hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 09:57 am
@revelette3,
Quote:

Bernie really does not have a big as following to appeal to all democrats or left-leaning independents as you may believe.


The fact that their whole strategy is to head into Milwaukee leading with a plurality and then fend off a brokered convention with the threat to sit on their hands in November (or vote for Trump like 10% of them did in '16) is pretty appalling.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 10:56 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

The wisdom and honesty of Donald Trump
Quote:
"Border security is also health security. And you've all seen the wall is going up like magic...the Democrat policy of open borders is a direct threat to the health & well being of all Americans. You see it w/ the coronavirus"

As noted, he's been talking about contagion coming from the southern border. Yet Mexico has seen 2 or 3 instances of the virus so far and while we have now 16 in Canada.

Not that the Trump folks or the GOP are steeped in racist notions though. I mean, where's the evidence for that?


It is a well-established fact that the great majority of immigrants crossing our southern border have not been Mexicans at all: instead they are from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, along with contingents of other unlawful immigrants from all over the world, Asia, the Middle East, East Africa and others.

The ratio of prejudicial abstract judgment and unsupported assumption to facts in this post is very high indeed. One could call it deliberately deceptive to a much less refined and sensitive reporter so concerned about his integrity. However this is merely the standard stuff of propagandists.
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:02 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It is a well-established fact that the great majority of immigrants crossing our southern border have not been Mexicans at all...


Would it be too much to ask for citations to verify this “well-established fact”?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:18 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
…..
….
Bernie really does not have a big as following to appeal to all democrats or left-leaning independents as you may believe. So, if those two stays in, it will mean Bernie wins with low numbers forcing democrats to have to fall in with Bernie Sanders and vote for him. Unlike Bernie's followers, we will do it but we won't like it. I doubt Bernie will have a lot of democrats doing an about-face and supporting everything Bernie says or does just because he is Bernie and his supporters will kill them (not literally) if they disagree. If they actually do just that, then we will another despot Presidency. Not a happy thought.

This appears (to me) to be an accurate description of the majority view of nearly all non -Sanders Democrats. revelette also insightfully notes the authoritarianism implicit in nearly all of Sanders political proposals and also suggested by his past behavior and statements.

It's an interesting situation in that the continuing uncertainty attending the campaigns of both Biden and Bloomberg, leaves the Democrats with a still surging Sanders campaign, no option for possible democratic selection in the Primary except Sanders, and the prospect of an explosion within the party if (as appears likely to me) the DNC and the superdelegates in the not-very democratic Democrat convention take action to deny him the Nomination.
Difficult and risky choices all.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:27 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:

Bernie really does not have a big as following to appeal to all democrats or left-leaning independents as you may believe.


The fact that their whole strategy is to head into Milwaukee leading with a plurality and then fend off a brokered convention with the threat to sit on their hands in November (or vote for Trump like 10% of them did in '16) is pretty appalling.

Take a look at the history of past conventions, involving both parties. This is fairly standard stuff.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:28 am
@revelette3,
Quote:
If Amy Klobuchar and Buttigieg really do want to beat Trump, and if they really do believe in what they campaign in a more moderate approach to governing, they should drop out.

Amen.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:31 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
It is a well-established fact that the great majority of immigrants crossing our southern border have not been Mexicans at all...

Would it be too much to ask for citations to verify this “well-established fact”?

Yes it would. The news reporting of caravans from El Salvador and Honduras and previous government reports about the origins of apprehended illegal entrants are very numerous indeed. The burden of pro0of is clearly on you here.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:47 am
Quote:
If Amy Klobuchar and Buttigieg really do want to beat Trump, and if they really do believe in what they campaign in a more moderate approach to governing, they should drop out.

I put this up before:
Quote:
So here are three lessons for PleaseNotBernie from the wreckage that was NeverTrump:

1. You need candidates who aren’t actually winning primaries to drop out.

2. Against an unconventional front-runner, unconventional measures are required.

3. You probably can’t stop a plurality candidate at a contested convention.

nyt/douthat
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 11:51 am
@georgeob1,
You claim something is a “well-established fact”. You support a president and administration that will go down in infamy as the lying-est, most bogus alternative-fact fueled bunch of convicts and near convicts to ever foul the Capital.

You have the gall to actually cite the fake “caravan” stories that were floated, debunked and then abandoned; then resurrected every time your liar-in-chief needs a distraction.

Then you obtusely state that the burden of proof for something you raised resides with someone other than you.

Such utter bullshit, George. If it’s so well-established you’d have no problem showing your work. I see you try to pass things off as facts just on the weight of your flowery words all the time.

I go with what the Occam’s razor answer would be to the question ’What is the nationality of the majority of immigrants crossing our border with Mexico?’
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 12:02 pm
@snood,
Do you have any facts to support your assertion about your allegation that the current administration has lied more than any other? That's a pretty strong assertion and the observation that you appear to accept it as established truth tells us all a lot about your prejudices.

Please cite a single news story about caravans of immigrants originating in Honduras that have since been established as false from the start.

It appears you are far more credulous and close-minded than I had thought.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 12:14 pm
@snood,
Quote:
’What is the nationality of the majority of immigrants crossing our border with Mexico?’

The nationality does not matter. If they cross illegally, they are illegals. What part of that do you not understand?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 12:25 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Take a look at the history of past conventions, involving both parties. This is fairly standard stuff.

True. But in this case, the Sanders camp is running against the Democratic Party itself. Which would be fine if he were the preferred choice of a large majority of Democratic voters. It's yet to be proven that he is.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 12:57 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
Quote:
Democrats are working hard to destroy the name and reputation of Crazy Bernie Sanders, and take the nomination away from him!

The irony inside that sentence is funny.

