I think this is one of the reasons some people were uncomfortable with Kaepernick's protests. In a free country, there is so much social and cultural competition for symbols. So people resist perceived threats to reappropriate a symbol. The protesters very much tried to reappropriate the pregame anthem and flag symbol.

It's all fair game in a free country. Instead of laws and rules we mostly have social pressure and then a battle for this threshold where a symbol is perceived as having some meaning regardless of how someone actually values the symbol. And being accused of being racist or far-right is a powerful motivator to conform to the new reappropriated meanings of symbols. The protests mostly died down, but if they were more successful, I could see social pressure to participate, even if standing for the flag meant something different for you than it would have for the protesters. You really don't have to dig to deep to find expressions that the flag and anthem themselves are racists symbols, and that standing and respecting them thus problematic. Kaepernick's original statements about the protest bumped up against that idea.

What if you value the Betsy Ross flag for positive reasons, but over time, you're perceived as a racist if you display it? Do you fight for your version of the symbol? I guess it depends on how important the symbol is to you. I think it's generally better to just let those values and symbols go (like how it's better to just stop using certain terms or manner of speaking that were common decades ago that we now recognize to be racially charged - it's just not that important to cling to those things.) But I understand how some people resist even those things. And how frustrating it is when that resistance is perceived as racism.

It's kind of like the creator of Pepe the Frog. He had no role in how his creation became racist and tried to reclaim it. But unfortunately it had become so far gone, that he realized reclaiming it simply wasn't a good idea.

Unfortunately a bunch of white supremicist groups have claimed the Betsy Ross flag. I can easily imagine that big corporations may want to go very out of their way to make sure they can't even be linked to that activity.

According to Kap:
Betsy Ross = Bad
Che Guevara = Good

It's this kind of lunacy from the left that drives me to vote third party.

No.

Agree or disagree, that's not what this is about. It has nothing to do with Betsy Ross.

It has to do with Kap hating the American flag

And even if that were true, it still has nothing to do with Betsy Ross.

It's up to the most influential voices what symbols mean. If they're influential enough they can decide what a symbol means for everybody else.

And it helps to be on the far right or left to be influential. White supremacists, and then people reacting to them, can reappropriate pretty much any symbol they want. The non-influential people in the middle just have to try to keep up with the symbol definitions. Which isn't that difficult or big of a sacrifice, as its usually relatively obscure symbols that are reappropriated. But when it's the pregame anthem/flag symbol....

Edit: But if it WAS about Betsy Ross to someone, or anything else not related to white supremacy, it no longer is. A more influential cultural voice has decided that for you. If BishopMVP's parents continue to fly that flag, they will be perceived as racists, even if that's not what the flag has ever been to them, and even if that didn't make them racist a short time ago. Again, probably not a huge deal, but when more iconic symbols are challenged people get nervous and resist them, even though that resistance opens them up to being labeled as racists. Others will be happy to abandon any symbol because that threat of accusation is so grave balanced against how relatively unimportant the symbol is to them.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

It's Stephen Baldwin's opinion that drives my vote.

I don't think he is running.

If it were my decision, I think the right answer would be to release what you want and if it becomes a controversy speak out against the controversy and try to reclaim the symbol.

But, I understand why a corporation wouldn't want to be seen as the supplier of the Proud Boys or the official shoe of VDare. Reclaiming symbols for the good of the polis isn't really in the business plan for corporations.

What would help is a bipartisan message that encourages Nike to release the shoe while also recognizing the way the flag has been co-opted by racists. But very few prominent people on either side would be willing to stand up for those principles.

Kap overheard on an open mic at the Flag Haters Ball: "FUUUUUCK that Betsy Ross bitch!"

If this were really about Betsy Ross, I'd find it much more interesting.

DOJ alerts groups that sued over the citizenship question on the Census that the question will not appear on the Census

Can't we just ask the Proud Boys not to misappropriate the Betsy Ross flag? Surely they will see the error of their ways and stop using it as their symbol.

