES BOND. Am I right, fellas?

              1. makes View to a Kill totally different movie

      5. The cast of Never Back Down 2: The Beatdown.

        1. Was number 1 not good enough for you?!?

          1. It obviously backed down or there wouldn’t be a sequel.

      6. Maggie Gyllenhaal?

        1. +1 Secretary

          1. I think she made those typos on purpose.

        2. okay.

      7. That damn cat that climbed the tree

      8. Joe Biden giving inappropriate hugs?

    3. I like the press coverage.

      CNN calls it “Trump’s racist tweet” in their news articles.

      It is a pretty crass and tactless way to make an argument – and certainly impolitic. But if you are being an actual hard news reporter, you should be able to read the real “argument” (attack?) Trump is making – which is that they don’t understand the American experiment and the things they are pushing for are huge leaps backward. The “go try it in your country of origin” thumb in they eye isn’t a racist dogwhistle, it is putting a spotlight on the origin of this type of thinking – countries and cultures that do not have the American tradition of rugged individualism and personal responsibility and that do not function as first world economies with first world freedoms.

      It is a complex argument being made in a constrained and simplified format by a possibly mentally challenged politician. But it shouldn’t be all that difficult for a journalist who covers national politics to sit down and unpack. If you read that tweet and thought “Trump == Racist, gotcha!” you are every bit as simple-minded as you project Trump and his supporters to be.

      1. Come on, dude. What Trump said was pretty racist. Sometimes I think you guys will only concede that a statement is racist if it explicitly states that race A is better than race B.

        1. “What Trump said was pretty racist.”

          Yeah your ilk keep saying that, then fail to actually make anything like a cogent case.

        2. Sometimes I think you guys will only concede that a statement is racist if it explicitly states that race A is better than race B.

          That’s the exact definition of racism, big guy.

          1. I don’t think that there is a generally agreed upon definition of “racism”. And then of course there is the question of race vs. culture. Trump’s statement was culturally chauvanistic, at least. Perhaps with some justification. If he hadn’t gone overboard by suggesting that natural born American citizens should go back to their countries.

            1. “I don’t think that there is a generally agreed upon definition of “racism”.”

              That’s not how defintions work.

              “I don’t think there is a generally agreed upon definition of defintions” is next amirite?

              1. Yeah, that’s exactly how definitions work. If you want to claim that a word really means exactly X, then you need to make sure everyone you are talking to agrees.

                1. No actually, you’re dead wrong. Unanimous consent isn’t required at all.

                  Jesus fucking christ are you serious?

                  1. If you want people to understand what you are saying, you need to agree on the definitions of terms being used or at least understand how people are using words or you don’t communicate. Language is dynamic, definitions and usage aren’t fixed.

                    Do you really think that the definitions of words are fixed in all contexts? People argue about what “racism” means all the time. And it’s not just the stupid “only white people are racist” crap.

                    1. “If you want people to understand what you are saying, you need to agree on the definitions of terms”

                      I understand what the clown SJW’s are saying, and do not agree on the definition of racism they use.

                      You’re just wrong Zeb

                    2. >>>People argue about what “racism” means all the time.

                      because it’s not a thing.

                    3. By the way, postmodernism has rotted your fucking brain.

                    4. “If you want people to understand what you are saying, you need to agree on the definitions of terms”</I

                      You cut off the end of that sentence. There was an "or" in there.

                      I understand what the clown SJW’s are saying, and do not agree on the definition of racism they use.

                      No, but you also don’t assume that they are using the word the same way you would. TO understand them, you need to understand how they use language. Which is my entire point. If you just assumed that SJWs are using your definition, you wouldn’t understand what they are saying.

                    5. We understand your point Zeb, and it is stupid and wrong.

                      Restating it doesn’t change that.

                    6. “You cut off the end of that sentence. There was an “or” in there.”

                      I don’t care, it doesn’t change anything.

                    7. ^^ Cultural Marxist ^^

            2. rac·ism
              /ˈrāˌsizəm/
              noun: racism
              prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

              What race are Americans again?

              1. All different races. So what? I’m not trying to argue that Trump’s Tweet was racist. Saying that certain countries are screwed up is not racist.

                And citing a definition from one dictionary (there is no such thing as “the Dictionary”), does not settle the question of what people mean when they say “racism”.

                1. I don’t care what they mean, and isn’t the metric being used.

                2. Lefties are famous for trying to change the meaning of words to avoid responsibility for their actions past and present.

                  The Nazis were Socialists, just with a Nationalist, Racist, and anti-Jew flair. The Commies of the USSR and the Nazis entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which split Poland between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

                  American and International Socialists have spent decades trying to distance themselves from that fact.

                  Some of us will never let that happen.

                  1. Well Put…….. Its not a He or a She its an “it” the left screams. “Plugging someone else’s excrement hole should be a proud government sponsored moment instead of the vile act every mammal on the planet thinks it is.”, the left screams. “You didn’t make that – its not yours; we own it, its ours because theft is cool”, the left screams. And National Socialists (Nazi) is a conservative-government party.”

                    It really is utterly flooring the downright contradictions and lies the left can impose on the people. Its as if many think, “give me a handout and I’ll believe anything you tell me.”

            3. I don’t think that there is a generally agreed upon definition of “racism”.

              There used to be, until progressive propagandists started misusing the term.

              Trump’s statement was culturally chauvanistic, at least.

              Well, then answer me this: if AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are so proud of their respective cultures and believe that the US is a hotbed of white supremacy and “racism” (against them), why are they choosing to live here?

              1. Yeah, that argument never flies. “America, love it or leave it.” is a bit of an anti-American sentiment.

                I will plop one caveat on top of that declarative though: America (the nation and the idea, not the place) has a specific core based in the enlightenment. Protecting the core concept of a nation of law, limited by both a constitution and a separation of powers, with governmental powers granted by the people, with people having inalienable and inborn rights – not rights granted by the government, etc. …. that’s not out of bounds. America has that fundamental principle at the core – so if you want to change that, then you don’t want to live in “America”. You want some other nation to be located in the place where America is located now.

                Now that I think about it, that’s a pretty huge caveat.

                1. Yeah, that argument never flies. “America, love it or leave it.” is a bit of an anti-American sentiment.

                  I didn’t make an argument, nor did I say “America, love it or leave it.” I asked a simple, straightforward question: how is that that so many minorities (including these three women) choose to live in a country that supposedly is dominated by racism and xenophobia?

                  As an immigrant, that’s a question I asked myself: which country and what kind of culture do I want to live in? And I certainly discounted many countries for being racist and xenophobic.

                  And it’s a question I continue to ask myself. In particular, if people like AOC, Tlaib, and Omar get any real power, I will leave; I refuse to live under the kind of racist and authoritarian regime these people want to create.

              2. “”why are they choosing to live here?””

                Because of the long winded hard process other countries have for their immigration process makes it too complicated to go elsewhere?

                1. But I was assured the US is literally a police state on the border

        3. Ever hear the story of the boy who cried racism?

          1. I prefer the story of the right-wing cranks who lost the culture war and were required to comply with the preferences of their betters.

            Carry on, clingers. But toe that line.

            1. I prefer to dream of the day when you get the ever living shit kicked out of you.

          2. Yes, all the charges were dropped.

            1. ^Winner!

        4. So, you think it is okay for people to immigrate to a country and then spending their lives tearing it down and trashing it? What is racist about objecting to that? Basically, anyone who will defend this country is a “racist” now

          1. Eunuch is virtue signaling to the progs, as usual.

            He think hating on the US is still “hip”

          2. It’s ironic given she’s an anti-semitic racist who hates America as currently configured.

            Fuck. Her.

            1. You mean the America shaped by a half-century of liberal-libertarian progress, against the wishes of conservatives? The America whose culture war has been won by the Democrats? In which reason, education, tolerance, science, progress, and modern communities are ascendant at the expense of ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, superstition, and the deplorable backwaters? That current configuration?

              Republicans pine for good old days (which never existed) for a reason — they can’t stand modern, successful, decent, tolerant America.

              The good news is that they will like tomorrow’s America even less.
              Carry on, clingers.

              1. “Carry on, clingers.”

                So sayeth the Reason gecko.

              2. God you’re soooo predictable and boring.

                And supremely ignorant

                1. Does he think Chicago is run by Republicans?

                  Because if any place can be described as run by ” ignorance, bigotry, backwardness,[and] superstition”, it is Chicago.

              3. Actually, we love a modern, successful, decent, tolerant America.

                That’s why we want leftists like yourself to have no part in governing it. You’re none of those things.

              4. Everyone on the planet thinks you’re a retarded turd of a human being. You are absolute garbage.

              5. Trump is a democrat that ran on a republican ticket.

              6. Haha. Hate to tell ya rev, but the ideology of guilt, grievance and victim hood ain’t winning nothing. You got pathetic old hippies and young kids who will grow up to realize that they’ve been manipulated, and life is pretty good. That’s it.

                Keep clinging, doosh bag. Haha.

              7. “and the deplorable backwaters”

                You know who else used the Deplorable Word?

          3. John, you should know better. When someone says “America” in politics, on both sides, they don’t mean the U.S. in its entirety. They mean right-wing values. This is how you should interpret the word, if you are interested in what people mean. But of course, you are not interested in that. You are only interested in what you think they mean.

            1. “You are only interested in what you think they mean.”

              Oh?

              “When someone says “America” in politics, on both sides, they don’t mean the U.S. in its entirety. They mean right-wing values”

              Ah, you were projecting, got it.

              1. Hilariously transparent.
                It takes true psychological dysfunction to be that lacking in self awareness

            2. ohn, you should know better. When someone says “America” in politics, on both sides, they don’t mean the U.S. in its entirety. They mean right-wing values

              Indeed they do: equality under the law, small government, property rights, freedom of association, and the rule of law are “right wing values”.

              That’s opposed to “left wing values” of preferential treatment by race, cradle-to-grave government support, redistribution, anti-discrimination laws, and governmental discretion in the application of laws.

              “Right wing values” are American values in the sense that America was founded on them and did rather well for a couple of centuries with them.

              It’s quite possible that “left wing values” become the predominant American values in the future. If they do, it will be disastrous for America, but that’s a separate issue.

              But for now, it’s correct to say that American values are “right wing values”.

