Wow! What a headline. That definitely supports Donald Trump's order to ban all refugees from this country.
Oh, except it's from 2013?
By JAMES GORDON MEEK CINDY GALLI and BRIAN ROSS Nov. 20, 2013
About something that happened in 2009?
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky...
And the oversight was addressed in 2011?
"An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago..."
Well, they did catch two guys who slipped through. What percentage of the Iraqi refugees was that exactly?
Most of the more than 70,000 Iraqi war refugees in the U.S. are law-abiding immigrants eager to start a new life in America, state and federal officials say.
That comes to roughly .00286%. Rounded up.
Yeah, even two is too many. I hear ya! But if this is the best reasoning you have for banning all refugees from completely different conflicts and countries-- two guys who were caught before they could actually do anything, almost 8 years ago... Well, that sounds like pretty flimsy reasoning.
No one does Google better than a right winger desperately looking for something to cherry pick out of context in order to sustain their worldview.
But hey, f*ck the refugees, right? Their fault for being born in countries destroyed by colonial powers and our own foreign policy.
I hear a joyful noise outside the window of my new apartment in Trump Tower. A soothing sound that brings happiness to my heart and lifts my soul on the wings of angels. I'm of course talking about the tormented cries of the liberals on the city streets below, bawling their eyes out that America will finally be great again.
The only sound better than the cries, are the cracking skulls.
As I've written before, America's savior Donald Trump couldn't have come at a better time in history. After we finally defeated racism (you're welcome, Obama), brought peace to the middle east by wiping out Saddam Hussein and began to usher in a new era of global prosperity, out came the demoncrats to ruin everything.
They invented #BlackLivesMatter in order to kill police officers and incite a race war, founded ISIS (thanks, Hillary), and gave all our jobs to the Chinese and the Mexicans. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, and this election restored law and order. If only we can stop the liberals from voting entirely, we might have a chance to keep it that way. God knows, we've tried. Maybe we can learn a thing or two from our dear friends, the Russians.
I wish I could pour the tears of all those sissies in a bottle, age it like a fine wine, and then pop the cork in four years when Trump is elected President-for-Life, and toast to their demise. Because nothing says "America is Back, Baby!" more than taking joy in the sadness of others. Where would we be without the Trail of Tears? The Redeemers? Executive Order 9066? Senator Joe McCarthy?
Liberals have no appreciation for our history. Obama even replaced American hero Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with an unrepentant fugitive and lawbreaker, just because she was a black female. That's racism and sexism. With Trump in charge, you can bet things will go back to the good old days.
The more I see people throughout this country crying, worried about their futures, complaining that they won't be able to afford healthcare for themselves and their families, worried our planet will burn from war and global warming-- I get butterflies.
It reminds me of my first love, Reagan Ronalds, a totally real girl from my high school. Her hair was as red as the blood of our soldiers, and she spoke volumes about how, as a woman, she wanted a country that protected the baby inside her from her own bad decisions, and that she wanted a country where men were men and told her exactly what she had to do, so she didn't have to think too hard. Thinking hurt the tiny brain in her pretty head.
Reagan and I shared a passionate kiss by the lake behind the school, and I promised her right there and then that I would help make an America where women like her would never be expected to do anything, an America where she would be safe from the criminals, terrorists, and journalists.
She asked me how it was possible that I could be so smart and brave, and I told her that I never stopped believing. Believing that one day, a man would come to save us from the weaklings who believed in peace and harmony and equality. A man even smarter and braver than I was, who knew that the best way to make America great was to make half the nation and most of the world quiver in fear and despair. And more nukes. Lots more nukes.
"Could such a man really exist?" she asked me, as I pushed her to her knees.
"He will," I said, looking up at the skies, ever-hopeful for the coming.
I don't know where Reagan Ronalds or our baby are now. But today I imagine she's as happy as I am to see how miserable the people are who don't agree with us. Obama never understood-- all his calls for unity, all his insistence that we were one nation for all-- he never got that America isn't something that can be shared with everyone. It's something reserved for those that truly deserve it. For us, the day has finally come that we can look at our lefty neighbors and proudly say, "Have fun in Canada, losers."
Because if you're not with us, you're against us. If you're against us, you're against America. All the screaming and shouting won't get you anywhere except the inside of a jail cell, cause wehave the freedom of speech now.
Ahh, do you hear that sound? A boot stamping on a human face - forever. Sounds like victory to me.
'Til next time comrades-- I'm Robbie American, proud Patriot. God Bless you, and God Bless America.