I mean, that's what bullies do, right? We let them take what was for everyone, and because of how they misuse it, it can no longer be for everyone. When we fight back, we hear freedom of speech, and we hear party of 'inclusion' who wants to shut people up, and we hear all the reasons why we can't stop them. So then we stop using that symbol and it turns into something that was good, and no isn't, which was the entire goal in the first place. Rinse, repeat.

That... seems insane to me? Nike isn't a political party. Some people choose to listen to celebrities, hopefully most don't. Why in the world would Nike making a decision around $$ and/or one of its sponsors change your vote?

Curious about this as well, this thinking helped give us the last 3 years

I think it's amazing that the same person (not here, just in general) can revere someone like Ali or Jim Brown, yet rail against any modern day player doing the same things they did (albeit without the career; but to be fair, that's all history at this point).



Does that make OJ or Tiger better?

Everything somehow became political. Nike is a shoe company and this is nothing more than a marketing decision.

I hate the media for propping up the opinions of rich people in Hollywood who have no concept of how life outside of their extremely fucked up bubble works - that's a both side things. Fox loves to latch on to James Woods and we all know about Ted Nugent, but its equally stupid to pretend that the liberal folks in hollywood are offering anything of value politically that's worth media coverage.

I also totally dislike Boston sports teams - all of them - based on my stereotypes and biases, combined with my interactions with a small number of boston fans who reveled in those stereotypes in a way that just made me despise them. But you know what? It's really petty for me to do that. If my sports fandom mattered in *any* way that would be an awful way to pick a team.

But isn't that exactly what's happening if someone decides to vote for a different person or party not based on any sort of policy or the changes to our lives based on that leadership - but based on being annoyed about how some rich people and/or corporations choose to handle their own politics and how people cover them?

Again... completely freaking insane.

I agree.

Boston fans suck. :D

I'll say you are both right and wrong here. How's that for straddling the issue?

Rightly or wrongly, these things get viewed as being bigger than Nike. Call it symbols or cultural watchwords or what-have-you, but - while he can surely correct me if I'm wrong - I doubt very much that NobodyHere was talking just specifically and soley about one business decision - particularly since he wasn't replying directly to the Nike thing anyway. It's representative of political correctness, i.e. the stuff Bill Maher talks about as a major part of his schtick. Or the Pie rant that made the rounds right after Trump was elected .

As a third-party guy, I'll just say that Democrats have had the chance twice in the last couple of decades to earn my vote. Kerry couldn't articulate a sensible anti-immigration policy that didn't involve basically ceding US sovereignty to Europe, and right now we have Democrats in the House stamping their feet and whining and also not doing the one thing that has any chance of reining in Trump (impeachment). In both cases it's basically a lack of the necessary political courage that qualifies one to be a national leader. Same thing that political correctness essentially boils down to - i.e., we can't tolerate some views on so-called sensitive issues because we don't have the guts to actually have a real adult conversation about them, so anyone speaking offensively must be shouted down and shamed from the public square. Nevermind if what they were saying is true, that's beside the point.

So from my point of view, I see two destructive parties. I do basically agree with the board that right now the Republicans are MORE destructive, but not by as much as most here probably think and ultimately both are bad enough that they sure as shooting aren't getting my vote. Until and unless they make the necessary changes to govern somewhat more responsibly.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. Nike is trying to be a cool company to young people. Pissing off old white conservatives has sort of been their marketing strategy for decades. 17 year old kids don't want to buy a sneaker that Mike Pence thinks is cool. They want to buy from a company giving that generation the finger.

lol

Trump's nominee for the Fed once wrote a WSJ piece arguing for open borders and a North American monetary union. Extreme vetting for the win!

And now he is claiming it's fake news even though it's from his staff and they cleared it with him yesterday. Senility setting in?

Just narcissism is enough to cover this i think. Just like how you can be shown a video of you saying something and ignore it/deny it with full confidence.

Major General (ret) Paul Eaton‏Verified account @PaulDEaton52

It was my great privilege to serve 7 years as a general. @realDonaldTrump says generals are thrilled with his appalling plan for Independence Day. More Trump Fiction. Generals speak softly. And carry a big stick. They never ‘thrill’. And should not stand near Trump tomorrow.

