Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

GOP slouches into the Crazy -IMMIGRATION | Trump Firehose of anti-immigrant posts and rhetoric

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 969
  • Views: 29K
  • Politics 
Maybe Vance has decided that getting his head blown off by an assassin would be preferable to being Donald Trump’s cuck? If so, my opinion of his judgment went from rock bottom to slightly above rock bottom.
 
lawtig02 said:
I’m not understanding the Pub talking point here. Pretty much all bomb threats are hoaxes, and regardless of where these are coming from, they wouldn’t be happening without Trump and Vance demonizing Haitian residents of Springfield. So what’s the reason for an apology?
Click to expand...
I had friends texting me this same thing. It was a "hoax" so get over it. Well since bombs didn't explode and weren't found, we knew it was a hoax. To be charitable, perhaps the longer version of that take is "His amplifying this silly story didn't drive his supporters to phone in bomb threats. Other bad actors used the media hubbub as an opportunity to seed chaos and division. And while he might fairly deserve a lot of blame if the former, he is (much) less blameworthy for the latter."

Of course, since neither he nor Vance initially knew who was phoning in the threats, I would argue his behavior is still very blameworthy because a more reasonable inference was he was inflaming his own supporters and, yet, regardless, continued to double down and triple down on the stories...as the threats continued to pile up. Simply put, he didn't care whether it was ... or was not the cause. Because Trump's cause is always Trump.
 
Here is what JD thought back in 2012 ... (long b/c the dude is long-winded)

​

"When the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking:maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can’t nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can’t actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can’t depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little.

At no time was this more obvious than last Tuesday. During the weeks before the election, conservatives I spoke to were confident—even hubristic—that Mitt Romney would win. ... And then reality intervened. Nate Silver, that political hack from the Times, correctly predicted that Obama would win 332 electoral votes. Dick Morris, a conservative pundit on Fox News, was left apologizing for the Romney landslide that didn’t materialize.Conservatives lost, they lost big, and now it falls to the party’s leaders to explain why.

,,, The Elephant in the Room--Demographics

The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking,and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.

The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won’t move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites.Take tax policy, for example. A good friend recently told me that he was becoming more liberal because he just didn’t believe in“supply-side economics” anymore. I was almost speechless. Supporting supply-side economics is like supporting Soviet containment—it’s anachronistic to the extreme. Reaganomics was a response to a particular phenomenon—an over regulated, overtaxed, and sluggish economy in the 1970s. It was never meant to become party orthodoxy,and during the Bush years, supply-side economics produced median wage stagnation and growth that was either illusory (as in the housing sector) or extremely concentrated (as in the financial sector). To the average Latino or Black voter, one party speaks about education reform while the other repeats platitudes that have long outgrown their use. Is it any wonder that they support the former?

On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or “self deporting” them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens.The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.

The Way Forward

Despite all the depressing things I’ve read in the past few days,there is one shining exception: the increasing popularity of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio is an almost perfect politician—young,handsome, articulate, thoughtful—but he is also the first popular figure to question the party’s approach to immigration. And his career has shown a very keen interest in the promise of the American dream and the nature of social mobility.

But there are dangers to putting all of my (or the Republican Party’s) eggs in the Rubio basket. For one, no single man is a panacea to the problems of an entire political movement.

The way forward then, is primarily about a new approach to policy, one that need not abandon conservatism, but apply it to a changing world.

... It remains an open question, however, whether conservatives will embrace the obvious or continue droning on about makers, takers, and the collapse of the American dream.


Posted byCenter for World Conflict and Peaceat12:06 AMNo comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:Author: JD Vance
 
www.nytimes.com

Harris Condemns Trump’s ‘Hateful’ Claims About Springfield, Ohio

“This is exhausting, and it’s harmful,” Kamala Harris said during an interview. “And it’s hateful, and grounded in some age-old stuff that we should not have the tolerance for.”
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Harris Condemns Trump’s ‘Hateful’ Claims About Springfield, Ohio​

“This is exhausting, and it’s harmful,” Kamala Harris said during an interview. “And it’s hateful, and grounded in some age-old stuff that we should not have the tolerance for.”

"... Although she did not mention Mr. Trump by name, it was clear whom she was talking about.