[Note from Adam: Views of Robbie Republican do not reflect my own... ;)]
Charlie Kushner, of course, is Jared Kushner's father, Jared Kushner is Ivanka Trump's husband, and his loyalty to his father-in-law during the Presidential campaign helped elevate him to the powerful position of Senior Advisor to the President-elect (shudder) Donald J. Trump.
Back in 2005, Charlie Kushner was fined more than half a million dollars by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions (to Democrats) and spent 16 months in prison for those contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. That witness tampering? Oh, he hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law so he could blackmail him.
Why should Obama pardon Charlie Kushner's misdeeds when his son is in bed with Trump(s)?
1. It's highly likely Trump will do it.
Speculation has swirled that Jared Kushner is out for revenge on those who turned their backs on his family and led to his father's downfall. Reports indicate that he was responsible for pushing New Jersey governor Chris Christie out of Trump's cabinet and transition team (Christie was the prosecutor who went after his father and forced him to take the plea deal). It's almost impossible to fathom Jared getting this far without an interest in securing a pardon for his father, who by all accounts he was close with. By pardoning Kushner before Trump can, Obama takes away any leverage Trump may have over Jared, making sure the newly-elected President can't dangle a pardon in exchange for his son-in-law's acquiescence. Not to mention he steals Trump's thunder and makes sure that Donald isn't the one who gets to claim he did a great and merciful act for his son-in-law. You know that'll burn Trump, who always wants the credit for everything.
2. Kushner is a longtime loyal Democrat
Until his son married a Trump, and Democratic friends turned their backs on him, Kushner was a steady Democratic donor and ardent supporter of Democratic Party causes. Rewarding him for that loyalty might smooth over the bad blood and help win him and his family back from the dark side (Charlie hosted a fundraiser for Trump last year at the Kushner's seaside estate.) 3. It might help with the Jews.
Despite his unparalleled support for Israel during his Presidency, Barack Obama's reputation has suffered among Jews in this country and abroad due to right-wing propaganda. Why not overturn the narrative by pardoning one of Israel's biggest supporters? Before his conviction, Charlie Kushner, the son of a Holocaust survivor, was one of the world's leading philanthropists for Jewish causes. According to Mark Charendoff, president of the Jewish Funders Network,"If you look at the population of Jewish philanthropists who are committed to the Orthodox world, the Jewish world in general and the broader American community, and then layer on that a deep commitment to the welfare of Israeli society, there’s an awfully short list of people who meet that criteria and have the resources of Charles Kushner.”
Obama has shown that he's not above pardoning millionaires and billionaires who cheated the system. Ian Schrager's philanthropic contributions pale in comparison to Charlie Kushner's.
It's one thing Donald Trump can't publicly bash Obama for doing--and one thing that would certainly piss him off.
In 2009, the Cartoon Network show "South Park," skewered the "political commentary" style of Fox News luminaries like Glenn Beck, who sometimes made outrageous accusations with no basis in fact, couched in their defense, "I'm just asking questions." The character Cartman accuses student council president Wendy Testaburger of, among other things, committing genocide against Smurfs. Several students, believing that the questions wouldn't have been asked if there wasn't truth to the allegations, form a mob and demand Wendy face justice.
It seems like a ridiculous scenario, the kind of thing that can only happen in the cartoon world. But in the real world, a bunch of people have started the same behavior--"just asking questions"-- and it's already causing real world violence.
Is Hillary Clinton covering up a worldwide pedophile ring? Is the Clinton Foundation cover for an international pedophile syndicate? "I'm just asking questions." To a lot of people, these questions sound ridiculous. But to a growing number of self-professed sleuths gathering on internet message boards, these are questions worth investigating... and the more questions they ask, the deeper down the rabbit hole they go.
It boils down to this. First, some white supremacist on Twitter made up a story about Anthony Weiner's emails revealing a Clinton pedophile ring. Then, among the thousands of embarrassing emails uncovered by Wikileaks in the days leading up to Donald Trump's election, there were a few in Clinton adviser John Podesta's gmail account that referred to pizza. For example:
John --
Hosting pizza party at Belmont for HFA on April 10.
Maya Harris is joining, but need you.
Can you come?
Thanks much,
Tony
Now, this looks totally innocent, to some people. The people who don't ask questions. But some of the other pizza emails seemed strange to people who have never left their basements or had a social life. A bunch of staffers joking about how to split up the last slice from an office party. An email from a realtor asking if John had left a handkerchief with a "map that seems pizza-related" on the kitchen island at a rental property. Just look up the word "pizza" in Wikileaks and you'll find 149 results. Is it possible that these emails were all just about pizza?