So who was it that put out all those 'Just Do It' ads featuring middle-aged distance runners, elderly people working out in the gym, etc? There's a lot of material Nike has put out there that is specifically broad-based and universalist in appeal.

It's a marketing decision based on a political stance.

I heard about shoe thing sportsdigs days ago before the Kaep part came out. I didn’t think much of it pre kaep but predictably people never disappoint

So Justin Amash has quit the Republican Party and become an independent. Can a run for President be far behind? And on the day we celebrate our independence Trump had this Patriotic tweet for him:


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Great news for the Republican Party as one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress is “quitting” the Party. No Collusion, No Obstruction! Knew he couldn’t get the nomination to run again in the Great State of Michigan. Already being challenged for his seat. A total loser!

I hope he joins the libertarians and I hope that his district realizes that he has not changed.

Oh my god please? Free win for the left!

I wouldn't count on it. Almost any third party candidate is going to get a chunk of the Bernie/Tulsi protest voters and maybe a chunk of the moderate voters. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with a this or that election, particularly when an incumbent election tends to be, this or change things.

You could well be right. It just seems so perfect for someone who had the balls to say that its not OK for the GOP to have become what it has to attract a huge number of disenchanted/disenfranchised republicans to settle on instead of having to vote for a democrat. Maybe I underestimate how many progressive left folks will just stay home or vote 3rd party if their guy doesn't win. I'd like to think that enough of them learned from 2016, but maybe enough of them want to just see things blow up if they can't have their way still.

Trump's 4th of July speech has to be the biggest red flag of mental decline we've seen to date.

Sad as it is, Amash basically is done. It appears he torpedoed his political career, and I will always admire him for it. Polling in his district was quite bad for him even before he left the party - he was trailing by double-digits against expected primary opponents after he came out in favor of impeachment, and it wasn't just a temporary bump - nothing I read indicated it was moving back in his direction. Again that might have changed etc. but in the town halls he held he had a minority of enthusiastic supporters but the primary feedback from his previous supporters was the 'how dare you betray our president' stuff.

In other words, the people he represents, people I was raised with and around in that community, don't deserve a statesman like him. I particularly liked the country party chairman's line that he 'perpetrated a fraud' by getting elected (several times!) as a Republican. Apparently according to him, a True Republican (tm) just pretends to believe in things the rule of law and limited government. They aren't actually expected to vote that way. That kind of nonsense gets you kicked off Budget Committees.

A presidential run as independent would go nowhere and I'm sure he knows that. Maybe he still does it to make sure he didn't leave anything untried, did everything he could to make people aware of the problems, etc. but he's said the past a third-party run didn't interest him because basically he doesn't run to be a spoiler or anything, he runs to win. He might be changing his tune on that a bit, but I don't see it moving the needle either way.

Even though I know it won't happen, I'd pay money, a lot of it by my standards, to see Justin Amash on a debate stage with Trump and whoever the Dem nominee is. Ala Nader or Perot. I wonder if at any level the president is aware that calling Amash disloyal is a great and enduring compliment?

Yeah anyway its bittersweet for me because I believe he's done the right thing at most points during this process, but I'm going to lose one of the few people left in Congress that I respect. The real loser here is America, even though most of them don't see it yet.

Brian, we don't agree on much politically, but I do respect the tone and tenor of what he's saying. I can't say that I'd vote for him, but I at least respect him for being honest to himself and the people.

Sadly we already saw it in 2016 with Rand Paul at the Republican debates and while Paul poked holes in Trump's complete lack of any substance Trump just responded with insults. This is America now, a modern day Perot would just be repeatedly insulted by Trump with "shocked" news networks who would run the insults over and over as opposed to the actual issues. Look back at the American public/people on FOFC/news networks with Gary Johnson and "Aleppo"... aren't we glad he wasn't at the debates and we have Trump sitting with the nuclear button?

Worth mentioning that Paul is now one of Trump's biggest defenders?

