Octopus Overlords

Before the day ends, might as well remember DJT's narcisissm even as the rubble burned.
Tweetie video link

That should have been re-broadcast everywhere.

Shame, saw that No Where but here.

Scoop20906 wrote: I agree, LB. People are not racist because they are a certain color. They are idiots because they want to deny the history of racism and violence of this country. How would you like it if you were walking down a street in your town only to find out that that tree up on the hill was used to lynch someone who looked alot like you. Would it matter if it only happened 10 day or 10 year ago? That is reality and it is history. People who live today who look like that person who was lynched still feel that. It hasn't gone away. What did that officer say the other day? "We only kill other people, right?" You think people don't say that ALL the time? What if you son looked like that person who got lynched all those years ago. Would you feel good about letting him walk down that same street? I would not. Being human has nothing to do with it, you are right. But history is ALL ABOUT people abusing other races in this country and I think WE have a responsibility to be sensitive to that. If people started to see it was their responsibility to work the heal the wounds of this country I think we would be a lot stronger as a community.

Call me insensitive, but this reads better for me. Racism has been perpetuated on all sides for hundreds of years, and long before the founding of the United States. Yes, there are still white people who hate black people for being black, but there are also black people who hate white people for being white.

What we need is for everyone to work together. Putting the burden on a specific race won't work, because members of that race will fight back against that. Make it everyone's problem, and everyone can deal with it. I'm not asking us to forget history, but we should treat it for what it is - history. Cut down the lynching tree and make a homeless shelter out of the wood. Tear down the confederate monuments and melt them down into nails and brackets for construction.

Human history is littered with one group of people treating another group very poorly because the groups are different. You figure out how to get humans past that, and we can solve racism. It doesn't even have to be about skin tone. We've got people hating others for sexual orientation, religions, skin tones, and everything else you could possibly segregate us by. I think it all derives from the same vestigial, animal part of the brain.

Paingod wrote:

Scoop20906 wrote: I agree, LB. People are not racist because they are a certain color. They are idiots because they want to deny the history of racism and violence of this country. How would you like it if you were walking down a street in your town only to find out that that tree up on the hill was used to lynch someone who looked alot like you. Would it matter if it only happened 10 day or 10 year ago? That is reality and it is history. People who live today who look like that person who was lynched still feel that. It hasn't gone away. What did that officer say the other day? "We only kill other people, right?" You think people don't say that ALL the time? What if you son looked like that person who got lynched all those years ago. Would you feel good about letting him walk down that same street? I would not. Being human has nothing to do with it, you are right. But history is ALL ABOUT people abusing other races in this country and I think WE have a responsibility to be sensitive to that. If people started to see it was their responsibility to work the heal the wounds of this country I think we would be a lot stronger as a community.

Call me insensitive, but this reads better for me. Racism has been perpetuated on all sides for hundreds of years, and long before the founding of the United States. Yes, there are still white people who hate black people for being black, but there are also black people who hate white people for being white.

What we need is for everyone to work together. Putting the burden on a specific race won't work, because members of that race will fight back against that. Make it everyone's problem, and everyone can deal with it. I'm not asking us to forget history, but we should treat it for what it is - history. Cut down the lynching tree and make a homeless shelter out of the wood. Tear down the confederate monuments and melt them down into nails and brackets for construction.

Human history is littered with one group of people treating another group very poorly because the groups are different. You figure out how to get humans past that, and we can solve racism. It doesn't even have to be about skin tone. We've got people hating others for sexual orientation, religions, skin tones, and everything else you could possibly segregate us by. I think it all derives from the same vestigial, animal part of the brain.

Yeah, but as Americans we can only take legal action re: our own past sins. We can't erase monuments in New Delhi or Mexico City.

The "all sides" thing just means nothing gets addressed. We're all guilty so it's a wash, just move on. That doesn't work. The fact is that today, racist policies enacted right here in the US still impact the lives of people living today. Ignoring that perpetuates the damage.

