Danny Boy
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
What's wrong with this?
Mexico, New Mexico and Old Mexico.
Oh, thanks. I didn't know about Old Mexico. I thought maybe Baja California counted as a Mexican country.
What's wrong with this?
Mexico, New Mexico and Old Mexico.
Trump's criminal justice reform bill (Almost zero coverage
Despite the high-profile party and round tables — and the White House releasing a presidential proclamation declaring April “second chance month” — Mr. Trump’s budget, released last month, listed only $14 million to pay for the First Step Act’s programs. The law passed in December specifically asked for $75 million a year for five years, beginning in 2019.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A career official in the White House security office says dozens of people in President Donald Trump's administration were granted security clearances despite "disqualifying issues" in their backgrounds, such as concerns about foreign influence, drug use and criminal conduct.
Tricia Newbold, an 18-year government employee who oversees the issuance of clearances for some senior White House aides, says she compiled a list of at least 25 officials who were initially denied security clearances last year because of their backgrounds. But she says senior Trump aides overturned those decisions, moves that she said weren't made "in the best interest of national security."
Newbold's allegations were detailed in a letter and memo released Monday by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, chairman of the House Oversight and Reform committee. Cummings panel has been investigating security clearances issued to senior officials including Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and former White House aide Rob Porter.
The documents don't identify the officials on Newbold's list but they note that two are "current senior White House officials."
What is the point of a primary if we're not allowed to have it out over the issues that matter, and the records of the people running? I think it is dangerous, destructive, and counter-intuitive to bury legitimate criticisms because we are worried about "negativity" or something like that.i agree with what you're saying. but you and i both know that political revolution isn't happening any time soon in america, the conditions aren't right for it at the moment (though i think they could be in a couple of decades). so what do you think we should do in the meantime? throwing up our hands and saying "they all suck and we refuse to participate" just hands over all the power to the other side, who obviously is more than happy to gleefully abuse it. we have to do something and that something has to be practical and effective and not just something idealistic. so what is it? (this is a genuine question)
I don't think a two-state solution has been possible for quite a while now. The Israeli settlements make it pretty much a non-starter.Look, I'll be the first to say that I'm sick to death of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because in my view we have a small group of people holding the rest of the world hostage in terms of geopolitics while they fight over shit land because of what's written in some old books and passed down in stories similar to the Easter bunny. I absolutely have very little patience for that part of the Middle East.
But it is a far more complex issue than "what do I tell my Palestinian friends?" Yes, Israel has essentially set up a situation that mirrors the Bantustans of South Africa and with every passing year and changing demographics things become that much more untenable. I am not even sure a two-state solution is feasible at this point, and the blame for that I largely put on Israel, because the Palestinians have not had true, unified and competent leadership, basically ever. Israel has and has instead chosen to repeatedly vote in people like Netanyahu to make the situation 100x worse. ON the other hand, there is no nation in the world, and especially not the US, who would put up with indiscriminate bombing of civilians, buses exploding, night clubs terrorized, schools terrorized. Come on - would YOU live like that and react in any other way?
Did it get less racist after that?
Explain Diamond and Silk then... boom argument over ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhI’m still not following your logic. I’m fairly certain we’ve established that this minority departure from the Democratic Party is not a thing. Voting numbers clearly indicate blacks have remained and Hispanics have moved to the left.
[emoji1744]
But of course, it could just be easier to blurt out "racist", because, you know, liberal playbook
I'm using words used by African Americans who were former Demecrsts, i.e. Candace Owens, Adrian Norman, James Harris.
If the word plantation fits to what the Democratic Party has done for the poor, and minorities, they should wear it. Just look up the definition.
But of course, it could just be easier to blurt out "racist", because, you know, liberal playbook
I'm using words used by African Americans who were former Demecrsts, i.e. Candace Owens, Adrian Norman, James Harris.
If the word plantation fits to what the Democratic Party has done for the poor, and minorities, they should wear it. Just look up the definition.