        5. This is basically indefensible on Trump’s part. He was having a pretty good two weeks, now he fucked up. His support of Pelosi midweek was a good move. This is just dumb.
          That being said, a supposedly straight news organization should just report the facts. Not their interpretation of the facts. And especially not in the headlines. Now if he did say race A was better than race B then it may be more appropriate, but even then I think a principled journalist reports it as controversial statements and then allows the reader to make their own decision. Since he didn’t mention race, and there are more than a few European and Australian public figures (and Canadian etc) I would like to see go back to their country, to automatically assume it was targeted at a certain race also is revealing.

          1. I completely agree with your conclusion that Trump is an idiot and a fuckup, in case that wasn’t clear to other posters.

            And I really don’t understand the reasoning behind removing the heat from Pelosi and moving it onto himself. Maybe he just has to have all of the attention, even the negative attention?

            1. “Maybe he just has to have all of the attention, even the negative attention”

              It’s been that way since day 1. The media falls for it every time. Meanwhile it gives these congresswomen who hate America more room to spout their hatred, and their poll numbers will continue to drop. He is dragging them down with him, but they don’t have an economy to bring them back up.

              1. And now the D party, including Pelosi, will unite behind them.
                It’s a trap!
                Good job Nancy and corporate media – the D party is now firmly Ilhan Omar

                1. Yup…they’ve been trying to pitch a false narrative the last two weeks about a “moderate” Democratic Party not being led by the socialists, and Trump’s just blown that out of the water by forcing the Democrat leadership to defend the leftists.

                  Trump isn’t letting the Democrats define themselves as moderates. He’s going to force them to run as socialists and America haters in 2020…all of them.

                  1. You’re confusing “defend the leftists” with “point out the fact that 3 of these Congresswomen are from the U.S.”

                    And the whole “if they don’t like it here why don’t they leave” argument is one I laugh at all the time. I live in New England, and must constantly listen to the whining of so-called “conservatives” that just HATE everything about MA, NH, RI, CT, and VT (according to their tough guy arguments and whining on Facebook anyway), yet, here they still are. They could move to any state in the US, they could go live where the values supposedly match theirs, but they don’t. They stay and bitch.

        6. there are plenty of white socialist European countries that are also failing so its not a racist statement and Trump was pointing out their racist statement which teh media totally ignores

          1. There are no more white European countries, socialist or otherwise.

        7. If you can’t comment on the roots of someone who touts their roots as part of their defining quality and a reason for their singular view and vision for the nation, I don’t really know how you can have a discussion.

          Do these things only work in the affirmative? Can you only be a wise Latina when claiming it makes you the absolutely uniquely qualified person for the job, but curtail any negative connotations that might come with that designation?

          There is a point to be had about the origins of and susceptibility to the socialist/communist argument. Certainly nobody is claiming that Trump’s silver-spoon origins are off limits.

          No, you are falling for their fake racism shield against all criticism. It is a pretty straightforward argument being made – “you want to change our successful democracy with your communist/socialist ideas – but why not go try them out in the places your family fled to come here because the American system was so much better? After all, those places are – by definition – much worse off and much more in need of your wonderful ‘improvements’.”

          1. If you can’t comment on the roots of someone who touts their roots as part of their defining quality

            Hell, it’s been SOP amongst non-white liberals for a while that they’re inherently wise and wonderful by virtue of their increased melanin. It’s an actual, no-kidding racist view of the world, but that worldview is prevalent in mass media now, so it’s not like it would ever come into question.

          2. I mean this is what it has come to, hasn’t it? The two sides can’t have a discussion anymore, because they have different definitions for the same words. They are quite literally speaking different languages.

            1. Just wait until the roles are reversed. The two sides will agree with the previous definition used by the other in both cases.

            2. If you want a picture of Libertopia, picture a finger hovering near your ear and some smart-ass brat saying “I’m not touching you” – forever.

              1. You forgot the other guy standing next to finger-boy telling him that he’s not really a libertarian.

              2. “picture a finger hovering near your ear and some smart-ass brat saying I’m not touching you – forever.”

                Still better than a boot on the face forever.

        8. I’m just thankful for every week Trump doesn’t stride down Fifth Avenue, gunning down innocent strangers. He’ll probably end up doing so though, just to prove his toady supporters would applaud each fresh victim. The man may not be very bright (rational, mature, moral, or principled) but he’s sure shrewd enough to have number of those marks which form his base…

          1. Oh piss off. Grow up.

            1. You would be the first to defend him.

          2. You are thankful for a strawman arguement?

            1. i am not thankful by the way because today Mr. Trump send a new notice to my website https://www.writemyessay.world/ and it has nothing to do with tax since its a local business.

        9. So what? Since when are “racist” and “true” mutually exclusive?

      2. CNN calls it “Trump’s racist tweet” in their news articles.

        CNN is shit, stop watching it.

        Example, I thought this ‘social media’ summit was pretty eye-roll inducing. Then I got wind of the media’s coverage of it, including CNN’s, then it made me think the president is on to something important.

        1. Yup. CNN should report the facts, not offer color commentary. It’s about the quality of HuffPo now.

          1. Holy shit, the comment section itself has achieved sentience.

            1. “comment section itself has achieved sentience”

              Okay, you made me laugh. Thank you. BTW, how’s the pickle slicer?

          2. IMO, CNN has been a propaganda outlet for years now.

            It did not even change after ATT bought Time Warner but that might just be some acquisition issue with canning all the Socialists that used CNN for stuff besides news.

            1. Wasn’t CNN the one caught in the 90’s editing videos to make it appear that AR-15s could shred concrete blocks that hunting rifles couldn’t penetrate?

      3. Most people’s thinking process these days never involves any “unpacking” of anything. Someone like Trump makes a statement and there is no recognition that there are multiple aspects to what he said.

        If he said something xenophopic (which I am the opinion he did), then he said something xenophobic AND racist. If most of the congresswomen he criticized are women of color, then AOC is a woman of color, too — even though she might be a white Hispanic woman with no African-American heritage (see my question below).

        Modern American thinking and political discourse has no room for making distinctions, “unpacking”, or non-emotional analysis.

        1. Arab Americans are classified as white by the federal government. Hispanic Americans lobbied successfully for decades to be classified as white until they realized being an oppressed minority paid big dividends. Who qualifies as a WOC seems to be mostly self identification. But Trump is pretty indefensible here. Not because he’s necessarily wrong but because he’s so completely tone deaf. If he seriously wants to be reelected he needs to STFU.

          1. Except that Trump seems to be able to get away with saying things that would immediately sink anyone else’s political career. Starting with things he said about military veterans way back in the early days of his campaign.

            1. And he’s still more popular with the military than Obama was because Trump, like most members of the military, understands that the world outside our borders is often a complete shitshow and we don’t want to be at their mercy.

    4. He made Pelosi take the position of joining her most extreme members. The members polling at under 30% in their own districts. Just as it seemed the centrists in the DNC were separating from the extreme. Reason of course doesnt see this.

      1. Is that a good thing, do you think? I’m not sure.

        1. Means the quicker demise of the Democrat Party.

          I am all for it.

          I don’t see a Democrat being President ever again. The Party of slavery just will not be a national political force anymore.

          1. I’m still not sure that’s going to be a good thing (if that’s how it plays out, which I also am not convinced of). The Democrats won’t be replaced by nothing if they do collapse.
            And if they do disappear, then you won’t be able to call them the party of slavery anymore which will really reduce your repertoire.

            1. The ex-Democrats will migrate into other political parties.

              The GOP is already picking up large numbers of blue-collar workers.

              Libertarians can step up into the void.

              Some political groups will likely represent the government workers and union types who will oppose tiny and limited government.

              Socialist parties might get bigger but they wont be a national force in politics.

              1. Things would certainly be much more clear if we had better alignment of party and ideals.

                We desperately need a viable socialist or communist party, just as we need a libertarian party. And a conservative party. And a moral majority or christian conservative or theocratic party.

                And of course the biggest party of all would be the “status quo” party that promotes crony capitalism, public sector trade union giveaways, protectionist regulations, rigged and overly complex tax codes and gargantuan entitlement programs that are inefficiently run. Obviously, this party already exists in an amorphous form. The current leaders of this party are Mitch McConnell and Nancy Peloci.

                1. Term limits, increase the size of the HOR to better reflect the size of our population (the last time was 1911. Our population was less than a third of its current size.

                  1. Oh and repeal the 17A and end laws that favor incumbents.

          2. I sometimes think I see secession in our future; this time around it will be ok because NY and CA will want it, along with HI, MA, CT…they can have Chicago as a West Berlin stop over.

            Within 3, 6 months tops, their progressive policies will have then eating their pets; in a year it will be like a chapter from The Road.

            1. Which is why we’d never see secession…

              1. More to the point, an important part of their worldview and motivation is telling other people how to live. Can’t do that if they succeed.

            2. +100

        2. I’m all for the downfall of modern democrats. They are busy demonizing their more sane members such as the blue dog faction. So fuck em.

      2. This. And these congresswomen don’t have anything to brag about to bring their poll numbers up, trump has the economy.

      3. Correct. It is strategic. They are drawing battle lines. The dems are out to convince as many people as possible that they are victims. Some of their targets are actually getting tired of being cynically pandered to. Fun times!

        Haha

    5. Hello.

      “The British prime minister’s office said Trump’s tweets were “completely unacceptable.”

      Oh that’s rich coming from the UK. I don’t think Trump cares. Nor should he.

      1. Yep; that sort of language in the UK would land you in jail.

        1. You want to write to Parliament and say, ‘Kiss my ass limeys’.

          1. Pretty sure Thomas Jefferson beat you to the punch on that one.

            1. That would be Theresa May, who’s on her way out of office. Trump doesn’t care what she thinks. She botched Brexit and got herself fired.

              1. I think botching Brexit is a feature. Keep putting it off until eventually it goes away as an issue. None of the government wanted to leave (unless I remember the referendum wrong).

    6. I can see what he was trying to say. But he did it very badly. And really fucked up with telling them to go back where they (or their parents more accurately) came from.
      And even the main point, that people from fucked up countries bring fucked up politics with them, is a bit overdone. Regular Americans who aren’t children of recent immigrants don’t seem to have any problems coming up with the same terrible ideas.

      1. He really should know better.

        Wait.

      2. @Zeb…your last point is largely due to the leftist takeover of the education system.