Yes, it is. You can tell he wanted to play his little divide/conquer propaganda game but just could not resist doing some slander along with the faux sympathy.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:01 pm
@hightor,
I agree with you there. The large, but still minority, cadre of enthusiastic Sanders supporters does indeed present the Democrat establishment with a serious dilemma, as the primaries progress and the Convention nears. It appears they had earlier bet that a Biden candidacy would beat Sanders in the primaries. Now, as that prospect dims, they are left with Bloomberg as the only (that I can see) option to defeat Sanders in the State Primary elections ahead. That one too has so far failed to take off, but given the resources Bloomberg is pouring into the effort, it appears too early to write him off.

The dark scenario for the DNC is a convention opening with Bernie as still the leading candidate, but with perhaps less than a majority of delegates for the first voting round in the convention. At that point the Democrat Legislative establishment that comprises most of the "super delegates" will have to make a difficult choice, with perhaps lasting consequences for their party. One prospect is the selection of Sanders as the candidate; a likely loss in the Presidential election and significant "down ballot" losses for the legislative establishment super delegates themselves. The alternative is the selection of (say) Bloomberg with, at best still uncertain, prospects in the Presidential election and the likelihood of a revolution within the party and even a possible third party movement for Sanders - something that would ensure a Trump victory.

It is interesting to consider how historians might view these events a few years from now. My view is that, in their intemperate and even irrational hatred of a very disruptive, but popular, President Trump, the Democrat leadership in the Congress has abrogated both its legislative responsibilities in addressing needed legislation with the opposing Party, and the opportunity to, in the process, develop a moderate Democrat party platform addressing real issues before the country.
Instead they have conducted endless (and sometimes illegal ) investigations, impeachment efforts based on obviously flimsy grounds, - all accompanied by expressions of hatred towards and disgust with a fairly popular president now, as a direct result of these actions, leading a very united Republican party. The Democrat Congressional Leadership has now made itself look a bit desperate and deranged in the process.

The result of this has been the continued growth and ascent of the 2016 Sanders movement, now aided by ambitious but sympathetic new far left Representatives, who, together with the Sanders supporters, have taken most of the air out of the Democrat Room. In effect the Democrat Congressional leadership has abandoned its chief responsibility in an irrational hate driven campaign against Trump, and in the process, undermined its own position, abandoning the political field to the unelectable extreme elements of the Party.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:11 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It is a well-established fact that the great majority of immigrants crossing our southern border have not been Mexicans at all: instead they are from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras,

True. I could have made that differentiation but it's hardly important to those like your Arizona Republican
Quote:
there’s another hundred out there who weigh a hundred and thirty pounds—and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling seventy-five pounds of marijuana across the desert.

Quote:
along with contingents of other unlawful immigrants from all over the world, Asia, the Middle East, East Africa and others.

And the Norwegians and Swiss, of course.

Quote:
The ratio of prejudicial abstract judgment and unsupported assumption to facts in this post is very high indeed. One could call it deliberately deceptive to a much less refined and sensitive reporter so concerned about his integrity. However this is merely the standard stuff of propagandists.

You could at least try to honestly deal with the racism involved in Trump's "southern border" comments. Brazil has 2 cases and Equador 1. So that's 6 south of the border and 16 north. Just relying on snide doesn't cut it, george.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:19 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Re: snood (Post 6966677)
The news reporting of caravans from El Salvador and Honduras and previous government reports about the origins of apprehended illegal entrants are very numerous indeed. The burden of pro0of is clearly on you here.

No, it isn't. Mere assertions can and do cover up all sorts of misconstruals, misinformation and errors of fact. When asked for you source materials, you ought to produce it. And why not? Laziness? Uncertainty you actually have it right?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:39 pm
Quote:
A key development last night comes out of Washington state where epidemiologists analyzed the genome of a new community spread case and compared it to an already known case discovered roughly six weeks ago (January 19th). That analysis strongly suggested, though it didn’t yet prove, that both infections were parts of a common stream of transmission. In other words, this new evidence strongly suggests that community transmission has been taking place in Washington state since late January.

Josh Marshall has a collection of links up on emerging data for those interested
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:40 pm
@blatham,
Your post contains a, not-well- labelled, quote that is not from me . It was however useful in the construction of the narrative you were attempting to impose on the subject. A bit deceptive and self-serving don't you think.

You appear to believe that it is axiomatic that Trump's motivation for his concerns about the lack of controls on our southern border are exclusively racist. I do not agree. The immigration issue at our Southern Border has been one hotly debated at various times over the past five decades, and many legal issues attending its effects and our general failure to adequately enforce even existing laws were already part of the ongoing, fairly intense debate when Trump took office.

In addition the huge trade in illegal drugs crossing that border and the security issues attending the cartels profiting from it were already serious national security issues for both the United States and Mexico. The increasing (but small) incidence of potential terrorists from hostile Islamic countries was also a valid, real concern.

There was ample and obvious reason for President Trump to address the issue, and your conclusion that it was necessarily racist is simply yet another illogical and partisan manifestation of the sappy group think ideas to which you so assiduously adhere.

georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:44 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

[ When asked for you source materials, you ought to produce it. And why not? Laziness? Uncertainty you actually have it right?

I am no more obliged than are you and Snood in your many unsupported assertions on these threads.
In the matter at hand the expressed notion that the Immigrant caravans from Honduras and El Salvador were not well documented, reported and publicized, is simply laughable - as is your self-serving commentary here.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Reply Sun 1 Mar, 2020 01:47 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
In addition the huge trade in illegal drugs crossing that border ...
Most illegal drugs smuggled from Mexico come through legal ports of entry, often disguised as commerce, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (see: DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION - 2019 NATIONAL DRUG THREAT ASSESSMENT)
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 12:47:42