I'm also fascinated by the prospect of Amash running for President, whether as libertarian or Independent. I agree it's hard to forecast the net effect, but it does seem certain to attract a meaningful share of the goldfish president's attention (twitter rants, etc) and that's meaningful. The Trump strategy wholly relies on their ability to tear down the Dem opposition to being un-supportable... and without having a 7 year lead-in like with HRC, every erg dedicated to some side project would detract from that effort.

This is so spot on and the thing that pisses me off the most about it is when you point it out to his supporters they inevitably come back with "well he tells it like it is!"

I don't think he would have much of a chance running as an independent sure, but he's openly come out now as not Trump. There are still many more moderate/less evangelical Republicans who would vote for him over any Democrat, enough so that it might keep Trump from winning some of the states he did in 2016. Maybe that would be enough for him to do it?
A Amash/Kasich ticket perhaps?

Let's not romanticize Perot. He was a nut and a clown show. He became a thing because he was great on TV. Sound familiar?

Trump said his Teleprompter went out "right in the middle of that sentence" when he said that the Continental Army took over nonexistent airports. He added, "I guess the rain knocked out the Teleprompter...it was actually hard to look at anyway, 'cause it was rain all over."

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) July 5, 2019

lol

Does Trump realize this excuse makes him look worse?

No.

Yep. Wish I had a good answer for you as well. On one hand I would take Ron any day of the week over Rand but isn't Ron and in this case Amash a perfect example of what happens if you don't play ball? I mean we can agree 100% with what Amash is saying but I don't even think Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnel is going to get away with calling for the impeachment of the leader of their party. Rand on the other hand sits on some pretty powerful committees and still gets to bring light to the debt, endless war, and the security state. I much prefer a house of 100's of Ron Pauls but will take a few Rand Pauls and Mike Lee's over McConnel and Schumer anytime.

That's true, but it wasn't always that way and doesn't have to be. I.e., the vote authorizing the committee that investigating the Nixon presidency got zero no votes. A good number chose not to vote, but nobody said 'nah we should just ignore this Watergate stuff' and that was back when it didn't at all look like his presidency would end over it. It was 74-0. By the time the actual articles of impeachment were voted out, a couple of them got significant same-party support voting in the committee, and the same was going to happen in the full House vote leading to the pressure on him to resign. So basically I think the sad reality of this just proves Amash's point.


For the record, I disagree with quite a bit of Amash's policy stances as well - I just value integrity as the #1 qualification for any public servant.


I think Trump has very little chance of winning those states again anyway. But if Amash/Kasich ran, I'd vote for the ticket and it would be probably the most enthusiastic presidential vote of my lifetime. Right before I put up with whatever the new Democratic president decided to do, and hopefully they'd be good enough that I would feel a lot better about them than Trump.

Jeffrey Epstein arrested on charges of sex trafficing minors:


Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Seems like that one's been on the horizon for like the last 10-20 years. Glad it finally happened.

...and (needless to say, I'd hope) belongs in this thread.

Well from what some of fb says the Clinton's will be in deep trouble now!

I say, look at how rich and successful he is! He's a great businessman! Surely we can make an exception here?! The economy needs men of his persuasion if we can hope to keep the USA competitive on the global stage.

Who's with me?

;)

Interesting subplot of the Epstein saga - what happens when arguably bad people do inarguably good things? If Mike Cernovich genuinely deserves a good deal of the credit for Epstein being brought to justice... is it possible in today's polarized climate for people who disagree with his politics and/or past to grant him proper credit? Stay tuned.












Nah, just kidding. Nobody's going to surprise us here, amirite?

You mean some sort of double standard? Nah...

On to the Can a Female Child Molester Ever Be Considered Hot Thread! ;)

heh quik, you almost fell into their trap :)

From a former prosecutor on twitter:


SDNY indictment against Jeffrey Epstein charges him with enticing children to engage in sex acts at his NYC mansion and also uses conspiracy count to charge similar conduct occurring in Florida. Strategic move to bypass the Acosta non-prosecution agreement.

Agents recovered nude photos of girls when they issued a search warrant in Epstein's Manhattan residence

I was just thinking would be great is there was one of Trump with a 14 year old (obviously horrible for the 14 year old), then realized his base wouldn't care and claim it was photoshopped.