  2. This isn’t even 2D chess on Trump’s part. He throws that out there and now anyone on the Democratic side who attacks them are going to be associated with the dreaded RACISM. The Democrats have been waking up to the fact that Talib and the Somali woman are not people they want to be the fact of the party and have been pushing back. Well, not anymore.

    The Democrats are now defending people immigrating to this country and hating it and if anyone in the country didn’t know about those two, they do now. Real disaster for Trump.

    1. “The Democrats are now defending people immigrating to this country”

      Precisely. And if you read Nick Gillespie, you’d know that more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” Which means the Koch / Reason open borders agenda has gone mainstream and the Democrats are on the right side of history.

      #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
      #LibertariansForOmar

    2. That Somali dumbass has a 9% approval rating outside her exceptional shithole district.

      These representatives appear to have an outsized influence because their hysteria provides good red meat to the brain-dead clickbait journalism class. In the real world, they’re freshman representatives with no influence or authority, who have been actively alienating members of their own congressional caucus with their media-whoring. Gee, wonder why Pelosi is constantly having to tard-wrangle them so they don’t burn the party to the ground.

      The Dems are basically a 70s sitcom at this point–four retarded kids causing havoc while their over-extended matriarch tries to keep the house from burning down.

      1. The Dems are basically a 70s sitcom at this point–four retarded kids causing havoc while their over-extended matriarch tries to keep the house from burning down.

        Pretty much and with this and his Tweeting that he didn’t think Pelosi was racist or that it was fair to call her one, he just forced the matriarch to join the retarded kids burning the house down.

      2. So Facts of Life, but who guest stars as Brad Pitt in this modern retelling?

        1. “One Day At A Time,” with Cocaine Mitch as Schneider.

      3. What makes it extra funny is that AOC is complaining about Pelosi giving her legislative work to do. Apparently Marxist Barbie doesn’t realize that legislating is the job of a Representative. She somehow got the notion that her job is to screech on Twitter.

        1. Can’t really blame her for thinking that, it’s probably what her svengali Chief of Staff told her when the Justice Democrats drafted her at the casting call.

          1. Sven-jolly.

            1. +100

        2. Hey, there’s definitely a role for back-bench reps lobbing hand grenades at the old guard. Newt Gingrich launched himself into national leadership using this technique (well, that and a somewhat coherent and sane legislative agenda. Not sure “green new deal” counts on that one..)

        3. To be fair, she’s busy spending that $3B that Long Island taxpayers didn’t have to fork over to amazon. Haha

      4. Did you see she claimed she loves america more than anyone born here?

        1. Total BS. She loves HER version of it.

          Whatever that is but it sure isn’t as originally conceived.

      5. I’d watch that.

        Four is Enough!

      6. ++

      7. >>>70s sitcom at this point–four retarded kids causing havoc while their over-extended matriarch

        so Bosom Buddies

    3. There are so many ways that Trump can attack these Dems. Most of them that he’s talking about (all? not sure) are self-avowed Socialists. That seems like an easy attack to make, and would be just as effective (or more) with his base. And it would be a justifiable attack on them based on their actions/words.

      His comment about going back to their home country, which ironically is also his home country for all but 1, is the issue here. Even if you could argue that the comment wasn’t based on their race, he was wrong, and if nothing else, couldn’t he just admit that for once?

      1. He wasn’t wrong. If Talib thinks this country is so horrible, and she clearly does, asking her why she doesn’t leave it, is a perfectly reasonable response.

        1. If you don’t like reason articles, why don’t you just leave?

          1. Because it is too much fun to annoy people like you.

            1. I’m not annoyed. Remember when you said Obama was pissing on the american people for not attending a funeral of a supreme court judge? Man how decorum standards have changed, am i right?

              1. What funeral has Trump skipped? When he does, he will be wrong.

        2. I think there’s some justification in questioning someone who (often freely) chooses to come to America (or Canada for that matter because we have the same sort of debates here) but then turns around and bashes it. ‘Why are you here then?’ a legit question.

          If you hate it, then leave.

          They generally respond with ‘I want to improve it’ but that’s nonsense in my view. Wanting to ‘transform’ something means you didn’t like it in the first place.

          Just like the Obamas did.

          1. Yep, if you start dating someone and say “Y’know, honey, I really love you. But you should change your wardrobe, and get some new interests, and start listening to a different style of music, and dump all your old friends and start hanging out with the friends I select for you.” and any number of other changes, you wouldn’t be seen as loving that person.

            You would be seen as an abusive, manipulative asshole who only ‘loved’ that person as a paper doll for you to ply with your wacky ideas. That’s how Democrats ‘love’ America.

        3. They think they are doing good.

          1. How? By beating the shit out of the country?

            1. I’m not saying it makes sense. But I do believe they think they are fixing the country. Or that their ideas are the right way to fix the country.

              1. Social engineering isn’t a real engineering discipline.

                Villains in comics always believe they’re ‘fixing’ things or ‘righting wrongs’.

                1. Right. And obviously I agree with you and think the new socialists are dangerous idiots. But that’s also exactly why they don’t just leave the places where they think they are righting wrongs. So there’s the answer. It’s because they are stupid. That’s why everyone does everything.

                  1. Like usual, eloquently put.

                  2. No, they are psychotic and feel entitled to remake the world in their delusional, malevolent image

        4. Would it be reasonable to ask someone who was born of a 1st generation German father and Scottish immigrant mother that thought America wasn’t great and needed to be made so again, to go back to one of those places and fix them?

            1. Why are you talking about race?

              1. I asked you a question, that’s all.

                1. I’ve often heard the Spanish Grand Prix described as simply “Spain” during F1 broadcasts. Is that the race you’re asking about?

          1. Yes. Of course it would be. Why would you think it wouldn’t be?

          2. Someone should have told Willem Van Spronsen to go back to his shithole country.
            He’d still be alive and be the Dutch’s problem.

      2. His comment is tied directly the squad trashing america, claiming it is akin to the holocaust at the southern border.

      3. Trump admit he was wrong? Have you not been paying attention for the last several years? That’s his entire shtick. He doesn’t back down, doesn’t apologize.

        After decades of forced apologies over feigned offense, the Republican base was ready for anyone who wouldn’t wilt in the face of charges of racism, sexism, or any other ginned up grievance. And since no serious politician was willing to do it, they backed Trump.

        If Rand Paul had simply doubled down and told them to pound sand when they started making the racism charges against him, he might have captured that energy and ridden it to the presidency. Instead, we have Mr. Tit-for-Tat tweetbot. (which is my counter argument to any of you who think Paul capturing the nomination is a bridge too far.)

        1. Likewise, I don’t see how the “Squad” could accept Trump’s apology even if he made one. I figure the hardcore proggies would shit gold bricks if the “Squad” ever accepted any apology from the Bad Orange Hitler Man.

        2. Gotta agree with this. The left pushes guilt and grievance, and people voted for the guy who wasn’t apologizing.

          Most of these people don’t hate anyone. They are just tired of the notion that they have something to atone for. The decline of white guilt is, ironically, being misread by the progressive social justice warriors. Kinda funny.

      4. “Even if you could argue that the comment wasn’t based on their race”

        That’s the only argument anyone can make. A country isn’t a race, and pretending the two are interchangeable or immutably linked is fucking retarded. It’s the height of “reeeeeeeee” SJW nonsense.

        1. Do you think Trump was wrong in assuming that they all aren’t Americans, and have home countries to “go back to?”

          1. Lol yeah that was pretty dumb. And not racist.

            1. What qualities should one use to determine whether someone is likely from a country that they could go back to? And what, in this specific case, would you say is the common quality among the 4 congresswomen that might lead Trump to make that mistake in this specific case?

              1. Who said it was a mistake.
                You don’t like the way he made a point.
                Too bad.
                You can always go out and buy some more pearls to clutch if you’ve ground all yours to dust.

                1. It’s factually incorrect. I shouldn’t have to prove that to you.

                  Unless you think it was a deliberate lie by the President that these 4 women aren’t Americans (and thus have a home to go back to). That is a reasonable explanation to me.

                  But if he’s deliberately lying to “make a point”, is he really any better than the #FakeNews media that he decries so loudly?

                  1. How is he lying, or factually incorrect, if be didn’t specify a person?
                    If you want to be technical or pedantic, you can’t have it both ways.
                    “He is factually incorrect/lying about a portion of the people I inferred he’s talking about”

                    1. That’s your defense? We don’t know who he’s talking about because he didn’t use their names? Everyone seems to have figured it out, even those here defending him.

                      If you’re correct and we’ve all falsely inferred whom it is he is talking about, Trump could easily come out and clarify things and make this whole issue go away. Something tells me that he won’t, nor that he really wants to.

                    2. It’s not a defense because his statement doesn’t require a defense.
                      It’s me pointing out that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

                  2. It’s factually incorrect. I shouldn’t have to prove that to you. Unless you think it was a deliberate lie by the President that these 4 women aren’t Americans (and thus have a home to go back to)

                    He didn’t tell them to “go back to their country of citizenship forever”, he told them to “go back to the country they culturally identify with, see what a shithole it is, and then come back to the US”. Yes, he literally said, and I quote:”come back and show us how it is done”.

                    It is perfectly reasonable to tell someone who identifies as Irish-American to “go back to Ireland and see how things work there”, and it’s perfectly reasonable to tell someone who loudly identifies as Somali-American to “go back to Somalia and see how things work there”.

                    But if he’s deliberately lying to “make a point”

                    I’m actually wondering whether you’re deliberately lying or whether you really are this gullible and stupid.

              2. What qualities should one use to determine whether someone is likely from a country that they could go back to?

                If someone identifies as (country/territory)-American and is proud of their (country/territory) heritage, then it’s reasonable to talk about them “going back to (country/territory)”.

                And Trump wasn’t saying “go back to (country/territory), give up your US citizenship, and stay there”; he was saying “go back temporarily to (country/territory), see what an authoritarian shithole it actually is, and then come back to your job as representative in the US”. Substitute Somalia, Palestinian Territory, or Puerto Rico for “(country/territory)”.

                It wouldn’t be reasonable to tell me to “go back to your country” because even though I’m an immigrant, I don’t identify as a (country)-American and am not proud of the country I came from (which is why I emigrated!).

      5. …he was wrong, and if nothing else, couldn’t he just admit that for once?