The effects of racism can be statistically shown to disproportionately affect certain groups. Racism exists and is a universal scourge, but both sides do not face equal consequences.

My German ancestors were ok in their farming community, but not so well treated in the city. My wife's Irish Catholic illegal immigrant ancestors were treated poorly but they still had better opportunities (via union jobs) than my mother's Chinese illegal immigrant ancestor who could only run a laundromat until he could buy a farm for his Polish wife. And all of my ancestors were better off than African Americans of the time. Today I'm less likely to have a gun pulled by a police officer or deported in Arizona. Those are facts, not opinions.

LawBeefaroni wrote:The "all sides" thing just means nothing gets addressed. We're all guilty so it's a wash, just move on. That doesn't work. The fact is that today, racist policies enacted right here in the US still impact the lives of people living today. Ignoring that perpetuates the damage.

Claiming the "all sides" thing doesn't work means you'd like to drop it at my feet since I'm white and the disproportion you see is white racism. I'm telling you that dropping a stinking pile of shit at my feet and telling me to clean it up only makes me want to call the whole thing your problem and walk away from it. It gets you nowhere. You want to stand shoulder to shoulder with me, and I'll get the squeegee.

Today's policies can and should be corrected if they're excluding groups of people. However, in correcting those policies the result needs to be that there are no favorites or special rules for anyone. Equality is a compromise that leaves everyone feeling the same burden and responsibility. You can't achieve that by sitting back and expecting other people to do it for you.

I think the US as a whole is staggering forward towards a better equality. It's a drunken stagger with a lot of problems. History will hopefully look back on this as a time of problems and conflict that resulted in a more unified nation. I just don't know if we'll see enough of that history in our lifetimes. A lot of old blood needs to pass out of the system, and a lot of new blood with better thinking needs to be pushed in.

Unfortunately, that old blood gets to raise their kids, and even home school them in order to perpetuate their thought patterns.

Why should correcting racism take into account your feelings? Roll up your sleeves and start shoveling shit. There's work enough for everyone, if you really want to fix it.

Zarathud wrote:Why should correcting racism take into account your feelings? Roll up your sleeves and start shoveling shit. There's work enough for everyone, if you really want to fix it.

Seriously. Also, as noted earlier, 'equality for all' isn't that simple. Equality has to take into consideration differences in opportunity where appropriate (eg where they apply disproportionately to one ethnic group compared to another, especially where they apply as such due to prior racist regimes). Else it's not actually equality for all, is it?

Paingod wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:The "all sides" thing just means nothing gets addressed. We're all guilty so it's a wash, just move on. That doesn't work. The fact is that today, racist policies enacted right here in the US still impact the lives of people living today. Ignoring that perpetuates the damage.

Claiming the "all sides" thing doesn't work means you'd like to drop it at my feet since I'm white and the disproportion you see is white racism. I'm telling you that dropping a stinking pile of shit at my feet and telling me to clean it up only makes me want to call the whole thing your problem and walk away from it. It gets you nowhere. You want to stand shoulder to shoulder with me, and I'll get the squeegee.

Today's policies can and should be corrected if they're excluding groups of people. However, in correcting those policies the result needs to be that there are no favorites or special rules for anyone. Equality is a compromise that leaves everyone feeling the same burden and responsibility. You can't achieve that by sitting back and expecting other people to do it for you.

I think the US as a whole is staggering forward towards a better equality. It's a drunken stagger with a lot of problems. History will hopefully look back on this as a time of problems and conflict that resulted in a more unified nation. I just don't know if we'll see enough of that history in our lifetimes. A lot of old blood needs to pass out of the system, and a lot of new blood with better thinking needs to be pushed in.

This isn't about *you*. No one's leaving anything at your feet in particular. It's about U.S. society as a whole, which obviously has strongly favored (by design) white people for centuries, and still does to a large degree. The U.S. has made significant progress in reducing systemic racism, but there's still a lot of work to do.