Yes, but no. Because, get ready for this... the site 4chan proposed that some of the words in these emails are actually code words. The source for these code words is.... well, unknown, but this 4chan user figured it out. By plugging in the code words for innocuous words like "pizza," it turns out that Podesta, the realtor, a dozen staffers, a pizza parlor owner and everyone else in the emails were actually talking about the cutie underage minors they were going to kidnap, torture and rape.
If this seems like a stretch to you, these good-hearted internet citizens would tell you that you're not asking enough questions.
Snopes did a pretty thorough teardown of why the "evidence" uncovered is most certainly bullshit, but all the debunking has done nothing to dissuade people from threatening the owner of a pizza parlor in D.C. and neighboring businesses.
But of course, if your one who "asks questions," then you're already suspicious of the timing. What a coincidence that just when people are starting to believe pizzagate, a guy walks in with a gun?
You can see a pattern in anything. If you look hard enough, everything is a conspiracy. Just because some things look alike or some people know each other or some places exist side by side doesn't mean they have a nefarious connection.
I believe in facts. Not speculation based on what art someone owns or whose party someone's brother once attended. Find a victim, find a crime scene, find forensic evidence, find one iota of proof that isn't an attack on someone's character or something you found that originated on 4chan. Nothing here would stand up in a court of law... that should tell you something.
These are real people that are being accused of gruesome, terrible things. They're not abstract cartoon characters. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, the pizza guy, etc. You may not like their politics. You may not like them personally. But an accusation of pedophilia is pretty heavy. An accusation of running child trafficking is even heavier. That's pretty big weight to be throwing at someone based off of conjecture. Even an accusation is something that sticks with someone. You put it out there, you give it a semblance of validity, you might convince someone, not just that you're "asking questions," but that it's true. And that has consequences. False accusations can have real life negative effects. Especially something like this that gets people rightly fired up. You want to encourage some righteous wannabe hero to engage in some vigilante justice? Intelligent people don't make charges without real solid evidence. Find it, tell the world! But engaging in witch hunts based on circumstantial (to be generous) evidence, guilt by association tactics, and pure speculation doesn't help anyone. It hurts people.
That's my view. But it isn't the view shared by those whipping up pizzagate hysteria, the "just asking questions" crowd. Unfortunately, it seems to be spreading like a sickness. Now this same crowd is saying that the fake news sites that proliferated this election cycle weren't fake at all.
How many people who voted for Donald Trump did it because they believe Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile ring? You can laugh that off, but you can't laugh off the fact that there were millions of people who thought that there was something about her emails that made her more untrustworthy than a man involved in a fraud lawsuit he would later settle for $25 million dollars.
We're taught to question what people tell us. That's a good thing. But when the truth itself becomes a question, when there's no such thing as "fact," only the level of "digging" you've done online, reality itself becomes distorted. It's one thing to question the bias of the media.... its another thing to claim all media is in on one big conspiracy to protect a pedophile ring. Again, the media is not a bogeyman, it's made of individuals, many of whom actually have children they'd be interested in protecting.
Consider this... if the Clintons were running a pedophile ring, wouldn't some media outlet want that story? The Boston Globe won a Pulitzer for outing the Catholic Church for protecting abusive priests. Wouldn't there be some intrepid reporter going undercover, finding that dungeon below the pizza parlor?
Not a great start for President-elect Trump, attacking freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in less than 140 characters.
Fascist tweets aside, I'm willing to keep an open mind about a Trump Presidency (call this the "acceptance" stage of grief). Right now, all we have is the fear-- we have yet to see how he and the disturbing people he's surrounded himself with will put their chilling rhetoric into action. It's hard to imagine--given everything Trump has said (or Tweeted) and done--how he will suddenly become an enlightened leader. Even half of his supporters aren't expecting great things here (the non-deplorables). But it is possible that with an organized opposition, any damage he can do to this country will be limited.
In the past few days, millions of Americans have mobilized in cities around the U.S. as a show of force. There are 59.9 million people who voted against Trump--a slim majority of American voters-- and what these protests show is that we're not going to be silent and we're not going to be steamrolled.
This is not a repudiation of those who voted for Trump. Sure, some in the crowd may demand the election be overturned, but that's not realistic, nor is it the point of these mass demonstrations. These protests are meant to serve as a warning. In our lifetimes, we've seen rapid social progress for the rights of minorities, women and LGBT citizens, advances in world peace, environmental health, and economic prosperity-- if Trump rolls back any of the rights or protections we've fought so hard for, these protests make it clear that he and the whole country will hear about it.