        So you want our president to show weakness. Why don’t you go back to your country.

      6. His comment about going back to their home country, which ironically is also his home country for all but 1, is the issue here.

        You are making the same mistake as the idiots in the press and the dems. The phrasing of the tweet is plural so that it is not singling out one person, but it is only about one person. Omar.

        That you make the leap to ‘the Squad’ and that they are not foreign-born is your own foolishness. Trump is a master of the troll.

        1. Wrong. False. Fake News.

          “So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries…”

          “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

          1. Not terribly persuasive, I’ve frequently heard the same pluralization when people are being sarcastic and oblique.

            It’s often how people talk about a single pseudo-anonymous person.

            1. I’ve frequently heard the same pluralization when people are being sarcastic and oblique.

              Bingo. This was mockery and trolling. Calling it racism is exactly the kind of unthoughtful response it is intended to provoke. If it ever needs to be defended, Omar’s comments alone will be drug out and those who object will suddenly be defending Omar, the one with the 9% approval rating outside her own district, and a penchant for anti-Israel statements.

              Good luck with that.

              1. “Certain PEOPLE in this office can’t keep THEIR hands off my lunch, I wish THEY would just go out and get their own LUNCHES…”

            2. Sometimes Occam’s Razor applies, and makes it easier to not tie yourselves in knots trying to defend the actions of a twittering idiot.

              1. I would think that Occam’s razor demands “the President of the United States of America is not a complete idiot”.

                I am not even defending the guy, just explaining that you have been successfully trolled. The razor doesn’t demand the President not be a dick, otherwise how would it explain LBJ?

                1. I didn’t say “complete idiot.” I said “twittering idiot.” Even many of his supporters wish he would think before he tweets.

                  1. His wording seemed rather deliberate. Don’t think it was an impulse tweet.
                    It was meant to provoke the exact response it’s getting.

              2. And sometimes you look like a fucking asshole because yoir assertion was wrong so you have to resort to reading tea leaves.

                God you are a fucking idiot.

                I was simply saying that YOUR evidence isnt persuasive. It doesn’t change that I personally agree with your interpretation, but based on evidence of Trump’s tendency toward laziness.

                1. I’m using the literal language of the President to assume that when he uses the plural multiple times in a Tweet, that he is in fact talking about multiple entities. That’s hardly “reading tea leaves.”

                  I’d be more likely to think that someone who can defend a premise that literal words don’t mean what they normally mean in proper usage of English is in fact “reading tea leaves.”

          2. “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

            You left out “and then come back and show us how it’s done“.

            Yes, these four people identify with the culture of the countries they or their families came from, and “go back there […] and then come back” means “stop talking out of your asses and look at the shitholes you identify with”. It means “think about whether you still want to identify as, and govern as, a socialist Somali-American after you spoiled little brats experience the culture you identify with first hand”.

      7. I agree on this one. Trump has been crushing it the past few weeks by just getting out of the way and letting the left shoot themselves in the foot. It started with House Democrats (including AOC) voting against the appropriations for humanitarian relief at ICE detention facilities, then you had more Antifa violence and the left victim-blaming. Then the media went nuts on nonstories like Trump’s 4th of July parade and the Social Media Summit. Then AOC started pissing off the members of her own party with staged photo ops and grandstanding.

        But this is a big misstep on his part, and it’s the folly of Twitter in general-you can get caught if you misspeak and say something really stupid. It was a mistake, and he shouldn’t have said it. And it’s even a bigger mistake because Trump defenders always rush to defend even the dumbest things he says, which undermine them.

        1. I doubt it as a mistake.
          Who’s up in arms?
          The effete, the aristocratic/clergy class, and of course the progs.
          Regular people, working class people, swing voters? Even if they think it rude, they’re thinking about what he said – and ultimately agreeing. Even the criticisms of non-progs is of a different flavor than previously, because everyone is fed up with the victimist, race-baiting, one-sided hysterics. Even moderate Democrats are saying things like “he’s a jerk and this was a mistake, but… he’s pretty much right.”
          And now Pelosi and Schumer and Biden and all the rest are subsumed underneath the anti-American Omar and her squad.
          Their little press conference was a disaster.
          So what’s the story now?
          President Jerk vs anti-Americanism

          1. In the spat between Pelosi and The Squad, the squad was drawing ire and the Ds were looking to distance themselves and give them less of a spotlight.
            In swoops Trump to put a halt to that shit and give The Squad victory over Pelosi. Now they own the Ds in public perception.
            Yes, Trump was running good, mostly because the Ds were f-ing up and looking stupid. In other words, they were vulnerable.
            The timing is masterful. Trump saw that a few rooms in the D house had caught fire, so he threw a bunch of gasoline on it.
            BTW, Omar – the new spirit of the democratic party – refused comment on Antifa’s firebombing then, in the spotlight at the press conference, refused to disavow al Qaeda and went with “whatabout white people”
            Yea, I think it was a great move. I’m impressed

    4. Pelosi and her buddies were just in the process of administering a smack down to AOC and her Fearsome Foursome.

      Trump has now forced Pelosi into the position of defending AOC and the Fearsome Foursome.

  3. As evidence, Short offered up the fact that Elaine Chao, “an Asian woman of color,” is transportation secretary.

    The difference? Chao doesn’t hate America. Case closed.

    1. I thought tariffs didnt work.

      1. Tariffs “work” if their purpose is to cause a global recession with no end in sight. Which is exactly what Paul Krugman foretold.

      2. Do you think the goal of tariffs is to slow growth in China?

        1. You think it isn’t? Trump has been clear that he thinks China is a bad actor and wants them to feel pain.

          1. It seems like a bad idea to slow the growth in China. So many American firms rely on their consumption.

            The stated goal, from a legal perspective, is that the tariffs should support our own industries’ ability to support our national defense. Otherwise the tariffs couldn’t have been enacted by the executive alone. I don’t see how reducing consumption in China achieves that end.

            1. “The stated goal, from a legal perspective, is that the tariffs should”

              Stop. That wasn’t what you asked and I don’t care to hear you rehash your interpretation of this again.

              1. But Trump was clear that he thinks we need domestic steel and aluminum to shore up our national security. He declared so in the executive order.

                It would be nice if we knew exactly what the goal was so that we could understand whether we are in fact winning this trade war or not.

                1. OK your question got answered and now you’re editorializing.

                  1. Unless JesseAz is one of your socks, then I don’t know how you can possibly answer my question.

                    When I say “you” I mean the person that I’m responding to. Just like when I say “they” I mean multiple people.

                    But you’re at least right in that I’m editorializing.

                    1. Sad leo, calling me a sock.

                      Slowing the economy is only harmful of there arent other markets to take up slack. Didnt think I had to explain market basics to you.

                    2. And I mean the economy of china.

                      Let’s dig in further. The government can arbitrarily increase economic measurements with make work programs and construction programs to nowhere, which china does often. The chinese market isnt the only output for us goods. So if you weigh the harm from trade secrets and market theft, does the imbalance of us china trade outweigh the tariffs?

                    3. No I’m just playing with Tulpa. He claims to have answered a question that I asked specifically of you. He’s fun to play with.

                      I don’t agree that you can just simply reduce the demand from China and have some other magical demand arise to “take up the slack.” That’s just a very simplistic look. Even if China isn’t a major consumer of US steel of aluminum, reducing global demand on that market will impact prices on the global market, and US manufacturers will be impacted.

                      What additional aggregate demand do you expect to arise while a major global consumer of raw materials is declining in growth? It doesn’t seem like a logical expectation to me, but you did have to explain market basics to me, so maybe you can explain where that demand might come from?

            2. It seems like a bad idea to slow the growth in China. So many American firms rely on their consumption.

              You really have drunk the CoolAid and believe that the US needs more consumer spending? Seriously?

              Due to bad US government policies, the US is awash in debt and US consumers massively overspend. Anything that reduces consumer spending is a good thing at this point; even better, if it brings in a bit of government revenue.

  4. New Trump slogan: “He’s a xenophobe, not a racist!”

  5. This morning, Trump refused to back down, tweeting that “the Radical Left Congresswomen” need to “apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said.

    Aren’t we yet passed caring about what these people say about each other?

    1. You know what, I’m going to stand by using passed over past. I think it’s right.

      1. Good catch. And funny follow up.

  6. “France touts shared European defense on Bastille Day”
    […]
    “PARIS – French President Emmanuel Macron has overseen France’s annual Bastille Day celebration, which this year showcases European defense cooperation.
    Flags of the 10 countries of the European Intervention Initiative, a joint military pact created last year, led Sunday’s military parade down the Champs Elysees avenue in Paris….”
    https://www.fox29.com/news/france-touts-shared-european-defense-on-bastille-day

    The parade was 3 guys, a pop-gun and a cell phone with the USDoD on speed-dial.

    1. The parade had tanks. Funny how the “tanks are fascist” crowd doesn’t seem to have anything to say about that.

      1. Allied tanks helped turn the tide against the German tanks. Tanks are a tool, not inherently any political viewpoint.

        1. Tanks, a lot.

    2. Flags of the 10 countries of the European Intervention Initiative, a joint military pact created last year

      Sounds like a good reason to dissolve NATO.

    3. Does anyone else see the irony in France continuing to celebrate Bastille day considering that what followed is known world-wide as “the Great Terror”?

      Let alone talking about shared European defense while celebrating an event that led directly to the rise of Napoleon.

  7. We Koch / Reason libertarians must not succumb to the temptation to overanalyze disputes within the Democratic Party. Doing so would be playing into Russia’s hands.

    Have no doubt that Russian trolls will work to exploit the divisions opening up in the Democratic coalition. Let’s debate and respect our differences without losing sight of our common objectives.

    #TrumpRussia
    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

    1. This is exactly what a Russian troll would post to throw people off his trail.

    2. Russians are furious gabbard got no air time at debate circus #1.

  8. He is right. The original birth country of AOC and Rashida Tlaib has a government that is a complete and total catastrophe. The worst, most corrupt.

    YOU’VE JUST PROVEN THE PRESIDENT’S POINT THAT YOU ALL HATE AMERICA.

    3D chess isn’t for everyone.

  9. This doesn’t sound like 11 dimension chess, it sounds like he’s given these Congresscritters the chance to wrap themselves in the American flag and gloss over their dumb remarks.