Zaxxon wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Why should correcting racism take into account your feelings? Roll up your sleeves and start shoveling shit. There's work enough for everyone, if you really want to fix it.

Seriously. Also, as noted earlier, 'equality for all' isn't that simple. Equality has to take into consideration differences in opportunity where appropriate (eg where they apply disproportionately to one ethnic group compared to another, especially where they apply as such due to prior racist regimes). Else it's not actually equality for all, is it?

There is also a cruel irony in that differences in equality of opportunity among races (i.e. why the black community is on average poorer than the white community) is in large part the intentional result of governmental policy, going well beyond the legacy of slavery - e.g., federal banking policy strongly deterred banks (even ones that wanted to) from giving mortgages to black people who wanted to buy in predominantly white communities. Of course as soon as things progress to the point where policies helping black people can pass politically, conservatives discover the value of race-neutral policies.

That said, I do concede that there is some inherent logic to the idea that, as Justice Roberts once put it, "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race".

edit: In reply to Paingod. Apparently I left the Submit button un-clicked for a while.

You want a fair and competitive 100 yard dash when a whole class of people are 30 yards behind the starting line wearing clown shoes.

It's going to take generations to correct and treating it like everyone has the same opportunity will make it take even longer.

Zaxxon wrote:Before the day ends, might as well remember DJT's narcisissm even as the rubble burned.

Tweetie video link

I call Party Foul.

You need the rest of the video, not just the edited part. He's definitely pointing out that his building is now tallest, because he's an ass, but where he goes with that is that people could see very far, and very well, the aftermath. Just listening to the edited version implies the height issue is all he cares about.

The remaining video is posted by someone at the tweet link Zaxxon posted. I'm ignorant how to connect that here, so my apologies.

I did view the remainder before posting. It doesn't change what was said at the beginning, and IMO doesn't really help. 'I'm only a narcissistic ass afor a short part of the day the towers came down' doesn't help one's case.

Although the rest of the video does show that at one point in his life, DJT could hold a semi-coherent conversation.

Paingod wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:The "all sides" thing just means nothing gets addressed. We're all guilty so it's a wash, just move on. That doesn't work. The fact is that today, racist policies enacted right here in the US still impact the lives of people living today. Ignoring that perpetuates the damage.

Claiming the "all sides" thing doesn't work means you'd like to drop it at my feet since I'm white and the disproportion you see is white racism. I'm telling you that dropping a stinking pile of shit at my feet and telling me to clean it up only makes me want to call the whole thing your problem and walk away from it. It gets you nowhere. You want to stand shoulder to shoulder with me, and I'll get the squeegee.

Today's policies can and should be corrected if they're excluding groups of people. However, in correcting those policies the result needs to be that there are no favorites or special rules for anyone. Equality is a compromise that leaves everyone feeling the same burden and responsibility. You can't achieve that by sitting back and expecting other people to do it for you.

I think the US as a whole is staggering forward towards a better equality. It's a drunken stagger with a lot of problems. History will hopefully look back on this as a time of problems and conflict that resulted in a more unified nation. I just don't know if we'll see enough of that history in our lifetimes. A lot of old blood needs to pass out of the system, and a lot of new blood with better thinking needs to be pushed in.

I'm not dropping anything at your feet. Nor am I saying that the way forward is for any single group to do all the work. I'm saying that going back to the start of human history to find counter examples doesn't solve anything. In fact, it is counter productive.

We have tangible results of institutional racism negatively affecting our society today. We need to address that.

You having watched the entire video before posting doesn't change what he said, true. Others watching only what you posted dramatically changes what they hear he said, and their perceptions. I'm amazed I feel like I am arguing about context and perceptions with someone I know is bright.

Zaxxon wrote: Although the rest of the video does show that at one point in his life, DJT could hold a semi-coherent conversation.

That's what struck me the most. He had more complete thoughts and sentences in that short clip than he does in entire speeches today.