Trump’s rant during his big environmental speech about how “cleaning” forests is the solution to wildfires and about how nobody had heard of “forest management” before he started talking about it is like an Idiocracy outtake pic.twitter.com/zE9FUMucmh

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 8, 2019

This Trump monologue on forests is magical.

Sir, we're a forest nation.

Is it bad that I am rooting for a 400K acre fire so this buffoon can be proven wrong? ( I'm really not)

Yep or worse yet would claim there's nothing wrong with being with a naked underage girl.

Wasn't that his MO with the Miss Teen pageants?

Wow Jphiilips, exhibit #infinity on how insane he is.

Please dont make me a Trump apologist for this, but in this case he is right...partially...sort of.

One of the largest causes of "uncontrollable" wild fires we see today is the un-ntaural fixation on old growth forests and the supression of forest fire. The USFS has been advocating for regular control burns to reduce leaf litter layer for decades. Orgs like green peace and the sierra club fight it at all costs.

Indigenous humans slash and burned and otherwise burned forest land to prepare soils for planting, today in pursuit of "wilderness" designations we attempt to remove humans from the ecosystem and it does compound problems.

In college I started as a Forestry major, because it was easy while I was playing ball, and I can still today remember my forest ecology professor saying on the first day of class in shock jock fashion---Smoky Bear is an Idiot. Only YOU can DELAY Forest Fires no one can prevent them....but then as always the Orange man twists the truth and makes himself the hero.

'No one has ever heard of Forest Management before me'...give me a damn break. Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and even Aldo leopold were talking about this 50+ years ago..


The Biltmore gardens and the Cradle of Foresty National park in NC have some fascinating exhibits on the subject...but Im sure Lord Trump invented those too.
He says fire doesnt have to be part of the equation, then mentions cleaning the forests...how does he think he is going to clean and clear CWD? A freakin street sweeper?

The only point I'm going to pick is about the Indigenous people's comment.



That may work for small groups and small population, where the jungle/forest has a chance to grow back as the population moves around, which is does, but it's far from a good example in a heavily populated area, where the population is not transient. In that case you end up with massive deforestation and permanent damage to the ecosystem. It's not exactly a good example.



I remember in '88 when they let Yellowstone burn, but protected the main areas around camps and buildings. It was sad, but it clearly rejuvenated the ground. I think the issue ends up being that there's a population that's impacted on some level, by a lot of these fires, and many of these fires aren't natural in their origination. When you have a fire started by man, shouldn't you put that fire out?

What is fascinating to me is somebody probably communicated these very things, or some iteration of them, directly to El Presidente. But then they go through his mind, his ego and his filter and get communicated to the World, poorly.

So even when I agree with him in principle (yes more fire suppression policy is needed but it is complicated), I'm still left with disdain for his approach and straight up terrible communication skills. Do people really believe he is the inventor of the term "Forest Management"??? Give me a break!

I suppose some people can get over these things... I cant.

Too soon?

;)

Speaking specifically of the western US with my indigenous people comment.
And it doesnt cause deforestation, that is precisely the point that I made poorly. Regular fires burn small and fast. They burn up the needles and the leaf litter and release the nutrients back to the soil for continued growth stimulation without damaging the trees. Evolution is precisely the reason that Redwoods, Sequoias and the Western Cedar and some of Spruces have some of the highest levels of bark heat tolerance/resistance anywhere.


Because of the repeat burning (caused by man and lightening strikes among other causes in otherwise frequently dry areas) other species were destroyed and died off where these adapted species thrived and grew (hence the Giant Sequoia Forest(s) )...but when you un-naturaly delay these fires and let the duff layer build up you get so much fuel that nature and evolution cant overcome it - it burns hot enough and long to burn right through resistant protective structure.




This is a great example and a separate point I want to come back to later. Unfortunately duty calls for now....

I guess. Just saying Nike doesn't hold a stance other than selling shoes. They'd put the Nazi emblem on them if they thought it would move the share price.