“I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison,” Ms. Harris said at one point, a reference to her long career as a prosecutor. Holding an office like the presidency, she continued, “means that you have been invested with trust to be responsible.”

Senator JD Vance of Ohio, Mr. Trump’s running mate, has also amplified the false claims about Haitian migrants, doubling down on them in an interview this week. ..."
 
nycfan said:
Here is what JD thought back in 2012 ... (long b/c the dude is long-winded)

​

"When the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking:maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can’t nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can’t actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can’t depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little.

At no time was this more obvious than last Tuesday. During the weeks before the election, conservatives I spoke to were confident—even hubristic—that Mitt Romney would win. ... And then reality intervened. Nate Silver, that political hack from the Times, correctly predicted that Obama would win 332 electoral votes. Dick Morris, a conservative pundit on Fox News, was left apologizing for the Romney landslide that didn’t materialize.Conservatives lost, they lost big, and now it falls to the party’s leaders to explain why.

,,, The Elephant in the Room--Demographics

The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking,and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.

The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won’t move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites.Take tax policy, for example. A good friend recently told me that he was becoming more liberal because he just didn’t believe in“supply-side economics” anymore. I was almost speechless. Supporting supply-side economics is like supporting Soviet containment—it’s anachronistic to the extreme. Reaganomics was a response to a particular phenomenon—an over regulated, overtaxed, and sluggish economy in the 1970s. It was never meant to become party orthodoxy,and during the Bush years, supply-side economics produced median wage stagnation and growth that was either illusory (as in the housing sector) or extremely concentrated (as in the financial sector). To the average Latino or Black voter, one party speaks about education reform while the other repeats platitudes that have long outgrown their use. Is it any wonder that they support the former?

On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or “self deporting” them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens.The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.

The Way Forward

Despite all the depressing things I’ve read in the past few days,there is one shining exception: the increasing popularity of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio is an almost perfect politician—young,handsome, articulate, thoughtful—but he is also the first popular figure to question the party’s approach to immigration. And his career has shown a very keen interest in the promise of the American dream and the nature of social mobility.

But there are dangers to putting all of my (or the Republican Party’s) eggs in the Rubio basket. For one, no single man is a panacea to the problems of an entire political movement.

The way forward then, is primarily about a new approach to policy, one that need not abandon conservatism, but apply it to a changing world.

... It remains an open question, however, whether conservatives will embrace the obvious or continue droning on about makers, takers, and the collapse of the American dream.


Posted byCenter for World Conflict and Peaceat12:06 AMNo comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:Author: JD Vance
Click to expand...
Sweet Jesus.
 
Unable to golf, Trump is indulging in a tweet storm that is all over the map, but includes digging up a Haitian migrant crime from Boston:



IMG_2854.jpeg

IMG_2855.jpeg
 
nycfan said:
Here is what JD thought back in 2012 ... (long b/c the dude is long-winded)

​

"When the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking:maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can’t nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can’t actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can’t depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little.

At no time was this more obvious than last Tuesday. During the weeks before the election, conservatives I spoke to were confident—even hubristic—that Mitt Romney would win. ... And then reality intervened. Nate Silver, that political hack from the Times, correctly predicted that Obama would win 332 electoral votes. Dick Morris, a conservative pundit on Fox News, was left apologizing for the Romney landslide that didn’t materialize.Conservatives lost, they lost big, and now it falls to the party’s leaders to explain why.

,,, The Elephant in the Room--Demographics

The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking,and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.

The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won’t move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites.Take tax policy, for example. A good friend recently told me that he was becoming more liberal because he just didn’t believe in“supply-side economics” anymore. I was almost speechless. Supporting supply-side economics is like supporting Soviet containment—it’s anachronistic to the extreme. Reaganomics was a response to a particular phenomenon—an over regulated, overtaxed, and sluggish economy in the 1970s. It was never meant to become party orthodoxy,and during the Bush years, supply-side economics produced median wage stagnation and growth that was either illusory (as in the housing sector) or extremely concentrated (as in the financial sector). To the average Latino or Black voter, one party speaks about education reform while the other repeats platitudes that have long outgrown their use. Is it any wonder that they support the former?

On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or “self deporting” them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens.The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party’s platform.