But of course, it could just be easier to blurt out "racist", because, you know, liberal playbook
b) Red States like Indiana and Texas are the way to go in order to fight poverty! (actually these states are in the lower half of all US states in poverty rate, 8 of 10 states with lowest poverty rate are blue, 9.5 of 10 states with highest poverty rate are red)
How do Democrats properly vet their candidates for president without cannibalizing them? How do they rightly insist on sensitive and inclusive leaders while making allowances for past mistakes, present quirks, human messiness and the differences in the conversation and the culture now versus 10 or 20 or 40 years ago?
That’s emerging as a central challenge of the Democratic presidential primary. And it’s worrying me.
I’m worried because there was an actual mini-debate on the left recently over whether Pete Buttigieg is gay enough. Do his whiteness, upper-middle-class background and Harvard and Oxford degrees nullify his experience as a minority and undercut his status as a trailblazer? This question is out there, in both senses of that phrase.
I’m worried because it in some ways echoes an earlier question about whether Kamala Harris — whose father came from Jamaica, whose mother came from India and whose husband is white — is black enough.
And I’m worried because of what Joe Biden is going through — because of the intensity of the censure that he faced after the Nevada politician Lucy Flores’s allegation and because of the fixation on precisely what kind of apology he must issue.
Flores of course accused him of coming up behind her, touching her shoulders and kissing the back of her head: a gesture that’s inappropriate and demeaning. Biden says that he doesn’t recall the incident, from 2014. The media has given this breathless coverage.
I’ve written that I don’t think Biden, 76, should run, for many reasons, including that someone in politics as long as he has been carries too much baggage; that Democratic voters have generally preferred candidates significantly younger than he is; and that he mismanaged and failed miserably in his two prior presidential campaigns.
But I feel just as strongly that Democrats need to show some proportion, realism and reason as they assess and react to candidates (or, in Biden’s case, probable candidates). With Biden especially but with others as well, too many Democrats aren’t doing that.
It’s nonnegotiable that Democrats hold their presidential aspirants to high standards on issues of racial justice, gender equality and more. It’s crucial that the party nominate someone who can credibly represent its proudly diverse ranks. But it’s also important that the party not demand a degree of purity that nobody attains.
I’m not recommending the Republicans’ course in accepting and protecting Donald Trump, which was to bury principles so deep that they may never be exhumed. I’m saying that to turn the Democratic primary into a nonstop apology tour when the nominee will be going up against a president never expected to apologize for anything is a risky strategy. It obsesses over the flaws in candidates who have many strengths, defining them in terms of what they seek forgiveness for. It blurs the line between job interview and inquisition. Taken too far, it rips contenders to shreds before Trump even takes out his scissors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
i'm not usually one to usually take Frank Bruni seriously on politics (wish he stayed with food). but he does get this part right, given what's going on this week:
Committee, using a little-known provision in the federal tax code, formally requested on Wednesday that the I.R.S. hand over six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns, starting what is likely to be a momentous fight with his administration.
Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Massachusetts, hand-delivered a two-page letter laying out the request to Charles P. Rettig, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner, ending months of speculation about when he would do so and almost certainly prompting a legal challenge from the Trump administration.
I don’t see this changing at all next year. If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination I’m afraid he’ll pull the same tactics he did last time. His most extreme followers, on top of any foreign troll campaign/influence will fracture an already sensitive and weak party compared to the GOP
Fox News has had a habit of "misleading" graphics in the past. They showed a picture of Patti LaBelle when Aretha Franklin died, and put up a graphic a while back claiming that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died. And those are just a couple of the more recent examples I can think of. I'm sure others can list more.
So either they really need to fire the person(s) who work in their graphics department, or they're pulling this shit intentionally. Given the kind of commentary they push on their network in general, it's not exactly a stretch to assume the latter is the case.
It's sad that it's taking people this long that they've been lied to for 50 years by the Dems, since LBJ, and that they have been poor for 50 years, voted for Dems, and are still poor because that's how the Dems designed "The Great Society", for control, for votes, zero empowerment.
Explain why most urban cities are rum by Democrats, yet they are still poor, crime ridden, and filthy. Things will never improve for the poor, or minorities under Democrat rule. 50 years of history.
All I'm going to say is I said the movement for minorities becoming conservatives is growing,
WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.
At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.