I don't think it has anything to do with "playing ball". It just shows that the principled conservative we were told about for decades didn't really exist. Trump showed what those people really cared about.

Rand is a coward who talks a big game and then backs down when it is time to put the cards on the table. He stands for nothing.

Please do come back and explain, this is the most interesting this thread has been in weeks, and I mean that sincerely.

Yeah it doesn't show that at all. The principled conservative had largely vanished from Congress even by the time of Dubya's administration, a fact which largely fueled the Tea Party's rise. That doesn't mean they were never there. It certainly does show that there aren't many of them left, but that's an entirely differently animal.

The Tea Party folks aren't really conservatives either. They're the same folks supporting Trump.

Principled conservatives actually agreed that there needed to be a balance between helping the people and helping businesses. They broke up monopolies and provided assistance to level the playing field for small businesses and for low income families. I think it's the principled part that's gone and what we have left is the profit motive, and if you don't have dollars to play, it doesn't concern you.

I agree with Brian again (shocking), except I'll go back and say that it all died with Bush 1. He understood that some things simply had to be done. The congress that came after with Clinton (and showed Bush the door) decided that Bush failed because of his convictions, and they were never letting that happen again.

Your last sentence there is a fundamental basis of the two far opposed sides of the ecological based environmental opposition camps.
In short (and I'm trying to summarize two positions without bias towards either one because I dont really fall in either group) you have the "environmentalists" that typically get most of the publicity. These come in a few different flavors and do lots of great things. Sierra Club and Green Peace ..these types of organizations fall into one bucket. Their basic stance is humans are bad and nature is good. Any impact humans have on nature should be avoided at almost any cost. (Of course this is an over simplification of a more complex viewpoint)

In the opposite corner of the ring you have the "ecologist" and "foresters". And this is even a lumping of two additional groups - as foresters are primarily interested in maximizing human benefit from forests with minimal impact such as sustainable harvest logging and mixed use recreation - where ecologists are more about minimizing impact while accepting some "profitable use" - The reason I combine these two is they both see the human as a vital p[art of the ecosystem. They see human impact as natural. To be certain human impact is more impactful in some ways, than most other animals but they do not consider the fact that a humans impact is greater to necessarily mean it is less allowable. The same way that a deer causes more ground impact than a turtle the human causes more impact than either. You get into the weeds because humans domesticate animals. So if a human rides a horse through the forest this causes environmental impact. If a bunch of humans ride a bunch of horses this causes a very significant impact. Humans also build machines so if a human rides a car or tractor or atv across an environment then that impact is caused by humans but not animal impact. Etc.

Forest ecologists accept this impact as humans being an important part of the ecosystem as a whole. So they see the cutting of trees for home construction or paper production as a normal and not only permissible but necessary component of the forest habitat. The more staunch conservatives see this as humans destroying the native animals habitats.

As humans are so inclined to do they maximize and make their impact more efficient so instead of building a bunch of houses amongst the trees they clear small areas totally of trees and build their houses there. Instead of cutting a few trees here and there for lumber they plant specialized forests and cut all the trees from this area and replant.

This creates the totally un-natural condition that exists no where else in nature.

What I find most fascinating about all this is the impact that we as society at large find acceptable and unacceptable and the Yellowstone example is a great one to illustrate. They dont want the fire to impact areas deemed important - buildings, camps, etc- they deem those areas worthy of preserving at the expense of "nature". It's important to understand that no scientist will ever suggest that an "old growth" forest is a healthy forest. A natural mature evolutionary forest will be a mixture of young and old trees. To suggest that an entire forest of old growth is the healthiest example of a forest because its is the oldest is equivalent to claiming that a nursing home full of elderly people is the healthiest population of humans. Much like any human (or animals) old plants as they reach the end of their natural life cycle are less healthy and more prone to disaster (fire) disease, infestation etc.

What fascinated me about Pilotman's post was this line
This very statement insinuates if not out right states than man is somehow artificial. That the actions of man arent "natural"...whether those actions are intentional or not.
Again I dont have nor claim to have the right answer there. I dont know how you say (for example) if boy scouts start a fire by rubbing sticks together and it "gets out" that is a natural fire but if the fire starts because a camper generator doesnt have a spark arrestor that isnt natural. Or if a man is a pyro and dumps gas on the ground and strikes a match. Is that a "natural" fire.