Even Wall Street sent a strong signal to Trump in the late hours of Election Day. Dow futures plummeted, before the market returned in the morning to make gains. It's hard not to see that blip as a threat from Wall Street-- screw up this economy, and these are the charts America will be looking at come next election.
We cannot forget that we have a government that answers to its people at all times. Not just on election days. Civil disobedience and protest have a long history in this country-- from the Boston Tea Party to Rosa Parks to Woodstock. Americans stood up for what they believed in against the powers that stood against them, and by show of solidarity and by virtue of their righteousness, won. This is the story of America. It's not anti-democratic to protest... it's in our blood.
Now is not the time to curl up in a ball and cry (though, that's an understandable emotion). Now is the time to get involved. For too many years, too many of us have been Facebook activists. We've forgotten what it means to hit the streets, to shout, to stand and be seen. To get involved.
This is a call to action.
Trump may be our next President, but he will not be our Dictator. When he threatens our liberties, we cannot, and will not, take it lying down.
Pay attention to what Trump does next. If he appoints a white nationalist anti-Semite as his chief of staff. If he allows Mike Pence and his ilk to pass discrimination laws against gay Americans or restrictions on women's health. Watch and see if he takes health care away from millions, while replacing it with nothing. Take notice if he endangers our security by pulling out of alliances and international treaties, or if he rattles the nuclear saber and risks war. All of us need to hold him accountable for his actions-- and not just those who didn't vote for him, but those who did. If he hurts us, don't stay silent.
Let us always remember the words of the infamous Access Hollywood tape. Not the "grab them by the pussy" part. The part that reveals what kind of man Trump is and how he may govern:
"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
It's up to we, the people, over the next 4 years, to make sure he can't.
I believe government should follow the same principle as doctors do: "Do No Harm." Law is a blunt instrument: while a certain bill may be proposed with the good of the people in mind or passed into law with the best intentions, often there are unforeseen or ignored consequences that do more harm than good.
As such, I believe the government should be very careful to not pass laws that disproportionately affect small slivers of the American populace or violate the standard that "all men are created equal." I believe it is the government's job to protect the vulnerable from the will of the strong, to protect the minority from the ignorance of the majority. To make sure that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and basic human rights are always respected, for all.
Protect the vulnerable? At first blush, anti-abortion, pro-life laws may appear to do that. If I were a woman and found myself pregnant, I would not get an abortion. I think this has to do largely with my view that life is a miracle, and my experience growing up with my sister, Shari, who has severe autism. When I think about how genetic testing could mean that parents would choose to prevent people like my sister from ever being born, it causes me deep distress. I know the sacrifices my parents made and the incredible strength it took to raise my sister, and I know not every parent has those same resources or abilities. I'm not sure even I would be able to meet that challenge. But it troubles me how close some abortion decisions can come to sounding like arguments for eugenics.
However, I am not willing to cut off my thinking there. First, I am a man, not a woman. I will never be in that position to make such a decision about my body. So I need to consider what it means to force someone to carry a child for nine months, at risk to their own health and welfare. If abortion was as simple and clear cut as murder, you certainly wouldn't see such a split in public opinion (the devil isn't fooling 50% of Americans). You wouldn't have concessions from Republicans allowing for exemptions in case of rape and incest-- after all, if the baby is innocent, then why should the crime be a reason for the baby's termination? If abortion is murder, would every miscarriage become a murder investigation?If late-stage health problems were to put a pregnant woman at risk, would doctors hesitate to save the mother's life over that of her child's? I can't pretend this isn't a thorny issue. Expecting a law to address it adequately and humanely is hopelessly naive.
Trump's VP Mike Pence agrees that abortions based on genetic tests smacks of eugenics, which is why he passed a law banning such a practice. But he will never have to live with the consequences of that law-- and he's done exactly nothing in his state to address what happens when that down syndrome baby is born. Will he force the parents to care for the child? With what money and what resources? What has he put in place to make sure that child won't suffer? Isn't it an incredible cruelty to inflict on expecting parents--to make a mother carry to term a child who she may not want, who may not even survive? Pence even banned the one good that could come from an abortion-- requiring fetal tissue to be buried or cremated, rather than using those cells to help save the lives of others.
Trump portrayed women getting an abortion at a late stage in her pregnancy as monsters, "ripping the baby from the womb." But the facts show that uniformly, women getting late term abortions wanted to have their baby-- the baby, sadly, wasn't viable. Having those "abortions" was literally the worst and most painful moment of their lives. Why is Trump bringing additional hardship to grieving mothers? Is it really to save vulnerable lives? Or score political points?