    1. “This doesn’t sound like 11 dimension chess, it sounds like he’s given these Congresscritters the chance to wrap themselves in the American flag and gloss over their dumb remarks”

      They were sitting in a crowded public square smearing shit all over themselves and Trump walked up and gave them some soap and a water hose.

      1. Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake. Trump interrupted them.

    2. That was such a lightweight, nine-dimensional analysis.

  10. Let’s be clear about what this vile comment is: A racist and xenophobic attack on Democratic congresswomen. This *is* their country, regardless of whether or not Trump realizes it. They should be treated with respect. As president, I’ll make sure of it.

    — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) July 14, 2019

    Way to end your tweet on a chilling note that actually puts things in perspective.

    1. Warren needs to be sent back to the reservation.

      1. Do they even have reservations that are 1/1024 the size of normal reservations?

        1. I grew up on a reservation, if there is anything American Indians hate more than anything, it’s white people who claim to be Indians. And why is it they always claim Cherokee? It is a pretty standard joke on the Rez: white person claims Indian heritage, Indian says “let me guess, Cherokee right?”.

          1. I’m assuming it was because the Cherokee have a pretty wide geographic spread, so that makes passing as Cherokee easier. It’s easier to debunk the liars if they claim to be Coast Salish or Apache. Cherokee were all the way from the East Coast to Oklahoma, so that gives the frauds some flexibility.

    2. Way to end your tweet on a chilling note that actually puts things in perspective.

      Right on. This is eerily reminiscent of Hillary’s “We cannot let a minority of people [to] hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people”.

  11. “UK plan to control online porn is watched as test case”
    […]
    “The global push to more tightly regulate the internet is spreading to one of the web’s biggest and least visible corners: porn”
    https://www.timesunion.com/business/technology/article/UK-plan-to-control-online-porn-is-watched-as-test-14084380.php

    Prudes of the world, unite!

  12. It’s literally impossible for Drumpf (or any Republican) to win in 2020.

    Biden, Sanders and Warren lead Trump in 2020 election matchup: NBC/Wall Street Journal poll

    I’ll proudly vote for any 2020 Democrat except Tulsi Gabbard.

    1. Ever since I realize you were a parody account, you’ve become my favorite Reason commenter. 🙂

  13. The Amash quest to join MSNBC seems to almost be complete. Gonna get some mad morning joe cash.

  14. This is basically indefensible on Trump’s part. He was having a pretty good two weeks, now he fucked up. His support of Pelosi midweek was a good move. This is just dumb. But I’m not certain, once he made the remark, that backing down would have been any better. Twitter does not allow for deep thinking or well explained thoughts. I would like to point out that ENB cut his quote short. He did say after they figure out how to fix their countries of orignin they should come back to the US and show us how it is done.

    1. Its only bad of your first impulse is to claim lay criticism of a minority if racist. The members mentioned just spent the last 4 weeks trashing America and those who protect america.

      1. It is bad because the media will paint it that way rather that is or is not what he meant. It was an unforced error on his part. Or it was another sleight of hands. He just announced changes to the assylum process. So we are talking about this while he is going ahead with his policies.

        1. It is bad because the media will paint it that way

          Do you think anybody other than die-hard Democrats still cares what corporate media “paints” things as?

          1. Indeed, I think most people are now inclined to take the opposite of whatever the media screeches about

      2. Translation- It’s wrong to call out our racism.

        Thanks for playing Jesse.

        1. Translation – literally everything my opponents say is racism

        2. Stop hating white people and we’ll stop calling it out, shitlib.

        3. Don’t misrepresent what I said. If you automatically assume race is a tweet that doesn’t mention race, what does that make you? I said it was a stupid move on his part.

        4. It’s not really racist. “Xenophobic” isn’t far from the mark, though.

            1. Which is why I didn’t say it was exactly the right term to use.

              1. Calm down sister, I was simply adding my own thoughts to your post.

                Lay off the coffee.

                1. Actually, I think more coffee is what I need right now. And to stop wasting time here.

                    1. Have a wonderful day.

              2. Maybe xenomisia? Like homomisia or islamomisia? Instead of “fear of” it’s “hatred of”. And a person who hates foreigners would be a misoxen maybe?

          1. Xenophobic is not correct either.

            Trump does not hate/dislike people from other countries. He married a Slovene.

            Trump does not Socialists, the Useful idiots that support Socialism, nor people that try to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

            Some anti-Socialist word would fit better.

          2. Phobias are irrational fears. Do you think it’s actually irrational to fear avowed socialists who want to radically transform the US economic system and civil society to advance their race-based agenda?

        5. I dont want to play your game of who’s wokest dumbfuck.

          1. And that’s the point – neither does the rest of the country

  15. “”To tell these American citizens (most of whom were born here) to ‘go back’ to the ‘crime infested places from which they came’ is racist”

    No Justin, your hysterics are inaccurate here.

    1. Since we are talking about Somalia, calling it “crime-infested” is an understatement, if anything.

  16. And ENB, stick to journalisming about the skin trade, and skip the “Eight degrees of what Trump thinks” if you could please.

  17. “Why do they call us all racists?” said the Republicans.

    1. Now you know why you had to jack it up to “White Supremacists.” Racism has petered out.

    2. Probably because Democrats can’t see anything other than race.

  18. New face of the Bank of England’s £50 note is revealed as Alan Turing

    Socialists: Always apologizing and still doing the same type of authoritarian things that they apologize for.

    Did Alan Turing even want to be on the British currency? The British government treated him like shit after he almost single handedly gave the Allies a coup de grace over the Nazis during WWII.

  19. Cuomo sends warning to Con Ed after blackout: ‘They can be replaced’

    Cuomo misses the irony that ConEd will be around the New York scene much longer than him.

    1. How does he think they will get replace?

  20. D.C. “may join New York and California in passing a law that makes bathroom changing tables equally available to fathers…”

    Always wanting us to change. THE WAR ON MEN CONTINUES.

  21. The mass ICE raids threatened by the Trump administration thankfully failed to materialize.

    At least we still got a tweet to freakout over.

  22. O’Rourke says he and wife descended from slave owners, has ‘more personal connection’ to slavery

    Interesting turn of Democrat Presidential losers 2020 positions. They are admitting that slavery is in their blood and will continue to try to enslave people.

    1. Americans:
      Beto: I owned slaves!

      Waits for response and uptick in approval.

      1. +100

        1. Bwana O’Rourke.

  23. Trump administration announces major crackdown on asylum seekers

    The new rule, published in the Federal Register, would require most migrants entering through America’s southern border to first seek asylum in one of the countries they traversed – whether in Mexico, in Central America, or elsewhere on their journey. In most cases, only if that application is denied would they then be able to seek asylum in the United States.

    Trump announces ICE raids and Lefties flip out and focus on that with their lawyers. Trump then adds a new immigration procedure for dealing with phony asylum seekers.

    “n”th D chess strikes again!

  24. China’s economic growth sank to its lowest level in at least 26 years in the past quarter, adding to pressure on Chinese leaders.

    Too bad Boehm and other reason staff dont have the skills to do a thorough analysis of China’s economy and Communist political considerations are susceptible to Trump’s trade strategy in order to get China to lower trade restrictions.

    1. China to conduct ‘large-scale military exercises involving its land, naval, air and rocket forces near Taiwan’ after the US approves $2.2 billion arms sale to the self-ruled island

      You are kidding me that China’s trade policy is tied to geo-political and military strategies for conquest in Eastern Asia?

    2. I will say this people have expected chinas economy to slow down for a while considering how much they over built its like pr 2008 for them

      1. Your citation fell off.

        The media does not act like they “expected” China’s economy to slow.

  25. Omar Questions the Patriotism of American-Born Citizens

    Nothing says you love America like trying to institute Socialist policies and usurp the US Constitution.

    Many people don’t realize but Congress can actually throw its own members out of office.
    Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:
    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    1. expel a member.

      “Constitutional Crisis!!”

    2. 2/3 concurrence?

      Hell, they couldn’t get a simple majority to concur that making anti-Semitic comments was a bad thing for a representative to do. Instead, they expunged that bit and put a big “republicans say bad things” sign on it before voting their non-binding resolution through.

      If you think they are gonna vote to toss out another (D) by 2/3 majority, you got another thing coming. No way, no how.

      1. At this point the Rs would be foolish to go along with it. I’d let the Squad continue to make themselves the face of the dem party and let the chips fall.

  26. The biggest story of the day, in terms of consequences, is probably the announcement that the president of Guatemala, Jimmy Morales, had to cancel his meeting with Trump at the White House, which was scheduled for today. The purpose of the meeting was presumably to announce that Guatemala was entering into a Safe Third Country agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Guatemala.

    The discussions between the U.S. and Guatemala on a Safe Third Country agreement started right after June 7, when Trump made the deal with Mexico that averted tariffs on Mexico in exchange for Mexico either significantly stopping the asylum seekers in 45 days or Mexico joining with the U.S. in a Safe Third Country agreement. Mexico insisted that it was unlikely the Mexican Senate would pass a Safe Third Country agreement with the U.S. unless Guatemala did the same.

    You see, Mexico doesn’t want to be the final destination for hundreds of thousands of destitute Central Americans every year, and that’s why they’re reluctant to join in an agreement making these people eligible for asylum in Mexico. They wanted Guatemala to enter into the Third Safe Country agreement, as well, so that Hondurans and Salvadorans wouldn’t be eligible for asylum in Mexico if they entered Mexico through Guatemala. Here’s the thing though–Guatemala doesn’t want to be the final destination for hundreds of thousands of destitute Hondurans and Salvadorans either.

    Several members of the Guatemalan legislature, therefore, hit the Guatemalan version of the Supreme Court with lawsuits that prevent the president of Guatemala from entering into a Third Safe Country agreement with the United States. This may have completely stymied the ability of the Mexican Senate to pass a Third Safe Country agreement with the U.S.

    “Guatemalan Court Blocks Signing of Immigration Agreement With U.S.”

    President Jimmy Morales had earlier scrapped a planned trip to Washington to discuss ‘safe-third-country’ proposal with President Trump

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/guatemalan-president-scraps-u-s-visit-to-discuss-immigration-proposal-11563146985?

