Mojo Hand

Funny how someone so ignorant keeps running circles around the right on every issue.

3) Texas is among the states that would be most undercounted as a result of the question, so Texas Republicans are again putting culture war fanaticism above the actual interests of their constituents.

Anything? Obviously you'd be against executing them, right? So there must be a minimum amount of care even you concentration camp folks would agree that we provide. Food and water? Toilets?

Funny how the ones who "aren't doing it the legal way" keeps turning out to be the Trump administration.

I wonder where the line is for the pro-concentration camp crowd. If "they are here illegally, they're asking for it!!!" justifies the current conditions, what does it not justify?

Slorch: Just follow the law! Everyone: They are. Specifically, 8 USC 1158. Slorch: But just follow the law!

The legal process they are trying to invoke exists precisely to decide whether their claim is legitimate. If you don't like the law under which they are LEGALLY seeking entry, you need to change the law. Supporting the physical blockade preventing them from exercising their legal rights puts you on the wrong side of the law, not them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Their effort to legally enter at a port of entry, as provided for by federal stature, is wholly independent from the merits of that claim.

Wrong.

For the hundredth time, they are trying to enter legally. Trump has deployed border guards at ports of entry to physically prevent them from doing so. https://www-texasmonthly-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.texasmonthly.com/politics/immigrant-advocates-question-legality-of-latest-federal-tactics/amp/

No question, and the centerpiece was her investment in Iowa. That said, I think she called an audible in refusing to have big donor events, which is why her fundraising chair quit. It remains to be seen whether she can generate enough money from individual small donors to keep up. She's staked her campaign on it, which at the very least takes a lot of guts, because she doesn't have the established following Bernie has, and even he's being outraised by Mayor Pete. The plan right now seems to be slow and steady and be positioned as the compromise candidate for backers of Bernie, Biden, and Harris while they eat each other alive.

I could be wrong, but what I see in the polls is that the only one steadily building is Warren. Everyone else seems to be going up or down based on news cycles. That doesn't mean anything is set in stone, and Harris can certainly build on her rebound all the way to the nomination. But I think Warren's steady improvement reflects something more solid.

All we need is Trump to go there and say, "You can't do that." Problem solved, just like he did in DC.

It's telling that the best she could come up with is so utterly unpersuasive.

Isn't he dead?

The alternate interpretation would be, "Millions of Americans have private health insurance. Would you give up your own private insurance in favor of a government plan?" Just like during the ACA debate, reporters asked Dems if they would give up their private insurance and sign up for Obamacare. I'm not saying that Warren was confused. I'm saying it was a confusing question, and I can see why Kamala was confused.

If that's an exact quote, I see why Kamala got confused. What is the purpose of the word "their" before "private insurance"? It seems to refer to the insurance personally held by each candidate.

Yes, we clearly just have a fundamental disagreement (which is fine). For example, you think "People are Trump supporters because they believe the basic tenets of the positions are valid." I think people are Trump supporters irrespective of the basic tenets of the positions because they've been captured by a cult of personality. I've seen, on countless issues, Trump supporters accept a 180 degree reversal from what they purported to care about under Obama. I also completely disagree with your take on the ACA, which I view as a false Republican narrative. It's not worth rehashing in depth, but in my view the ACA was fucked up precisely because the Dems bent over backwards to try to accommodate Republicans in the foolish hope that it could be bipartisan. It was a Republican plan to start with, Republicans had significant involvement in its early development, there were dozens of bipartisan hearings, and a number of Republican amendments were passed. Yeah, after Dems finally realized that no R would vote for it out of pure, cynical, partisan calculation, the Dems passed it on their own, and then the Rs used that against them too. And cowardly Dems ran away from it for years, until some young Dems with guts finally stood up for it in 2018 and a blue wave crashed over the House. And you mention the GOP tax bill. For all we hear about the mean Dems ramming through Obamacare, where is all of the fallout from the GOP ramming that turd through with zero hearings, zero discussions with Dems, and the text secret until hours before the vote? Yeah, it's proven unpopular, but the process is a non-issue. The point being that it is the substance that really matters, not the process. Dems lost the ACA argument for years because they were too scared to defend it on substance, until they finally did and took the House. Republicans have so far lost the tax bill argument because it sucks, but their process in enacting it has had no impact. If the Dems ram through a bunch of legislation, they'll stand or fall on the quality of that legislation, not whether they wooed some Rs to vote for it. And if they have to water down the bill to get those Rs, like with the ACA, it's more likely to backfire than help.

Something along these lines was true maybe ten years ago, but I like 'em now. The adversity made them stronger.

I don't intend to suggest that Dems can succeed with a permanent 40% lockstep Trumpist opposition. The discussion we've been having is over how to break Trumpism so there isn't a permanent 40% lockstep Trumpist opposition. I think the way we achieve that is by a strong, progressive, and positive Dem party that doesn't try to convert the deplorables. I think Trumpism feeds off of Dem weakness and lib tears and will wither and die if the Dems actually get some major wins under their belt, like real universal health care, affordable college, and some of the other major policies being proposed right now on the Dem side. The way we bring out the good in Trump voters isn't by indulging them, but by inspiring them through the example of the alternative we present. And the good GOPers can take back control of their party and do their own work to fix the problem in their house to compete with what we are doing. By contrast, the way we keep Trumpism is by normalizing it as a reasonable political perspective that is open to reasonable discussion. Bend over backwards to try to woo them to a moderate Dem - former GOP uniparty that doesn't really stand for much beyond not being assholes like Trump, which will just present as weakness. Try to reason with cultists who think reality is fake news and that Hannity defines reality. That will enshrine Trumpism within the GOP for years to come. And the efforts to woo déplorables will fracture the Dem party by alienating progressives. We should cater to the good, not the bad. In my opinion. I could be wrong. I have no special expertise. But it's the vision I'll be pushing for unless I'm persuaded otherwise.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your anecdote, but it sounds like your friend is motivated by losing the respect of his grandchildren, not by the shittiness of Trump's policies finally sinking in.

It was feasible for 40% to take over everything, as you describe, but it's not feasible for the other 60% to do so now? That doesn't make much sense. It won't take much for Dems to win the presidency or the Senate. It won't require any of the Trump 40%.

Lulz at Dunning McKruger over here calling someone else an idiot. Head pat.