Abortion is a tragedy no matter what choice gets made. What makes Donald Trump and Mike Pence more qualified to answer such a personal crisis than women, their doctors and their families?
Creating new life is the greatest miracle-- perhaps the only miracle-- mankind is capable of. If you have to force people to perform that miracle, you've got bigger problems that no single law can solve. Instead of punishing women and their doctors, our efforts should focus on creating a more supportive environment for women, children, and families. Trump's businesses don't even offer paid maternity leave. Pence voted against paid maternity and paternity leave time and time again. I believe that if you want to protect life, you can't just force birth--you've got to actually support policies that give young families and single mothers the time, money and resources necessary to raise a healthy child.
Hey, I believe in free speech. If you want to spout bigoted views, have fun. But a line is crossed when you allow those people to cause real harm to others. If you don't believe in gay marriage--don't marry someone of the same sex. Hand out religious tracts. Blog about it. But don't ban gay volunteers from serving this country in the military. Don't vote against a law that expands existing hate-crime protections to outlaw attacks based on sexual orientation or gender. Speech is one thing, stopping someone from a career, exposing someone to physical abuse... those are something else.
I believe that separation of church and state is something our forefathers baked into the constitution, having fled from religious persecution themselves. We know the dangers of theocracy-- we can see it in other countries around the globe. The Johnson Amendment doesn't prevent a preacher or a rabbi from supporting Trump or even advocating for a candidate from the pulpit--it prevents them from using their subsidies and tax breaks from Uncle Sam for political purposes. If tax-exempt churches and synagogues were allowed to collect and use money to fund political ads and campaign events, they could potentially become nothing more than giant Super-Super-PACs, washing campaign donations in holy water to skirt campaign finance laws. Trump wants to allow this. Probably because his idea of a non-profit charity, the Trump Foundation, only exists to support Trump campaigns.
Trump has gained a lot of followers from the "anti-PC" crowd, upset that they catch heat for saying inappropriate and derogatory things that they used to be able to get away with. They use the phrases "social justice warriors" and “feminist” as slurs. I don’t think that’s right. Just because someone advocates for equalizing a system they view as unequal doesn’t mean they're inventing any narrative that “white people are evil.” There are otherwise reasonable people who claim there’s no racism in America, that women are already being treated like men, or that the impoverished are poor because they’re lazy. All PC-culture aims to do is get us to question those assertions and examine why it is that we discount the feelings of others.
If someone tells me I've done something or said something racist/sexist, my first instinct is to apologize and figure out how I can avoid causing such offense in the future. How does a racist/sexist person respond? By insisting that it's the other person's problem, not theirs. I don't think our government should act like a racist/sexist person. If a minority group expresses concern about their treatment at the hands of the majority, it is our government's job to examine that and protect those people from further harm. Not blame that minority for causing its own problems.
We live in a more open, accepting, and free society than human beings have ever lived in. When Trump says "Let's Make America Great Again," he references a past that was not so open, not so accepting, and not so free. As someone who believes in social justice, in equality, in acceptance, I look at Trump's partnership with Pence and the statements both candidates have made and I can't envision them doing anything but sticking with the Republican party line-- one that approves conversion therapy for homosexual youths, believes creationism belongs in the classroom, and that thinks women's rights extend only so far.
I can't support going backwards. To do so would be to cause harm to those who are finally getting a fair shot in a country that long denied it.
If we can't protect those citizens, then what kind of government do we have?
“Radical Islam” is not a magic phrase, an “abracadabra” that will
suddenly make ISIS pack up and leave. “Well, she said ‘Radical Islam’ was
the enemy, so I guess we’re done here,” said no terrorist ever.
Still, many Republicans get upset that President Obama and Hillary
Clinton don't use those words to describe ISIS. Some believe the reason
the President and other administration officials do this is because either
they're secretly supporting terror, or simply don't understand the threat. In
fact, there are very good reasons to be "PC" in this case, and limit
our description of terrorists to exclude a specific and simplistic religious
label.
The first reason should be obvious--calling these terrorists
"Islamic" feeds into ISIS propaganda. The Islamic State’s
message is simple: "the West has declared war on Islam, so we’re waging
war on them." ISIS surely appeals to violent, mentally-disturbed people,
but its sales pitch isn't "wanna rape and murder? come on down!" ISIS
depends on creating a narrative where America is the evil empire, out to
destroy the Islamic way of life. Our counter-messaging depends on making it
clear our war is not against Islam, but those who use it as justification for
murder, rape, and other atrocities. Do we really want to say, “Yeah ISIS,
you’re right! We do hate Muslims!" I’m sure that will play very well and
not at all add fuel to ISIS recruiting efforts.