    Trump is reportedly about to issue rules by executive order saying that almost everyone who sets foot in Mexico first isn’t eligible for asylum in the U.S., but that order would almost certainly be illegal under the auspices of various ratified treaties and U.S. laws–which, I understand require a Safe Third Country agreement to be bilateral or multilateral.

    I know there are a lot of people who like to pretend that something is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on whether they approve of what the president is trying to do. Those retards aside, unlike the travel ban, this move by Trump probably won’t survive the scrutiny of the courts–regardless of whether we want that to be the case.

    Over the next couple of weeks, I’d expect to see the following three things happen.

    1) The U.S. will probably withdraw all developmental aid to Guatemala and we may see the U.S. ratchet up pressure on officials there–under the auspices of human trafficking, drug trafficking, etc. Diplomats may be expelled.

    2) The 45 day deadline for Mexico to significantly stop the flow of asylum seekers through their country is up in a week. Expect to see the Safe Third Country agreement fail in the Mexican Senate. Trump is likely to hit Mexico with tariffs in response.

    3) The mainstream media will continue to cover these events as if they’re happening for no apparent reason other than Trump being insane and evil. Progressives are America’s most horrible people, and the White House press corp is filled with some prime examples. There’s no reason to expect them to improve as we enter into an election year.

    1. +1000

    2. Good summary, ken

    3. Haha. Several countries “don’t want to be the final destination for hundreds of thousands (millions?) of destitute Hondurans and Salvadorans”.

      But only one country is racist, nationalist, xenophobic, blah blah blah for this. Oh, the hypocrisy!

      Good post.

  27. >>>it touches off a round of holy crap, this is bad even by Donald Trump standards condemnation.

    by people who don’t understand “I want you to throw the next one at the mascot.”

    1. Don’t think, just throw.

  28. Unfortunately, this immigration debate has become a war of hyperbole and it’s bringing out the worst in everyone. I watched an exchange between the former director of ICE, AOC and another congress member whose name I don’t recall, and their treatment of him was pretty deplorable. And AOC’s comments were simply factually wrong.

    In the case of DT’s tweets, I saw those yesterday and while it seems like it’s pretty normal DT bombast, my takeaway is he’s going after people who come to this country from despotic territories and then complain about the tyranny of the U.S. system. I don’t know who he was addressing specifically and knowing Trump, he probably wasn’t addressing anyone specifically but just flinging poo at the crowd. It doesn’t excuse it, but given the increase in hateful rhetoric and hyperbole, if you think Trump isn’t going to take that bait and raise it a notch, you’re mistaken.

    This needless escalation needs to stop, and I would suggest that the Democrats stop first by mis-characterizing what’s going on at the border.

    1. I guess my fear is, that if we don’t get some honest reporting on this immigration situation, you’re going to see some nutjob attack an ICE facility and people will get hurt.

      1. Man who attacked Tacoma immigration center was repeat assailant: authorities

        According to authorities, Van Spronsen set fire to one vehicle in the parking lot and was trying to ignite a propane tank when he was confronted by four police officers who opened fire on him. None of the officers were injured.

      2. BI did some honest reporting about the immigration situation back in 2014. Silence.

        The quickest way to get the border situation out of the news isn’t to solve the issue, it’s to elect a democrat president. Then it will go back under the rug.

    2. Unfortunately, this immigration debate has become a war of hyperbole

      This isn’t an immigration debate. Democrats delight in screwing over legal immigrants.

      The debate is one about tolerating lawless actions for the benefit of the Democratic party, using desperate illegal migrants as pawns.

  29. Re Trump’s recent tweets.

    Another meaningless kerfuffle that will be forgotten shortly. He’s a genius at riling up the opposition to misdirect them from whatever he’s ACTUALLY doing.

    what happened to the discussion of massive ICE raids coming soon and the detention centers? Those are things that are ACTUALLY happening but the stupid opposition is losing their minds over tweets. Sad.

    1. Focusing on tweets is easy from a journalistic standpoint. You sit in your desk, follow the president’s tweets, then write an article about them.

      Digging into the safe-third-country issue is complex, requires time, phone calls, digging. That kind of journalism isn’t done any more.

      Example: Why did the ICE protesters raise a Mexican flag? They keep doing that, and I don’t understand it… it literally makes no sense. A friend of mine was at a parade in a southwest town and whenever the border patrol ‘float’ went by the DNC booth played “viva mexico”. I don’t get it. I think I know what they’re trying to do, but it shows a complete ignorance of the situation- and is strangely supportive of the sovereignty of the nation state of Mexico.

  30. I don’t think we should feel confident that the bureaucratic leviathan has what it takes to develop or enforce nimble responses to rapid change in the technology industry.

    Kevin McCarthy gets it.

    1. Until he gets body-snatched and starts advocating all those policies he used to criticize.

      1. Nicely done.

  31. The mass ICE raids threatened by the Trump administration thankfully failed to materialize

    As someone who is for nearly wide-open borders and seamless naturalization to America, I am still surprised people are losing their minds over these planned raids.

    It has been explicitly said that these raids are to get people who have already had a hearing and have been ordered to leave the country yet have not not so! This is something every administration has enforced for decades and something the previous administration enforced with unmatched ardor (even more so than this on, so far).

    This is not random ICE harassment of mexicans across the street from Home Depot waiting for day labor. These are people who have been through all the hearings and have been ordered to leave.

    It’s not outrageous to enforce that order. Just as the previous president did to the turn of record numbers. What am I missing here?

    1. The caterwauling has made me question everything I would have thought about immigration ten or fifteen years ago (something I didn’t give a whole lot of thought to previously, but believed travel between borders should be as reasonably free as possible.)

      1. This is the difficult thing for me, as well. I have not been convinced at all by Trump of the need for less immigration, legal or illegal. But the vehemence with which the socialists oppose restrictions makes me anxious that its importance is grossly understated. Since their ultimate success is completely and utterly dependent upon the failure of capitalism, anything the socialists want this bad cannot be good for the US.

        1. There are good and reasonable arguments all around for increasing immigration and decreasing it (or keeping it in check). And the reasonable arguments that I’ve heard articulated have nothing at all to do with racism, but have to do with anti-racism and protecting the working class.

          Of course there are racists who want to restrict immigration for racist purposes, but just because one racist gloms on to an idea doesn’t make the idea racist.

          1. ^ This.

            Being focused on border control doesn’t make you a racist. for example, millions of hispanic US citizens support Trump’s positions on the border! Does this make these hispanics racist against hispanics? I doubt it. And the previous President had arguably a bigger hardon for border and illegal immigrant enforcement than this one. Does that make him a racist?

            If a position held by one person makes them a racist, but the SAME OPINION held by someone else of a different skin color doesn’t make them racist… well that sounds racist to me.

  32. U.S.-born politicians come “from most corrupt and inept” country? Unsurprisingly, when the president of the United States tweets that American-born women of color in Congress should go back to their own countries, it touches off a round of holy crap, this is bad even by Donald Trump standards condemnation.

    Let me translate Trump’s tweet in context for you into language you might understand:

    You claim to be proud of your heritage and your cultures, and you advocate socialism for the US. But let’s look at the heritage, culture, and politics that you are so proud of. The populations of Middle Eastern countries and South American countries are overwhelmingly poverty stricken and intolerant, and they prefer authoritarian governments. If you don’t know that, just go back to those countries and spend some time there to experience it first hand. In fact, in your very own conduct in Congress, you have demonstrated that you are selfish, greedy, and intolerant. That is the culture and political system you advocate for the US, and Americans do not want it.

    1. There are societies and countries that don’t share the values of the West. It’s not complicated or racist to assert this fact.

      1. Jeffy and the Rev will be along in a few moments to dissuade you of this notion.

        Carry on, clangers (those who still ring the bell of liberty)!

      2. +100

      3. Says a authoritarian-leaning rightwing fucktards who only differ from Islamists on technicalities, such as which deity should serve as gynecologists or which scientific facts should be banned from public consumption. (Well, there’s a lot of overlap on the latter.)

        1. Scientific facts like the effectiveness of vaccination, the distinct inborn sexual identity of most humans?

          Not to mention the dangers of obesity.

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

          1. Truly the most pressing issues of our time.

            1. Deflection? Tony you aren’t even trying anymore. End stages of syphilis?

              1. LOL. He can only hope. The end stages of syphilis are less deadly than the end stages of socialism for homosexuals.

        2. Lol.

          Derp.

          Care to actually address the point instead of the usual distraction you engage in?

        3. Oh look the town retard showed up to once again regale everyone with his gimp act.

  33. He’s made Pelosi defend the same people who just called her racist. It’s genius.

    1. You mean he wiped out the faux controversy dividing the Democrats by uniting them against his atrocious racism?

          1. If so, it means that “the squad” won the battle for the soul of the democratic party via coup-de-Trump, as Pelosi had to capitulate just days after being back bitten and called racist.
            Think about this: the Democrats are now fundamentally defined by Omar, AOC, Tlaib, and the chick that nobody cares about

            1. “”defined by Omar, AOC, Tlaib, and the chick that nobody cares about””

              Redundant?

            2. Ah, so we agree that it’s cynical, racist, ugly, and divisive, but it’s possibly good politics for the orange guy. Libertarians love it!

              1. I think, that since race wasn’t mentioned, your automatic assumption it was about race says more about you then you care to admit.

              2. Where was the racism?

  34. One of the knocks I see against libertarianism a lot is the idea that we’re not realistic. Yesterday, we were talking about how things like the First Amendment and the separation of powers don’t really establish the boundaries of what the government should and shouldn’t do; rather, they’re signposts that show us the boundaries.

    The boundaries between what the government should and shouldn’t do isn’t a theory written on a piece of paper in 1789. The real boundaries between what the government should and shouldn’t do are defined by the negative consequences–in the real world–that happen when the government fails to stay within those bounds. Two great examples of the real world negative consequences of the president failing to abide by the separation of powers are playing out in the news right now.

    1) DACA

    I went to look for the number of asylum claims from the “Northern Triangle” countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras) from 2011. There were so few of them, the only one of those countries to show up on the list was Guatemala. In all of 2011, there were 484 asylum claims by Guatemalans–both affirmative and defensive claims. However many came from El Salvador and Honduras, it was less than that! Let’s round it up to 500 and multiply it times three–once for each country. That makes 1500 asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle in 2011.

    DACA was an unconstitutional executive order initiated towards the end of 2012, which held out the promise that if your child came across the border as a child, he or she wouldn’t be deported by the U.S.

