Despite the fact that Trumpankhamen has said he’s dropping the question and instead directing the relevant agencies to gather citizenship data by other means — something they’ve been doing all along, and the approach the original plaintiffs had requested — I think it’s valuable for a judge to set a marker on the issue. For one thing, all it would take is someone on Fox&Friends to suggest that the president was “weak” for him to do a 180°; for another, the temperature in the lobster pot has already been raised a degree or three, and there’s no way it should be allowed to go higher.
I dunno. I’m about as hard-core Dem as they come and I can find things to criticize the Squad for. If we can’t self-critic then we’re no better than the fuckheads in the GOP.
Those 4 ladies need to learn that numbers matter and that the good you can do now is usually better than the perfect you want, but can’t achieve.
Wait one tiny[del]-fingered[/del] moment! Isn’t that, itself, illegal? Federal forms requestinginformation are required to state (a) under which law the request for information is made, (b) who will have access to the information, and (c) specifically what the information is being asked for. In short, you cna’t change your mind on who can have access to that info after you’ve stated who will.
Of course I’m not a lawyer, but in my unit forms control officer role a couple of decades ago, those are the rules I had to operate under.
So they vote to condemn his remarks. Which means… what? “Our vote says the president did something bad.” Whoop-de-doo. There’s still 184 GOPers standing with him.
Today, Seth Abramson capped off a list of newly-revealed facts about Epstein with:
There are a lot of slimy, stinking chickens coming home to roost in Donald’s coop. We do indeed need to keep this story from vanishing into the ‘too many scandals to keep track of’ void.
It’s both. Trump sees going full-racist as a way of delighting his base, and thus increasing his power and popularity.
He also sees it as a way of keeping the conversation on all media–social and main-stream–away from the dangerous-for-him Epstein story.
Yes. The ugly racism is serving more than one purpose. Trump wants to ensure that the Epstein story isn’t top-of-the-fold. He wants to be sure that it’s mentioned only in the last five minutes of the news shows, if that. He wants to be sure that citations on new developments aren’t being shared online.
Does that mean that anyone is saying “ignore the racism”? No. To suggest such a thing is to be a useful idiot.
That’s 184 Republicans up for election who unequivocally refused to say that racist comments were bad, because they were spoken by their leader.
They can wear this. I know in many cases it won’t matter, because they are elected by enough other racists in their districts. But some of them will lose if it’s pointed out repeatedly that they REFUSED to say that racist comments were bad.
Pointing out that Trump is a racist isn’t doing him any favors. Decent people aren’t going to vote for somebody who’s openly racist.
Sure, we’ll also be sure to keep talking about how Trump rapes women. And how he takes bribes. And how he has secret connections with hostile governments. And, of course, how he’s incompetent.
But racism is a serious issue that affects tens of millions of Americans. It’s not a minor thing. And Trump’s racism has gone far beyond “political correctness”.
But in some legal aspects (at least here in America) this isn’t true. A corporation can be a legal person and can be held legally liable for things rather than the executives of the corporation.
To use your analogy, sometimes our legal system holds the car responsible for the accident rather than the person who was driving the car.
Bo, thanks for that. Actually quite a clever way to ruin an agency of government, and effectively weaken its regulatory powers - relocate its headquarters to some faraway, less-desirable-for-many place. Crap.