ISIS has used the words of Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, in
its propaganda videos, to “prove” thatthe West seeks to destroy Islam. It’s
hard to imagine any action America can take to invite more acts of terror than
to elect a guy who openly pledged to keep Muslims out of America.
The second reason, of course, is that there is no
"understanding" to be gained by treating these terrorists as
"Islamic terrorists." In what ways would our strategy change if we
focused on the religious aspect as the driver of terror? Well... you start to
go down a dark road. Why is it that many Republicans think that Islam is
one monolithic hive mind where everyone believes the same interpretations and
beliefs? Or that it's any more prone to extremism than any other religion or
nationality: historically, vastly more slaughters of innocents were committed
by Christians.
If every Muslim is a suspect, it stands to "reason" that
to be safe, you'd have to treat every Muslim differently. Plank one of Trump's
plan is to ban all Muslim immigrants. But does it stop there? Are the 3.3
million Muslims living in America our enemies? What about the millions of
Muslims who have never committed an act of terror, nor supported one? Or our
Muslim allies? What “final solution” can you come up with when you believe
all the followers of a different religion are monsters, or that the acts of a few represent the threat of the many? The road this
leads you down is a road humanity has traveled down before, todisastrous results.
How does Trump’s ban plan work? Do you give everyone a religious
test they need to pass? Judge them on appearance? How about thatlittle Syrian boy? He’s Muslim…
is he a terrorist?
Even if you believe profiling suspects wouldn't mire us in
false-positives, add wasted man-hours interrogating Cat Stevens, feed a culture of
paranoid xenophobia and inspire more extremism... you'd still be stuck with
reason number three: the intelligence value of being friends with your
"enemy."
Just because the middle east hasn’t turned into happy unicorn land
in the 15 years since 9/11 (while we actively fought wars there for most of it,
and left power vacuums in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to the short-sighted
policies of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush) doesn’t mean that
we shouldn’t continue to work with Islamic nations. How else can we gather
intelligence? Send a white guy with a Texas accent into Syria to say, “Hey there
partner, I’m totally a Muslim who is into ISIS and not a spy! So when's that
next terrorist attack?” Maybe we keep our troops stationed in flying
blimps, instead of our bases based in Muslim countries?
Bush tried capturing suspected terrorists and torturing them. Even
then, to know who those terrorists were required coordination with intelligence
services in Muslim countries. They don’t want these guys threatening the
stability of their nations either. How does completely giving up diplomacy
help anyone? We saw what happens. War. Stupid, pointless war. Do you want more
troops on the ground? Are you going to
fight?
Hillary and the current administration would rather those Islamic
nations, Islamic rebels, and Kurdish militias do the fighting for us, with our
support.A plan that so far, is working.
Declaring Islam as our enemy doesn't aid those alliances.
I shouldn’t have to say it, but a senator, a Secretary of State,
or even a President, is not Superman (orWonder Woman). He or she can’t stop
every worldwide catastrophe, every death personally. Trump seems to think he
can fix everything himself—he’s actually said that. He accuses
Hillary of doing nothing because certain things in the world still occur.
Just because we don’t live in a magical puppy utopia doesn’t mean
Trump, who has dedicated his whole life only toTrump, will do any better.
Considering he never addressed any of these issues until a few months ago—and
Republicans certainly didn’t during 8 years of George W. Bush, I don’t see how
we can have any faith he will.
Genius and talent don’t only exist among the privileged, and far too often, bright young people who could potentially be the next Einstein or Steve Jobs never get the chance, because of their situation—too little money, too little opportunity. Liberals believe that the best way to help even the playing field is to make sure resources are available for the disadvantaged, to make sure they have access to food, shelter, and education. These things cost money.
It used to be, in the era when labor unions were strong and more businesses were local and home grown, instead of huge corporations, that people got a living wage for their labor. Now they don’t. And so liberals believe that those who have enjoyed the incredible advantages offered by being upper class in America, those who profit massively from the businesses that pay workers shit, should do their part to help those at the bottom. If your CEO makes 20 million a year, and your company makes millions in profits, and your workers can’t feed their families, the government either has to step in and stop that abuse, or step in and fill the gap.