    Look where we were in the month of May 2019:

    People apprehended for illegal entry between checkpoints: 132,887
    Number of those traveling in family groups: 84,542
    Number of unaccompanied children: 11,507

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pressures-mexico-as-second-day-of-border-talks-begin-11559826586

    Anybody who wants to explain the explosion in asylum claims (going from less than 1,500 for the entirety of calendar year 2011 to 132,887 for the month of May 2019 alone) would be intellectually dishonest not to at least address the incentive created by Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order. Notice, only about 28% are single adults traveling without children.

    This could all have been avoided if Obama had simply followed the Constitution. If all asylum seekers in the future are eventually made ineligible for asylum in the U.S. as a result of this, it will be because Barack Obama violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.

    2) The Iran Deal

    The Iran deal is falling apart. It’s already a non-entity in the U.S. The Europeans, on the other hand, are desperately trying to save it. They don’t understand why the United States isn’t abiding by the terms of the agreement. What they don’t seem to understand is that the U.S. isn’t an elitist entity like the EU that is obligated by international agreements that were never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Obama’s Iran Deal was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, but you know what was? That’s right-the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty–which we’re abiding by to the letter!

    Again, all of this confusion, this unnecessary battle of interests and wills was facilitated by a president who refused to follow the Constitution and entered into international agreements that were never ratified by the U.S. Senate. If you want to avoid the negative consequences of ignoring the sign posts that are clearly marked along the separation of powers in the Constitution, there’s an easy way to do that. For instance, you could abide by the Constitution. Failing to do so doesn’t subject us to theoretical negative consequences. Our fraying alliances and the suffering of these children is quite real.

    1. Ken this is one of your best comments ever. Really good.

    2. Anybody who wants to explain the explosion in asylum claims (going from less than 1,500 for the entirety of calendar year 2011 to 132,887 for the month of May 2019 alone) would be intellectually dishonest not to at least address the incentive created by Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order. Notice, only about 28% are single adults traveling without children.

      It’s a good question: why is the surge in asylum claims occurring?

      I know that the conditions in those countries hasn’t been good for a long time, but has there been some massive catastrophe that has befallen them lately? If there is, the news media doesn’t talk about it much.

      1. My first guess would be the mystery money that funds all the tourist level provision of transport, food, water, and legal advice. Strange how all the news outlets are unable to report on these services.
        Time travel back to 2011 and see if those services were available.
        Then look around and ‘follow the money’.

      2. I genuinely believe that a large part of it has to do with DACA.

        El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras aren’t substantially more impoverished now–relative to the United States–than they were in 2011. I think the big difference is that in 2011, there was no DACA, and so people with children could get across the border and have a good chance of staying here.

        Furthermore, because claiming asylum means that we can’t treat asylum seekers differently from American citizens when it comes to social services (per ratified treaties), a child will get free housing, healthcare, and SNAP benefits for years while waiting for a hearing. You can go to a sanctuary city like Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, or New York, where local government isn’t about to come after you, too.

        Notice, 72% of these asylum seekers are either children or families traveling with children. Of the 28% who are adults traveling alone, some portion of them are probably coming to the U.S. to join family (children) who are already in the United States. Correlation may not necessarily equal causation, but it doesn’t rule out causation either. If the huge difference between asylum seekers now and asylum seekers before DACA is hundreds of thousands of children, why wouldn’t we suspect DACA as a significant contributor?

    3. “That’s right-the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty–which we’re abiding by to the letter! ”

      The non-proliferation treaty doesn’t stop Iran from developing ballistic missiles or refining nuclear fuel. Obama’s deal was meant to address some of these limitations.

      1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits refining fuel in secret, which is what Iran was found guilty of doing–in violation of the treaty. It’s hard to tell sometimes whether you really can’t see your own irrelevant objections of you’re actually as ignorant and stupid as you seem. If you keep missing the target–every single time–and from such close range, eventually people are going to start assuming that you’re just a troll.

        1. Probably because he is, and he knows it

        2. “‘ If you keep missing the target–every single time–and from such close range,”‘

          Like an Iranian missile?

          1. Unfortunately, Iran first successfully launched a satellite into orbit using their own multi-stage rockets ten years ago. There’s nothing close range about the limitations of Iran’s missile program.

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

        3. “The Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits refining fuel in secret, which is what Iran was found guilty of doing–in violation of the treaty. ”

          I really don’t see the relevance. Iran is escalating the issue at the moment. The senate, the constitution and the separation of powers doesn’t seem able to resolve this. I think diplomacy might. Obama evidently thought so, and Trump has tried diplomacy on North Korea so he might give it a try with Iran. It could seal his re-election, even if the senate grumbles and resists.

          1. Obama did only to the degree he got the agreement then refused to send it to the Senate for ratification

            1. You don’t need senate ratification to negotiate. And I don’t think the lack of senate ratification of Obama’s deal has led to Iran’s escalation, in recent weeks going as far as blowing some expensive American toys out of the sky. That’s likely down to Trump and his own approach.

    4. Ken, I agree with most of your assessment, in terms of the negative consequences of these Obama extra-constitutional overreaches. I don’t, however, let the other branches of government off the hook in terms of culpability. That the Executive has gained so much power in the 20th century, leading now into the 21st, is an indictment of both past and present Congresses and the courts. Sure Obama was bad on overreach, but it’s the natural progression to an imbalance of power that led to such an authoritarian executive.

      Just look at the capriciousness of the court system that will allow an extra-constitutional implementation like DACA stand, but disallow rescinding it through the same exact means.

      I suspect that at some time in the future we’ll be able to look back upon the Trump era and view his questionable implementation of tariffs, without consulting Congress, in the same light. Will you have the courage to do so?

  35. I get that most of the progressive congresswomen are “women of color”. But is AOC? Isn’t she a caucasian, Hispanic woman?

    Is she of partial African-American heritage or something. Genuinely asking — I don’t know.

    1. White is a color, at least if you’re of Latinx origin.

      1. Wait, why not call it Latin X? Then the term goes from lame to cool.

        1. Is Latinx related to Slavix?

    2. I went to google for information, and didn’t find any clear statement. She seems to have made statements that she is from a community that has African-American ancestry, but doesn’t seem to have made any claim she is personally of African-American ancestry.

      She has said she is partially Jewish, but that’s neither here nor there.

      Being Latino or Hispanic is not considered a racial category.

      So, I’m still unclear on whether AOC is actually a “woman of color” or is only a “woman of color” by association.

      To be clear, I am not a fan of Trump, and found his tweets to be crass and xenophopic. I’m not sure it’s a fair cop to say his tweets were racist, though.

      1. I’d say the tweets were very much less than eloquent. But otherwise correct.

      2. I have been informed by a Puerto Rican acquaintance that Ocasio is the Hispanicization of the name O’Casey and we know what kind of baggage is tied to the name Cortez. So were dealing with a pasty Irish conquistadoress here.

    3. just chick. sometimes hawt sometimes “math is hard” like in today’s above pic

  36. Trump was completely correct. The question of citizenship or national origin is a red herring. Regardless of their legal status, there’s no comparison between someone who immigrates here and respects the status quo than those who fight it. The notion that Trump criticized them on the basis of who they are and not their attitudes is absurd. He’s critiquing the extremely absurd position that someone who comes from a shithole and starts advocating shithole policies should be respected in public discourse. It’s just a foreigner telling us how to be instead of a foreigner respecting our autonomy and learning from us about how things ought to be.

    1. someone who comes from a shithole and starts advocating shithole policies

      Three of the four women were born in the US.

      It’s just a foreigner telling us how to be instead of a foreigner respecting our autonomy and learning from us about how things ought to be.

      Who says that we have the monopoly on truth? Maybe we can learn something from foreigners.

      1. If I’m born in the US after my parents migrated here a year earlier, you would have to be a moron to say I’m “from” the US in the same capacity as someone here for five generations.

        We don’t have a monopoly on truth, but we do have a monopoly on autonomy. If foreigners (or anyone, for that matter) doesn’t like America fundamentally, there’s the door. That goes for all the people who hate things like the EC, 1A and 2A, Constitution, BOR, etc.

      2. Three of the four women were born in the US.

        But they also are proud of the cultures of the countries their families came from.

        Who says that we have the monopoly on truth? Maybe we can learn something from foreigners.

        You want advice from foreigners? Here it is, based on first hand, personal experience: AOC, Omar, and Tlaib are promoting an evil ideology and deserve nothing but contempt and ostracism.

        1. “But they also are proud of the cultures of the countries their families came from.”

          How does their being proud victimize you in any way? Is there nothing more important for you to whine about?

          “and deserve nothing but contempt and ostracism.”

          Yawn.

          1. How does their being proud victimize you in any way?

            Their pride in their cultures doesn’t victimize me any more than the pride of a neo-Nazi victimizes me. What victimizes me is when such assholes gain political power and put their ideas in practice.

            Is there nothing more important for you to whine about?

            Actually, when it comes to politics, no: socialism is the biggest threat to the future of the US. I’d prefer if the US didn’t go down that path.

            1. You are not hurt by others taking pride in their culture. Grow up and grow a spine. Taking pride in one’s roots is not socialism. If anything it’s conservative in nature.

              “I’d prefer if the US didn’t go down that path.”

              It’s a little late for that, isn’t it? Don’t you have a plan for your fellow Americans taking that path and dragging you along with them?

              1. You are not hurt by others taking pride in their culture.

                Except if it’s a white European one. Then it’s bad and LITERALLY VIOLENCE.

                1. ” Then it’s bad and LITERALLY VIOLENCE.”

                  Nonsense. Taking pride in European culture, black or white, isn’t met with literal violence. Why are you so desperate to portray yourself as a victim? Don’t you find it unmanly?

                  1. LOL–your reading comprehension skills are becoming increasingly addled.

                    1. I really don’t see why you are condemning these women for being proud of their roots.

                    2. I really don’t see why you are condemning these women for being proud of their roots

                      Because what they are proud of is cultures that oppress women, oppress religious minorities, oppress sexual minorities, limit freedom of speech, don’t respect private property, and glorify violence. Why the hell shouldn’t I condemn that?

                      Worse yet, these people have the gall to tell Americans like me that we owe them something and that we should shut up and let them get on with implementing their racist and socialist programs. Are you serious?