Freyland wrote:You having watched the entire video before posting doesn't change what he said, true. Others watching only what you posted dramatically changes what they hear he said, and their perceptions. I'm amazed I feel like I am arguing about context and perceptions with someone I know is bright.

Again, you are adding more weight to the extended clip than it actually brings. The point is that he's a narcissistic ass. He's a narcissistic ass in the short clip, and a narcissistic ass in the long clip. You believe the longer clip's context is relevant. I don't--at least not to the point where it would 'dramatically' change what folks hear, or their perceptions. As you mentioned, the longer clip is right there in the link I provided, so folks can make their own determinations.

coopasonic wrote:edit: In reply to Paingod. Apparently I left the Submit button un-clicked for a while.

You want a fair and competitive 100 yard dash when a whole class of people are 30 yards behind the starting line wearing clown shoes.

It's going to take generations to correct and treating it like everyone has the same opportunity will make it take even longer.

I know completely well that it's a long term process. As a white guy living in what might possibly be the whitest state in the nation, my exposure and views are pretty damn limited - and derived mostly from anecdotes, news, stories, and other media. No one in any of the social circles I've ever traveled in has come across as overtly racist. Outside my circles, I did talk with a few skinhead inmates when I worked at the jail and thought they were just idiots, even the well spoken ones; their racism seemed almost religious in nature to them. I also met a 50/50 white/native american man who moved up from the south and he was very racist, but claimed it was all because of how blacks had treated him - not something he was raised with.

It's easy for me to look around and say "Just treat everyone the same" when I have no other view than a world where the only limitations people have are the ones given to them by their families, or that they've created for themselves. Around here, even the poorest white redneck child can still move away from the redneck areas and move up, get into college, and get a good job. It just takes work, and I don't think it's about their skin color. As far as I know, even those kids in the Somalian families I mentioned several posts back wouldn't be held back from moving up and out of their homes around here; the only thing in their way would be their own levels of effort, their own social values, and their own social circles - not some construct by 'The Man' designed to hold them back.

If we were to shuffle the entire nation around and spread everyone out evenly so there were no "all black" neighborhoods, and no "all white" trailerparks - would that help? I mean - what, exactly, is creating the clown shoes that some people are trying to race a 100m sprint with? If they're born with clown shoes, are their parents clowns, or do the doctors tie them on just after slapping their butts to get them to cry? What stops them from taking the clown shoes off?

I'm not trying to be absurd or degrading. I really don't understand. I came from a family of alcoholics and drug users, with an abusive step-father and a mother who was too absorbed in being codependent to do much else. My first job was complete crap - working in a seafood plant for $5/hr. I moved up to dishwasher. Up to cashier. I left home at 17. I moved up to security guard. Up to corrections officer. I put myself through community college. I moved up to network admin. Up to IT manager. I don't attribute any of that to my skin tone; I could have very easily stayed with the circle of destruction that was my family, and no one would have ever cared. My parents provided me with no economic advantage aside from living in a 3 bedroom apartment in a small city/large town (120,000 people).

In other discussions, we talked about voter ID's being racist because a lot of black people can't get ID's - because records have been lost, or they're so poor that they can't afford to take a day off to go to the DMV and spend $20 on a new one. Would voter registration still be racist if we created a timeframe, say 2 years, where a person can apply for a valid ID and receive it for free, regardless of where their records are, as long as they can provide some proof of residency and identification (like a pay stub) - so we can establish a baseline for identity and get them moving forward?

LawBeefaroni wrote:We have tangible results of institutional racism negatively affecting our society today. We need to address that.

Totally on board. Where do I sign?

Zaxxon wrote:

Freyland wrote:You having watched the entire video before posting doesn't change what he said, true. Others watching only what you posted dramatically changes what they hear he said, and their perceptions. I'm amazed I feel like I am arguing about context and perceptions with someone I know is bright.