Conservatives like to call this communism and conflate it with progressivism. But it’s a far, far cry from seizing entire businesses and profits, assigning people to jobs and distributing the money “equally” like communist Russia. Liberals believe that a progressive tax structure, in the end, works for everybody. The money ends up back at the top, because of a few factors. One, a healthier, well educated, well-compensated workforce is more productive. Two, poor people spend money. Not on private jets, but consumer goods. This money flows into the economy and ends up feeding business profits. Three, we don’t need to waste as much money on the things that poverty tends to create—crime, homelessness, astronomical health care costs.
On the flip side, conservatives believe the more money concentrated at the top, the better. They think the poor are scum that will suck the teat of Uncle Sam for the rest of their lives. They think the poor can’t be trusted with money. Trickle-down economics has been Republican policy since Reagan, and every Republican presidency has proven it wrong. The 80s saw a devastating recession under George Bush. The 90s boomed under Clinton. The 00s led us to the greatest economic disaster since the great depression thanks to George W. Bush. 08-‘16, the economy has come back under Barack Obama. Do you see a pattern? Liberals do.
And its not like rich Americans have suffered liberal policies. Why does Trump believe doing the same thing Republicans have tried and failed at for years will produce different results? Why do the rich, who haven’t been hurt at all by economic downswings, reap the benefit of tax cuts while poor Americans get their health benefits cut, their salaries kept at starvation levels, and face the loss of life-saving social services? Why does Trump believe that the middle class will benefit if the rich people get richer—even though that has never been the case?
We're 11 days away from an election that could determine the course of the United States, and the world, for decades to come. In one corner, we have the chosen candidate of white supremacists everywhere, a man who has admitted to sexual assault, a man who has conned hundreds of people out of their hard-earned money, a man who has never done one act of public service in his entire life. In the other corner, you have a career politician who OMG EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!!!!
Honestly, why is this even an issue? You have one reason to not vote for Hillary: you are a Republican when it comes to social issues, and you want abortion banned, the gays back in the closet, and the minorities to shut up. This is not debatable, because it is literally all Trump brings to the table. If you want a Supreme Court packed with Scalias, Trump is your man. In fact, if you're not particularly bigoted or racist, you have a pretty compelling argument to vote for Hillary.
So why would EMAILS EMAILS EMAILs cause you to say, "Fuck Hillary, I'm a Trump guy?"
More of Hillary's emails have been read, studied, picked apart and agonized over than the works of Shakespeare. There is no person on Earth who can claim to have released more emails to the public than her. George W. Bush, who suspended civil liberties, rewrote the constitution, slept through 9/11 and embroiled us in two costly wars-- well, he "lost" 22,000,000 emails. We will never see them. They were on the private server of the Republican National Committee.
Despite this unprecedented scrutiny, this magnifying glass over every quip from a low-level Democratic party campaign worker... literally NOTHING illegal has been found. NO emails of her plotting to kill Americans in Benghazi. NO emails of her sharing Monica Lewinsky nude pics. NO emails of her promising Iran she'll give them nukes as soon as she's elected. NOTHING. NADA. ZILTCH.
The FBI, the RNC, Wikileaks, the press, Russia, even the right wing conspiracy media... not one of these entities has found any email that surprises and shocks us. Oh, politicians are calculating? They try and speak out of both sides of their mouth? Their staff can get petty and catty? OH MY GOD!!!!! TELL ME something I don't know.
Did Hillary erase emails in which she discussed taking bribes from the Saudis? The Republicans would say, "YOU BET!" But there's no evidence of this. It's all speculation. Hillary could have erased an email revealing she's really Emperor Zod of the Planet Kylophon, here to enslave the earth and steal the world's reserves of Beanie Babies. That email MIGHT EXIST!!! But it doesn't, and that line of thinking should also have you wondering what things might exist in Trump's email, right? After all, we don't have any of his messages. Not one. We don't even have his tax returns.
Was Hillary careless with classified information? Well, it depends whether you think the state department email system, WHICH WAS HACKED, is safer than Hillary's own email system, which is apparently so secure that no one can find her Emperor Zod emails. It also depends whether you give a damn if she accidentally revealed that a general's favorite soup is split pea, which is the kind of ticky-tacky shit the government slaps "CLASSIFIED" on ever since the Bush administration.
All of this hand-wringing, all of this "HILLARY BELONGS IN JAIL!" bullshit... WHY? Every single telescope, microscope and endoscope has been focused on her for close to 30 years... and nobody has found absolutely anything to imprison her for! What's the charge? What's the evidence? And... WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Imagine someone pitched a movie with Hillary as the villian: "You see, the bad guy, she's this woman who, well, she used her own email server. And MI-6 has to send James Bond to take her down." This is not compelling stuff.