The Way Forward

Despite all the depressing things I’ve read in the past few days,there is one shining exception: the increasing popularity of Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio is an almost perfect politician—young,handsome, articulate, thoughtful—but he is also the first popular figure to question the party’s approach to immigration. And his career has shown a very keen interest in the promise of the American dream and the nature of social mobility.

But there are dangers to putting all of my (or the Republican Party’s) eggs in the Rubio basket. For one, no single man is a panacea to the problems of an entire political movement.

The way forward then, is primarily about a new approach to policy, one that need not abandon conservatism, but apply it to a changing world.

... It remains an open question, however, whether conservatives will embrace the obvious or continue droning on about makers, takers, and the collapse of the American dream.


Posted byCenter for World Conflict and Peaceat12:06 AMNo comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels:Author: JD Vance
Click to expand...
Conservatism without the racism and voodoo economics? Where can we find a party full of those folks?
 
nycfan said:
“… “I think our people hate the right people,” a relaxed JD Vance confided to an interviewer three years ago.

By “our people,” Vance meant the followers of Donald Trump, whose support he intended to win in the Ohio Republican senate primary.

… it was also clear that Vance knew one couldn’t foster hatred for liberal elites without the collateral damage of hatred for immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, cultural nonconformists, and any of the groups whom those elites were supposedly elevating at the expense of “our people.”

But these past few weeks suggest that it wasn’t merely collateral damage at all. The assault on these groups really was the point. The alleged failures of liberal elites (to, say, close the border or protect manufacturing jobs) are the excuse for the assaults on immigrants and minorities that we’ve seen throughout the Trump years. That’s where the real political payoff is.

Let’s return, for a moment, to Vance’s telling sentence. By “hate” Vance means . . . hate. Not disagreement or even dislike. Hate.

… And the assault on the Haitians of Springfield, Ohio, is a kind of culmination of Vance’s—and of course Trump’s—politics of hate.

It also represents a culmination of Vance’s and Trump’s politics of lying.

Vance acknowledged yesterday on CNN that he had been trying to manufacture coverage of Springfield based on nothing more than a few unsubstantiated constituent phone calls

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

The creation of stories. One could call that fiction. Or lies. Lies in the service of justifying and encouraging hatred for a minority group.

That seems familiar. It’s familiar from the last century in Europe. It’s also familiar from periods of American history, especially with respect to race and immigrants.

… Perhaps a pure play on racism and nativism is more effective politically than a somewhat complicated debate about the border—especially after Trump killed the border bill, and especially in non-border states in the Midwest?

In any case, it’s striking that Trump and Vance are willing to make this campaign so clearly a referendum on nativism and racism. …”


www.thebulwark.com

Vance, Trump, and The Politics of Hate

The liberal elites may be the stated target. But minority communities are the ones who suffer.
www.thebulwark.com www.thebulwark.com
Click to expand...
Was having a conversation with my wife’s aunt (who is about 5 years older than I am) and we were talking about immigration and she was asking my POV (she is pretty hardcore Republican).
I told her that Trump is coming from a place where he does not view them with humanity. I told her that if you think about immigrants in such a negative light, you won’t ever get immigration right.
Yes, we need to vet. But we also need the workers and the vast majorly are good people.
 
nycfan said:
Unable to golf, Trump is indulging in a tweet storm that is all over the map, but includes digging up a Haitian migrant crime from Boston:



IMG_2854.jpeg

IMG_2855.jpeg
Click to expand...

1. They weren't smuggled.
2. This happened on your watch, asshole. You were the ones separating the families and ditching the UC
3. The reason that UCs aren't given Notices to Appear is because the process is farcical. Since they are not given an attorney, the judge literally has to have a conversation with a small child about whether the child understands his or her rights and the process.

This bullshit is so frustrating. I think it's this sort of trolling that is most irritating to me -- at least, in this moment it is. Right-wingers don't give a fuck about girls' sports and have fought them every step of the way -- but now they are so concerned about protecting girls' sports because trans. Right-wingers never gave a fuck about the unaccompanied children or the families they were ripping apart, but now they are suddenly concerned with these kids' welfare (note to Trump: they are probably working in Arkansas thanks to Sarah Sanders). They don't care about any of this shit, except in pathetic attempts to attack liberals who are doing the best we can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top