Again, you are adding more weight to the extended clip than it actually brings. The point is that he's a narcissistic ass. He's a narcissistic ass in the short clip, and a narcissistic ass in the long clip. You believe the longer clip's context is relevant. I don't--at least not to the point where it would 'dramatically' change what folks hear, or their perceptions. As you mentioned, the longer clip is right there in the link I provided, so folks can make their own determinations.

"I have a huge penis. Huge, you should see it. One day I was walking on Main St and I tripped on my penis, fell through a window and knocked over an entire rack of China. Good thing they had insurance!

Vs.

"I have a huge penis. Huge, you should see it."


If we still disagree about context, I've got nothing else for this little chat.

Paingod wrote: I really don't understand. I came from a family of alcoholics and drug users, with an abusive step-father and a mother who was too absorbed in being codependent to do much else. My first job was complete crap - working in a seafood plant for $5/hr. I moved up to dishwasher. Up to cashier.

I'm white, and I'm not saying I can fully understand it either. But I understand this much: imagine that you are a black kid showing up to apply for that seafood plant job, or the dishwasher, or cashier. What are the odds, do you think, that the manager would have told you that the position is no longer available, because he (the manager) just assumes that black youth are nothing but trouble and he doesn't want to deal with you?

gilraen wrote:

Paingod wrote: I really don't understand. I came from a family of alcoholics and drug users, with an abusive step-father and a mother who was too absorbed in being codependent to do much else. My first job was complete crap - working in a seafood plant for $5/hr. I moved up to dishwasher. Up to cashier.

I'm white, and I'm not saying I can fully understand it either. But I understand this much: imagine that you are a black kid showing up to apply for that seafood plant job, or the dishwasher, or cashier. What are the odds, do you think, that the manager would have told you that the position is no longer available, because he (the manager) just assumes that black youth are nothing but trouble and he doesn't want to deal with you?

Couldn't have been any worse off than the guys I worked with who where missing half their teeth and looked like they slept on the docks. In the dishwasher position, there was a black immigrant (no idea what nationality) who was hired, but was let go when staff couldn't communicate with him to get him to do something other than sweep floors. I don't remember the staff composition in the grocery store, but I know there was diversity that included a mentally disabled man and a lot of teens of different backgrounds. When I was doing security, I worked with three different black guys - one was as young as me, the other older (he liked to call himself "The Head N***r In Charge") in a supervisory position, and the last was middle-aged and always tired.

What I ran into was hair-ism. When I was 16, I was declined for menial job after menial job and one hiring manager actually had the balls to tell me that he wouldn't hire me because my long hair (halfway down my back) was inappropriate for his Arby's. I got the first crap job I applied for after I cut my hair. Now I see people doing the same jobs I was turned down for with long hair, massive tattoos, ear holes, and other body mods. I do see people of all skin tones working them, too.

Freyland wrote:If we still disagree about context, I've got nothing else for this little chat.

Very well.

Paingod wrote:

gilraen wrote:

Paingod wrote: I really don't understand. I came from a family of alcoholics and drug users, with an abusive step-father and a mother who was too absorbed in being codependent to do much else. My first job was complete crap - working in a seafood plant for $5/hr. I moved up to dishwasher. Up to cashier.

I'm white, and I'm not saying I can fully understand it either. But I understand this much: imagine that you are a black kid showing up to apply for that seafood plant job, or the dishwasher, or cashier. What are the odds, do you think, that the manager would have told you that the position is no longer available, because he (the manager) just assumes that black youth are nothing but trouble and he doesn't want to deal with you?

Couldn't have been any worse off than the guys I worked with who where missing half their teeth and looked like they slept on the docks. In the dishwasher position, there was a black immigrant (no idea what nationality) who was hired, but was let go when staff couldn't communicate with him to get him to do something other than sweep floors. I don't remember the staff composition in the grocery store, but I know there was diversity that included a mentally disabled man and a lot of teens of different backgrounds. When I was doing security, I worked with three different black guys - one was as young as me, the other older (he liked to call himself "The Head N***r In Charge") in a supervisory position, and the last was middle-aged and always tired.