                    3. I don’t have a problem with ethnocentrism, it’s the double standard that’s irritating.

              2. You are not hurt by others taking pride in their culture.

                I agree! I just said so myself! You aren’t very good at reading comprehension, are you?

                Taking pride in one’s roots is not socialism.

                Indeed. But these assholes are both socialists and they hate America.

                It’s a little late for that, isn’t it?

                Not at all; the US isn’t socialist yet.

                Don’t you have a plan for your fellow Americans taking that path and dragging you along with them?

                No, I don’t have a plan for my fellow Americans at all beyond warning them. But if my fellow Americans choose to put socialist into power anyway, I’ll just quietly leave the country. You can’t fight that kind of stupidity. I’ll take my money and my skills with me, of course.

                1. “You aren’t very good at reading comprehension, are you?”

                  Apparently not. It seems you were criticizing the members for taking pride in their culture. Now I’m not sure what you want to say.

                  “But these assholes are both socialists and they hate America.”

                  Yawn again, I’m afraid.

                  “Not at all; the US isn’t socialist yet.”

                  Progressive income tax, public schools, roads etc. From Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto. It’s closer to socialism than some of us are comfortable with.

                  1. Apparently not

                    Considering your unself-aware parroting of 70s-era historiography, that’s hardly a surprise.

                    1. I sense that you are not happy with something in a comment I’ve written about women taking pride in their roots, and what’s wrong with that, anyway.

                    2. I sense that you are not happy with something in a comment I’ve written about women taking pride in their roots, and what’s wrong with that, anyway.

                      They can’t have it both ways. Either they take pride in the dysfunctional, xenophobic, racist, homophobic cultures they come from (and that is what their root cultures are), or they reject those cultures and embrace liberal democracy and the values that the Democratic party nominally stands for.

                      But, of course, that’s not what’s going on here anyway. The “pride in their culture” is just a pretext to deflect criticism of their policies and agenda. That’s why they were promoted into these positions in the first place: their progressive backers wanted young, photogenic minority-looking women because that plays well with certain demographics.

                      Stop letting yourself be manipulated by propaganda or pretty faces. This “pride in their culture” is b.s. These are socialist authoritarians doing whatever it takes to get into power.

                  2. It seems you were criticizing the members for taking pride in their culture. Now I’m not sure what you want to say.

                    I’m saying that it is legitimate to ask people who claim to be proud of their culture and who condemn US culture incessantly to explain the basis of their pride and to ask why they aren’t returning to the culture they are so proud of.

                    I’m saying that as an immigrant; if I had been proud of my culture, I wouldn’t have emigrated to the US.

  37. […] Donald Trump’s awful, unapologetic “you can’t leave fast enough” remarks about the four progressive Democratic congresswomen known as “the Squad” came after an […]

  38. […] Donald Trump’s awful, unapologetic “you can’t leave fast enough” remarks about the four progressive Democratic congresswomen known as “the Squad” came after an […]

  39. And just like that, people quit talking about woman’s soccer.

  40. At first I thought Trump was trolling the Democrats. There was starting to be a pushback by the Nancy Pelosi “moderate” wing ( hah, can’t believe I wrote that!) against the squad. Now everyone has to defend the squad , and Pelosi and the CBC would not dare continue the criticism.
    Did he overplay his hand and he would alienate 1st generation Americans or immigrants who support him? maybe. time will tell.

    1. I have a feeling most first generation Americans who support Trump at least half agree with his sentiments.

  41. Maybe we can learn something from foreigners.

    This is a nation founded by foreigners. 243 years into the experiment, we are still the most free society on the planet and, apparently, still the place that everyone wants to go when their shithole is falling apart.

    I don’t think there is much for us to learn about self-governance from Somalia.

    1. I don’t think there is much for us to learn about self-governance from Somalia.

      Perhaps there is: the Somalis rebelled against their socialist government and kicked the socialists out. Among them: Omar’s family.

  42. I am so tired of everything being made a racial issue. You can think his comments were stupid or you can think they were right on the money, but please, enough of the, “GASP!!! SEE, HE’S SO RACIST!!!!” thing. Questioning people from foreign countries (or closely associated with foreign countries) because their political aims are so strikingly similar to the catastrophic mistakes of these very countries, has nothing to do with race. NOTHING WHATSOEVER!!!!! And I’m really not a trump guy.

  43. “At this point, after those tweets, what is the factual objection to describing the president as a white nationalist?”

    Because Trump’s comments say nothing about race.

    The distinction Trump was making was between people from different countries, not people from different races.

    And, depending on the person, it’s not unreasonable to consider someone from another country if their parents were from another country.

    And if all you do is spout how much you hate America and Americans all day, it’s not unreasonable to consider that whatever else, you don’t consider yourself an American, and so why should I?

    Countries are people with a culture. If your parents were born and raised in Elbonia, immigrated to the US, and had you, you’re likely still kind of an Elbonian.

    I grew up in Hawaii in a majority Asian culture with my pasty white mom from Nebraska. I’m kind Asian, and kind of American. I find “mainland” Americans not really my culture. Good old Barack, with a pasty white Mom from Kansas, is also rather Asian, likely moreso, given he actually lived in Asia proper in his youth.

    Obama could actually have a lot of interesting things to say about race from those perspectives, particularly of a half black raised in a majority Asian culture within the US. In Hawaii, if Barack’s dad was anything but racially African, Barack would have been considered half-white from his mom and half whatever his dad was. The one drop rule did not apply in Hawaii. You were whatever mix you got from your parents. There’s even a term for being half white: hapa haole.

    But except for military, blacks were so few and far between in Hawaii, that I don’t know if the one drop rule applied to blacks. It just didn’t come up.

    Barack could have interesting things to say about race from a different perspective than the usual Whitey vs. POCs cliches of the mainland US, but he chooses to stick to the cliches.

    The extent to which Barack and I are Asian, which we are, is not a matter of race, but of culture.

    It’s only the racist Left who can’t or won’t wrap their heads around the difference between culture and race. Trump’s comments simply didn’t touch on race.

    1. “The distinction Trump was making was between people from different countries, not people from different races.”

      So when Trump talks about Somalians, he means both black Somalians and white Somalians. Thanks for the trumxplanation.

      1. So when Trump talks about Somalians,

        You’re right: Trump’s generalization about Somalis is unfair. Somalis revolted and kicked out their socialist government. Unfortunately, many of the socialists they kicked out fled to the US, among them Omar’s family. And now Omar is trying to peddle the same socialist crap in the US.

        1. Worst refugee ever.

          1. True, Omar is a walking trash heap who deserves to have her citizenship revoked. The other three are just bog-standard leftists mouthing campus coffeehouse boilerplate.

            1. Omar is a good example for this ‘intersectionality’ business. She’s a woman, muslim, African roots, foreign born, poorly educated, terrorist etc. How can you help but despise her more that the others?

              1. Omar is a socialist and racist from a family of socialists who constantly expresses her hatred for mainstream America. That’s why people despise her.

                The fact that she is a pretty young woman actually lets her get away with that crap; that’s why the Justice Democrats picked her as a photogenic figurehead.

      2. So when lefties mock Christians or wal mart shoppers they mean white, black and Hispanic Christians and wal Mart shoppers, right?

        Thanks for the wokesplanation.

        Haha

        1. What a wonderful country. Every card a race card.

    2. bbdd wins the internet!

  44. From that economist, Daniel Drezner:

    There’s a lot of repellent stuff in these tweets, but it’s interesting that Trump presumes Ayanna Pressley (born in Chicago), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (born in NYC), and Rashida Tlaib (born in Detroit) were not born in the USA.

    Nowhere did Trump say anything about their place of birth.

    But, yeah, there sure is a lot of “repellent stuff” in Drezner’s tweets.

  45. Trump can say the dumbest shit and still he can beat 23 of the 24 dunces running for top spot on the Democratic ticket.

  46. […] Donald Trump’s awful, unapologetic “you can’t leave fast enough” remarks about the four progressive Democratic congresswomen known as “the Squad” came after an […]

  47. Trump does say things that could be interpreted as racist. Yet if you actually take the time to look at his policies, he has been the best thing to happen to CITIZENS of color since the Civil Right Act.

  48. […] he was embroiled in other Twitter controversies on Prime Day, President Donald Trump has echoed some of his Democratic opponents’ criticisms […]

  49. […] he was embroiled in other Twitter controversies on Prime Day, President Donald Trump has echoed some of his Democratic opponents’ criticisms […]

  50. […] why he will oppose a resolution condemning Donald Trump’s inflammatory remarks about “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen,” House Minority Leader Kevin […]

  51. […] why he will oppose a resolution condemning Donald Trump’s inflammatory remarks about “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy […]

  52. Trump says stupid shit and he does it a lot, but I understand what he was trying to convey. What he was probably trying to say is go back to their “districts” as these congresswomen are literally from shit hole districts (all districts the Democrats have ruined by the way, yet the people keep voting blue).

    Trump would be a lot better if he had someone help him with his Tweets.. anyways, this isn’t the worst thing to ever happen. Republicans and Democrats unlike just need to get over it. Trump is not going to stop saying stupid shit anytime soon- this is who he is and who he will always be.

  53. This is as entertaining as watching Reagan and congressional communists needle each others’ collectivist “isms”. The shocking part is that almost everything they say about each other is largely true. One commenter said: we’ve got Trump’s back because he’s got ours. This about sums up the predatory fratricide within a rotting, altruist looter kleptocracy, end makes one appreciate the chance to use libertarian spoiler votes to change BOTH factions’ policies by leveraging their hatred of one another.

  54. […] why he opposed a resolution condemning Donald Trump’s inflammatory remarks about “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen,” House Minority Leader […]

  55. […] why he opposed a resolution condemning Donald Trump’s inflammatory remarks about “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen,” House Minority Leader […]

  56. Rupantar | Innovative Pathshaala | New Way Of Teaching Methods | Inclusive Classrooms | Quality Education
    Innovative Pathshaala is a collection of introducing new methods of primary teaching. ZIIEI Innovative Handbook ( Navachar Pustika) is a series of all innovative ideas, activities, and experimental teaching methods which makes education simple for primary students. Different activities and games develop self – learning environment in the class. We focus on quality education rather than quantity education. Children should be studied by taking an interest, studies should not be considered burdensome.

Comments are closed.