🖕 🍊 🤡 A Continuing Round-Up of Trumpian Events 🖕 🍊 🤡

[RickMycroft]

Sigh. They’re overlooking the people in the background spending a lot of money to manipulate the alt-right and push the rest of the right towards them. They’ve been clearing that ground and sowing the seeds for decades, so it’s a little late to be surprised at the crop.

The mainstream of the Republican Party is happy to play footsie with the alt-right. They might distance themselves a little when someone is killed or someone is a little too open a racist, but they knew what those people were from the start.

[mr_raccoon]

Tea Pain (TeaPainUSA)

[anon29537550]

“ProTrump Democrat?” What the ever loving fuck is that? I mean, I recognize the letters, but can you even string them together that way? I feel like a fundamental law of physics has broken or something.

[Wanderfound]

@anon29537550

“ProTrump Democrat?” What the ever loving fuck is that?

Discount Dog Scuba

[nungesser]

Those are some very, very strange Democrats.

[DonatellaNobody]

@anon29537550

“ProTrump Democrat?” What the ever loving fuck is that?

Joe Manchin

[Wanderfound]

Frank Pallone and Nancy Pelosi rein in the left

[DukeTrout]

But every once in a while,

Senator: No equal pay, no public '26 WC funds

[anon61221983]

I got to take issue with that. Nixon was very much guilty. In addition to watergate (which is what brought him down), he bombed the hell out of cambodia, spied on American activists, is complicit in the death of Fred Hampton, and created the modern shift in the GOP to the party of racism. Without Nixon, no Trump, I’d argue.

[FGD135]

@Jim_Campbell

you said nazi bus and it came to mind

[d_r]

Even here on BB there are people opposed to open borders; I’ve had pushback when suggesting it.

@anon61221983

Nixon was very much guilty. In addition to watergate (which is what brought him down), he bombed the hell out of cambodia, spied on American activists, is complicit in the death of Fred Hampton, and created the modern shift in the GOP to the party of racism. Without Nixon, no Trump, I’d argue.

For sure Nixon was a crook – we knew that when he was still VP – and a racist and antisemite and abuser of power and a redbaiter (while at HUAC) and he created the GOP southern strategy that in turn led to the rise of theocratic interference in politics. OTOH we now know (thanks to documents declassified under Clinton) that we were bombing Cambodia years before he took office. Also, without Nixon we’d have no EPA, no OSHA, his federal set-aside program was a precursor to affirmative action, he opened up relations with China, he ended the draft and the war in Vietnam, he signed the ABM treaty, and while VP he had a pretty nice cocker spaniel.

Nixon, while a truly nasty piece of work, was also complicated and smart, and thought the office of president was important and not just another gig, so while unarguably one of the worst people ever to sit in that office his presidency was not a real aberration. I think Reagan is really the guy who started the intentional degradation of the office that eventually made a Trump possible.

[Wanderfound]

@d_r

Even here on BB there are people opposed to open borders; I’ve had pushback when suggesting it.

Although I’m a “fuck borders” person myself, AOC’s proposal is nowhere near open borders. As suggested by the second tweet, abolishing ICE and the DHS would merely return the USA to the pre-Bush status quo.

[Wanderfound]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/452546-ocasio-cortez-accuses-pelosi-of-persistent-singling-out-women-of-color-its

The remarks came hours after Pelosi, at a closed-door meeting of the caucus earlier Wednesday, admonished her party for openly attacking one another over policy disputes. Pelosi has consistently dismissed some of the policies floated by the more liberal members of the caucus, most recently using a New York Times interview over the weekend to question the influence of four outspoken freshmen known as “the squad” — Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Ocasio-Cortez.

“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” she said to The New York Times. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”

Ocasio-Cortez, who has been outspoken on a bevy of issues since being sworn in, responded to the comment on Twitter on Saturday, saying, “That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment.”

“And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country,” she added.

In a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday, Pelosi called on Democrats to stop taking public shots at one another, according to a source in the room.