What I ran into was hair-ism. When I was 16, I was declined for menial job after menial job and one hiring manager actually had the balls to tell me that he wouldn't hire me because my long hair (halfway down my back) was inappropriate for his Arby's. I got the first crap job I applied for after I cut my hair. Now I see people doing the same jobs I was turned down for with long hair, massive tattoos, ear holes, and other body mods. I do see people of all skin tones working them, too.

This would seem to establish that you worked at the menial level with people of different backgrounds. As you advanced, did the racial composition of your colleagues change? How many of the people that you worked with made it beyond that level?

And regardless, it's not that this stuff *can't* be overcome. It's that it's harder to get ahead for people from poor backgrounds than people with wealthy backgrounds, and that minority communities are disproportionately from poor backgrounds as a direct result of governmental policies (if you haven't read it already, Coates's article in the Atlantic arguing for reparations lays this out in a pretty comprehensive way). That history I think makes for a pretty compelling case that the government has good cause for directly trying to help minority communities that it has spent most of its history affirmatively harming.

I love how his talking about how we need tax cuts even more due to the storms. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite? I need a shit ton of money and I want less money coming in! Sadly people love tax cuts so I'm sure something dumb will get through. We'll get 5 bucks and he will get 125 million. Seems fair. Hell if they remove the property tax deductions we will get creamed in Jersey.

Octavious wrote:I love how his talking about how we need tax cuts even more due to the storms. Wouldn't it be the exact opposite? I need a shit ton of money and I want less money coming in! Sadly people love tax cuts so I'm sure something dumb will get through. We'll get 5 bucks and he will get 125 million. Seems fair. Hell if they remove the property tax deductions we will get creamed in Jersey.

Definitely. Basically if there's one mission of the Republican Party that comes before everything else, it's to deliver massive regressive tax cuts. The failure (at least for now) to repeal Obamacare means that they probably can't deliver the *permanent* massive tax cuts that the GOP really wants (because that would require getting to 60 votes or abolishing the filibuster, neither of which appears to be in the cards), but they can deliver a 10-year massive regressive tax cut with only GOP votes under reconciliation rules (aka Bush Tax Cuts part II).

Part of the issue with the tax cut proposal that some of Trump's advisers want is that it requires eliminating a lot of deductions to pay for it, including state/local income tax and mortgage interest deductions.

Pretty sure what I pay in taxes every year would go UP in that case.

pr0ner wrote:Part of the issue with the tax cut proposal that some of Trump's advisers want is that it requires eliminating a lot of deductions to pay for it, including state/local income tax and mortgage interest deductions.

Pretty sure what I pay in taxes every year would go UP in that case.

But just think of all the economic development by those rich folks that you would be funding!

pr0ner wrote:Part of the issue with the tax cut proposal that some of Trump's advisers want is that it requires eliminating a lot of deductions to pay for it, including state/local income tax and mortgage interest deductions.

Pretty sure what I pay in taxes every year would go UP in that case.

Yeah . . . they're not cutting taxes for us.

pr0ner wrote:Part of the issue with the tax cut proposal that some of Trump's advisers want is that it requires eliminating a lot of deductions to pay for it, including state/local income tax and mortgage interest deductions.

Pretty sure what I pay in taxes every year would go UP in that case.

That's the easiest problem in the world to fix - they just won't pay for the tax cut.

LawBeefaroni wrote:We have tangible results of institutional racism negatively affecting our society today. We need to address that.

I was thinking of an intelligent way to respond to Paingod's needed and welcome input, and this is much more concise and better than what I was going to write. It sums it up perfectly IMO.

You may not know anyone that is overtly racist. You may believe that continuing to talk about racism perpetuates its existence, but that sole statement above is true, no matter your ideas about it. The problem is, there are plenty out there that do not believe that statement is true, or won't admit it, for fear that acting to change that fact could take some power/status/jobs/money/influence away from them, even if wildly indirectly.