And as I re-read this please, Pilotman, dont think Im attacking your post. When I say it fascinates me it doesnt elicit shock or outrage it literally spurs thought. It makes me contemplate how I really feel there. I dont have a conclusion just a lot of questions.

Isn't part of the problem the weather? With the changing climate out there, they dealt with incredibly dry conditions and huge wind gusts. I believe they were dealing with 60 MPH winds during the last big fire.

Also isn't part of the problem that we are building homes near these areas? That we've reduced that buffer space which leads to either more man-made fires or homes in the line of these fires.

Regardless, if the federal government has a plan, they should implement it. Trump's complaining to himself as he controls that agency.

The winning never ends


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/u...mid=tw-nytimes

Seeing the contrast between his ideas and what those around him talk him down to is always interesting.

The only people who are not proud to be citizens are the ones who are fighting us all the way about the word ‘citizen,’” he added.


---


{Trump Youth enter; Stage right}

ALL: You're a citizen, but are you proud enough?

The data is collected by the Census Bureau in the American Community Survey. Just tell him they'll collect it there for him next year and he can declare victory.

Acosta resigns over Epstein case

Millett asks (a few times) if, under Consovoy's legal theory, that means the House Oversight Committee lacks any power of oversight over the office of the president. Consovoy says yes, but adds they don't need to go that far to win here re: the subpoena

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) July 12, 2019

Seems like we should care that Trump's position is that the President is above the law. The executive branch can't indict him and the legislative branch can't investigate him.

edit: and this later,

Mueller's testimony delayed a week until the 24th

Every Trump lover on my facebook timeline sure is worked up over the US Womens soccer team, yet the same people are super quick to call any liberal they see a snowflake.

One of my FB friends (who shall remain nameless) went on a rant about how Megan Rapinoe is a disgrace and an embarassment to their hometown.

I thought about letting them have it with both barrels and a couple reloads, but realized that it wouldn't be good for my blood pressure.

I just hit the unfriend button.

probably for the best Fozzie. Sadly can't quite do the same when it comes to family members supporting Trump :)

I just mute people for 30 days or unfollow. Unless it’s some pizza shop rapefactory basement nonsense.

I'm still not sure why people expect that this is going to be some new line of information regarding the outcome of the investigation. Mueller has already said that any testimony will only be related to the report itself and that anything outside of that will not be answered. Now, the presser he gave was pretty telling, but I just don't feel like there's really anything new or earth shattering that is going to come from it. He's not hard to read, and he will let the the president dump all over him, just to stay above the fray.

Yeah I said the same thing more or less earlier in this thread. There's a lot of people out there, as well as Republican congressmen, who have not read it, so for them this will be new info. Maybe it will get people to put more pressure on Pelosi to begin impeachment hearings?

With the number of advisors and cabinet members that have left, been fired, or withdrawn, this presidency is run just like the Apprentice. I'm pretty sure someone brought this up when he was running. I think it continues to show the nature of the man.

From NBC:


Glad we all got so worked up.

Every day im blown away.
I never thought I'd hear the president tell elected congressmen, not even women, literally anyone, to go back from where you came. This is truly a new level and will allow more racism to spread in this county. This is racism at its purest form.

Or owning the libs depending on how you look at things.

Daily reminder that anyone still actively supporting trump is complicit in supporting and buying into this version of American leadership. This goes for every republican in congress but one who was ostracized for it, and for millions of Americans. No matter what you choose to do to justify your vote for Donald Trump, by doing so you are saying that you are willing to compromise your own morals and values to this level of open, public personal racism, sexism, and countless other forms of hatred that our President has empowered and emboldened for whatever personal gain you feel you're getting out of the deal.

You may argue that you yourself are not personally racist, but supporting this behavior is truly horrific and damaging to millions of Americans on a personal level.

Treading into George Wallace territory.

*yawn*

Or even worse, indifference.

Or even douchiness.