It takes Gillibrand three minutes here to go from angry mom demanding zero tolerance on sexual misconduct to stammering over Bill Clinton
Was just thinking about this... the Dems have basically been winning the culture wars, immigration wars, big government wars... basically whatever "war" you want to name. And they do it because when liberals and conservatives compromise, liberals always win and conservatives always lose. If one side wants to increase immigration (for example) and one side does not, then any compromise that doesn't involve actually deporting more people is a win. A slower win, but a win. My point is that I think Trump Derangement is absolutely destroying their strategy. They're no longer content to nibble away, because everything has to be fixed Right Now. Time's Up. It's not enough that Trump triples the number of DACA recipients. If they were content with that, they would have called Trump's bluff and gotten a deal, and then basically be patient until they can trash all the other stuff once they get back in power. They still increase immigration, only they "slow the rate of increase." But no. They knowingly and willingly defeat their own argument that not helping the dreamers is a matter of life and death, and it's worth stopping the government over (well... for a weekend until the poll numbers come out, anyway.) They in effect argue that not building a wall and not cutting the number of new people who can come in is more important than the million or so "innocents" who are suffering in the shadows under the oppressive weight of not being actual citizens despite (apparently) becoming successful, productive contributors to our nation. I'm curious how it will end up, because time is basically on their side anyway, since we're raising a generation of people who are as close to being literally insane as I can imagine while still being considered legally sane. Unless some major changes take place, this country will have on-request immigration within 50 years. But I wonder if enough people in the middle see all this and don't buy into the hysteria. I get a lot of my sense of things from Twitter and all the digital marketing people I follow are flaming liberals, so I'm not sure how far gone we really are at this point.
I bet Joy wants her canned for that. lol. I dont think anybody on that show is ever supposed to ask Dems aggressive questions. I read that McCain struck another one the other day, asking CNN's token Republican (Anna Novora?) -- "Why do you still call yourself a Republican."
She fits into the Jennifer Rubin and David Brooks mold, which is probably why CNN puts her on the air.
The freakout over his immigration plan tells me that they don't actually want a deal on immigration. Frankly, Trump's proposal is pretty moderate, which is ironic considering that he won the nomination by saying all illegal immigrants needed to go, that we needed to cut legal immigration, ban Muslims, and bashed his opponents as too soft on the issue. It includes the wall and increases security, but it doesn't have e-verify, legalizes all DACA-eligible people, and actually does very little to deal with chain migration. It still keeps the current rules for the backlog, which is enormous, and even for those who come after the backlog is clear, the chain is simply shortened to immediate family - spouses and minor children. It does eliminate the visa lottery, but it doesn't eliminate those slots. It allocates them to the family and high-skilled backlogs. Even if this proposal doesn't get watered down on Capitol Hill, we'll still be admitting a massive number of immigrants. It won't be open borders bedlam like the Democrats would create, but it definitely isn't what Steven Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Jeff Sessions had in mind when they decided to back Trump. They wanted real and substantial limits on immigration, not just the avoidance of dumping half the third world into the United States. If Democrats really wanted a deal, they would be extremely receptive to this plan. The fact that they are crapping all over it, calling it racist, and not putting forth a counter-proposal pretty much shows me that they want "the issue," not a solution. That motivates their base and reinforces their political narratives, but at some point, people might start to figure out that they aren't interested in actually doing something about immigration. If that happens, their plan might backfire.
It's the new playbook. Once they call it racist, no one actually looks to see what the deal is. They just shut it down. So no danger that immigration activists might see it and say "wait a second, this is a win for us!"
He's sorta following a modified version of Obama's playbook. Once he figured out that Republicans essentially wouldn't negotiate in his direction at all, liberal commentators started throwing out hypothetical scenarios just to make the GOP look crazy and unreasonable. For example, I recall Republicans being asked if they'd accept a budget that had 9 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in tax hikes. They always said No and demonized such a plan. Of course, Obama never offered that plan, but their knee jerk dismissal of it exposed them as totally unwilling to play ball. Trump is similarly exposing Democrats. It's riskier, because he doesn't have an army of commentators to dutifully ask Democrats hypothetical scenarios that make them look like jerks to reject. He has to actually put them on the table. Either way, I think he knows they're going to scream and crap in their pants no matter what he suggests, so to him, there's no reason not to offer something pretty fair to the Dreamers and let Democrats demonize it. In addition, he's sorta showing how phony their Dreamer fetish really is. They wrap themselves in the Dreamers because people are sympathetic to their plight. However, their knee jerk dismissal of plan shows that protecting the Dreamers isn't what's driving their agenda. Open borders is, and that's not popular. However, it was successful in turning California solid blue in the '90, and taking that strategy nationwide has been the core of their political strategy ever since.
The Constitution abhors pre-publication censorship Yet this seems to the primary tool for lefties these days They seem oblivious to the fact that, by doing this, they are admitting they have no effective counter -- the most they can ever hope to do is to keep the other side from speaking Here, the UC Berkeley student paper (a school that receives federal funding (a lot of it)) has refused to publish an op-ed which gives the conservative students perspective on the DACA issue
Instead of attacking their mascot, why dont we all just agree most all ND grads are offensive, and just move on
Honestly, if any of these names is "offensive" (such an overused term), it's this one, because it includes the term "fighting," which was a negative stereotype about the Irish. They're supposedly drunks who fight a lot. No such adjective is attached to the Native American names that other sports teams use. And in spite of that, it's still monumentally stupid to be offended by the name or any of these sports teams' names. That's why 90 percent of Native Americans aren't offended by them. It's almost entirely a tool for virtue signaling white people.
So this weird interview is a little bit interesting -- Rose McGowan, who originally played a role in the outing of Harvey Weinstein as a world class slime ball if not outright criminal, is now calling out Alyssa Milano and her CAA husband and says the #TimesUp movement was a cynical plot of pure self-interest hatched by CAA (the most powerful entertainment agency in the world)
I've already apologized in Hornfans on behalf of my wife-beatin', feudin', meth-dealing, murderin' Scots Irish bretheren and renounced those lifestyle choices. Say what you will. Jesus forgives. I'm cleansed from being offended over the "Fightin Irish."
I'm still not clear why the good folks from Minnesota are OK with their mascot being a bunch of savage rapists who went from town to town looting and pillaging.
I wonder why the people of Boston being OK with their mascot being a bunch of racists who defended and advocated genocide, white supremacy, and slavery. Sounds crazy, but we're heading in that direction.
How are we not making fun of Doritos yet??? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/05/583399141/doritos-for-her "In a recent interview with WNYC's Freakonomics, Nooyi discussed the different ways that men and women eat chips.Men "lick their fingers with great glee, and when they reach the bottom of the bag they pour the little broken pieces into their mouth, because they don't want to lose that taste of the flavor, and the broken chips in the bottom," Nooyi said. "Women would love to do the same, but they don't," she continued. "They don't like to crunch too loudly in public. And they don't lick their fingers generously and they don't like to pour the little broken pieces and the flavor into their mouth." Freaknonomics host Stephen Dubner asked Nooyi if her company is developing a "male and female version of chips." Nooyi responded, "It's not a male and female as much as 'are there snacks for women that can be designed and packaged differently?' And yes, we are looking at it, and we're getting ready to launch a bunch of them soon. For women, low-crunch, the full taste profile, not have so much of the flavor stick on the fingers, and how can you put it in a purse? Because women love to carry a snack in their purse." one of only 27 female CEOs currently leading Fortune 500 companies. She has been named to Forbes' list of the most powerful women in the world and frequently speaks on women's leadership, including later in the Freakonomics interview."