“You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

Ocasio-Cortez has reportedly been urged to talk with Pelosi, though she told the Post she isn’t interested in doing so. Ocasio-Cortez’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

The Washington Post, citing lawmakers who know both lawmakers, reported that Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez have not met for a one-on-one meeting since the New York lawmaker declined Pelosi’s request to join a committee focused on climate change.

Pelosi reportedly called out Ocasio-Cortez for rejecting the offer during a private progressive caucus meeting just days later, according to the Post. The House Speaker has since made comments dismissing the Ocasio-Cortez-backed Green New Deal and Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise primary win over former Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), the Post noted.

“The third and fourth time [she insulted me], it was like, ‘This is unnecessary, but I’m not going to pick a fight over it. Whatever, I’ll be the punching bag if that’s what they want me to be,’” Ocasio-Cortez said.

[smulder]

@ficuswhisperer

This… is just WTF.

It would reduce the “trade deficit,” which is something he cares about if certain advisors are in the room.

They don’t seem too concerned with the actual deficit deficit though.

[d_r]

I suppose you’re right with current usage. The GOP will of course call anything short of a force field “open borders”; Trump accused HRC in 2016 of supporting open borders because she supported the 2013 " Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" (which didn’t open anything). I tend to think of a no-border-at-all policy (which I support) as “fully open borders”, while simply “open” might include an immigration and travel policy. Conflating the two is part of standard GOP scaremongering, and I didn’t mean to contribute to that.

[Wanderfound]

https://twitter.com/danriffle/status/1148368648110784514?s=21

Pelosi instead seems to be betting the party’s fortunes on voters like Dowd, whose most recent column accuses Democrats of engaging in “bilingual pandering” during last week’s presidential primary debates and jeopardizing the party’s prospects with “talk about busing and decriminalizing illegal border crossings and abolishing private health insurance.” Her argument for Pelosi’s leadership prowess relies entirely on the self-evidence of this claim: Go too far left, she insists, and you’ll lose the middle.

Okay ― but particularly on economic issues, the middle is the left.

[mr_raccoon]

A FEw peOPLe WhO TypE LIKe THis ON SoCIAL MEdIa about COnspiraCY thEOries, SLAndeR & ThreATen peoPLE ArE UPSeT THey’RE noT INViteD tO moaN abOUt beIng bAnned on SOCIAl MEDia aT ThE WHite houSE

Trump's Social Media Summit Mortifies White House, Enrages Far-Right Allies

[anon61221983]

@d_r

OTOH we now know (thanks to documents declassified under Clinton) that we were bombing Cambodia years before he took office.

He also ramped it up, though.

@d_r

Also, without Nixon we’d have no EPA, no OSHA, his federal set-aside program was a precursor to affirmative action, he opened up relations with China, he ended the draft and the war in Vietnam, he signed the ABM treaty, and while VP he had a pretty nice cocker spaniel.

There is no knowing that, actually. The pressure for regulation might have led to EPA and OSHA anyway, plus possibly the end of the draft and the war in Vietnam… and reapproachment with China and various detente treaties might have happened anyway, for some of the same reasons, there was just other forces that might have led to that or something similar.

He also beat his wife, so there’s that.

@d_r

I think Reagan is really the guy who started the intentional degradation of the office that eventually made a Trump possible.

I disagree. Nixon played a role in that as well.

[ficuswhisperer]

@smulder

It would reduce the “trade deficit,” which is something he cares about if certain advisors are in the room.

He only cares about it because it sounds scary and ominous when in reality it doesn’t mean much of anything from an economic perspective.

[ficuswhisperer]

@anon61221983

There is no knowing that, actually.

Indeed - I find it hard to believe that Humphrey or McGovern wouldn’t have done the same things - and much more if given the chance.

I mean yeah, Nixon wasn’t all bad - he did do some good things and I’ll give him credit for being a smart and skilled politican. Good for him. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was good for America, though.