Again, for me personally, it's the overt selfishness of this awakened tribalism that has resulted in Trump, that is most disgusting.

Jeff Sessions, meet Unintended Consequences.

Sessions forced Trump into his dumbest political move yet

Attorney General Jeff Sessions apparently convinced President Trump he had no choice but to pull the plug on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, using a phony deadline as the pretext. Stephen K. Bannon and the alt-right may think this was a terrific idea, but the polls say otherwise — as does Trump’s newfound interest in finding a fix to his own political malpractice.

According to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll, 65 percent of voters think that “passing a bill that grants young people who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children, often with their parents, protection from deportation” should be a top or at least important priority. A plurality (45 percent) think ending DACA was wrong.

Asked “When it comes to legislation regarding Dreamers, which of the following would you most like Congress to pass?” 54 percent say they want dreamers “to stay and become citizens if they meet certain requirements” while an additional 19 percent want to afford them legal residence. That includes 41 percent of Republicans who voted for Trump. Only 12 percent want to deport them. Repealing DACA looks like it’s even less popular than Trumpcare.

In addition, a plurality (45 percent) think a DACA fix should be a stand-alone bill while only a third think it should be part of a larger immigration package.

The DACA repeal therefore has done several things, none of them helpful to the anti-immigrant crowd. First, it has galvanized sympathy for dreamers to such an extent that a significant majority now want them to be citizens. Second, it has made Trump as anxious about passing a DACA fix as Democrats are. He’s so concerned, the White House already threw in the towel on tying it to funding for the wall. In all likelihood, DACA will be fixed and the wall will never be built. It’s a result Hillary Clinton might not have been able to obtain (certainly not with a GOP House and Senate). Third, Trump’s decision will force a good number of Republicans to cast votes for the Dream Act (or some variation), thereby emphasizing the split between the Bannonites and the rest of the GOP. This offers traditional Republicans an opportunity to rebuke the ethno-nationalist agenda (oddly, with Trump’s help) but puts anti-immigrant but pro-Trump lawmakers (e.g., Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas) in a precarious position.

No one should consider a DACA fix to be a small or insignificant part of the immigration problem. About 1.9 million people were eligible for DACA — more than 17 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. About 788,000 successfully applied for DACA status, about 7 percent of the illegal immigrant population. Taking care of dreamers, without giving up much of anything, would be a huge win for the pro-immigrant community. Getting Americans to think of immigrants as assets, not burdens, and certainly not as a bunch of “murderers,” as Trump described them, would represent an important precursor to a humane, reasonable immigration solution that takes care of those already here, provides workable border and visa overstay-prevention and reform of our legal immigration system (not slashing of legal immigration, an immensely stupid and destructive proposal). It would be what the die-hard anti-immigrant groups used to call “amnesty.” And it will be largely due to the handiwork of Jeff Sessions.

You've probably heard this already, but today at the press briefing the WH spokesperson called for a private citizen to be fired for calling Trump a racist.

That is hilarious Max, especially since Bannon was totally against the timing of killing DACA.

Ousted White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said in an interview that aired Sunday that President Donald Trump’s decision to punt to Congress on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program could risk the Republican majority in the House.

“I’m worried about losing the House now because of this — of — because of DACA. And my fear is that with this six months down range, if we have another huge — if this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion, in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party that will be every bit as vitriolic as 2013. And to me, doing that in the springboard of primary season for 2018 is extremely unwise,” Bannon said on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/b ... house-2018

BREAKING: Schumer, Pelosi announce deal with Trump to protect young immigrants; will include border security, but no wall.

There is no security without a wall, a great wall, circa 600 bc.

Trump has altered the deal, pray he does not alter it further.

Trump just talked to the press, endorsed DACA, then said the wall would be handled later.

Cats are loving dogs, man. The world's gone topsy-turvey.

They drugs they're giving him are working.

Edited (oops)