By all means, if you have ideological differences with the Democratic Party, vote Republican. I'll point out that Trump is not a Republican, and you should worry about him destroying your party, but at least I'll understand why you're voting the way you are.
But if you're a so-called fence-sitting independent? Can you really not tell the difference here?
While most Americans believe Hillary Clinton won last night's debate by speaking in complete sentences and not just mixing together random words with coke/amphetamine/terminal-illness sniffles, Trump and his good friend Sean Hannity have pointed out otherwise. While Hillary was a big bad meanie--insisting that The Donald's shady, sometimes racist business practices, multiple bankruptcies, demeaning comments about women and dangerous comments about our allies abroad were somehow relevant to his qualifications for the presidency--Trump himself showed "enormous restraint," a quality Americans are looking for in a President:
"I was going to say something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate, it's not nice."
After restraining himself for several minutes, Trump let it all out with reporters immediately after leaving the stage:
How Bill Clinton's affairs relate to Hillary's abilities to be President, the twice-divorced Republican nominee who admitted to cheating on his first wife didn't say.
In my lifetime, I can't recall there ever being a clearer choice for President of the United States. In times like these, when everything we love is under assault from immigrants and Islamists, and the gays and commies are teaching our children about anal sex and the "sharing economy," are we so fallen as a people to consider handing our nuclear arsenal to a woman who, at best, hands out classified information like free samples at Costco, and, at worst, has murdered at least two people while laughing maniacally at rape victims?
It's especially baffling when you consider that the Republican nominee is Donald Trump, a successful and respected businessman who has sacrificed so much for America and dedicated his life to building this country, brick by brick. But ever since he expressed a desire to stop murderers and rapists from treating this country like their own personal blood orgy, the liberal media has organized a coordinated campaign to tar and feather him. Republicans are used to being compared to Hitler... it's practically a libtard pastime. But this... I've never seen anything like this.
For example, Trump retweets an image, clearly depicting Hillary as being both a crook and a slave to Wall Street. The liberal media goes out of its way to say it's actually anti-semitic, because the person who made the image just happens to be a neo nazi and the star happens to look like a Jewish star. And when Trump explains that no, the image created by the neo nazi isn't anti-semitic, and the star is just a sherrif's star, the liberal media says he's lying.
Then, Trump is savagely, brutally, violently attacked by a Muslim extremist, and what does the liberal media do? They accuse Trump of being a bigot for gently pointing out gender inequalities in the Muslim world.
Trump reaches out to a young mother and her baby, and arranges for them to be escorted from his loud rally to a quieter room, presumably so the young mother can nurse and the baby can sleep? Suddenly, Trump hates babies.
This week? A new low. Trump points out that if 2nd Amendment supporters unite and use their political power against Hillary Clinton, she won't be able to steal our guns. What does the media report? That Trump ordered Hillary's assassination.
It's unreal. At this point, Trump could cure cancer and the liberal media would claim he put pharmaceutical companies out of business. And yes, Trump could cure cancer, believe me.
What is the media so afraid of? You'd think that because Trump once had a hit show on NBC, he'd be welcomed. But in fact, that's exactly the source of the media's fear.
You see, NBC cancelled Trump. They tried to silence his voice. If Trump wins the White House, he'll be on every television in America, 7 days a week. His voice will be impossible to silence. His presence will be everywhere. He cannot be ignored.
Just imagine. Trump's brilliance, his eloquence, his visage of Aryan beauty, on display in your home, at all times. Every moment of every day, filled with his wisdom, from 140 characters, to long, wide-ranging inspirational speeches on every topic under the sun. The liberals will be unable to turn him off, unable to shut him down. He will be where he belongs-- in your face, in mine. His voice will wake our children up in the morning and put them to sleep at night. There will never be a second when the values he represents and the policies he has so lovingly crafted will be far from our hearts and minds.
One State of the Union address a year? Ha! How about one a day?
Right now, the liberal media controls the message, but that will be impossible once Trump has the ear of the world. Impressed by him now? Just wait until he has the full backing of our military and financial might. He's proven he knows how to build an empire and keep it going, no matter what lies the media tell. NBC will rue the day they cancelled The Apprentice, but for Trump, that fateful turning point will be seen as the moment a great man became even greater. Why settle for one night a week, when this man... this god among men... can be our everyday beacon of hope?
Trump on your TV. Trump on your computer screen. Trump on your smartphone. Trump on your car radio, on your in-flight entertainment, on the Jumbotron at ballgames. Trump 24-7, a constant stream of this conservative icon and Republican stalwart, espousing everything that is wrong about America and how he, Donald Trump, can fix it. His soothing voice with its musical lilt, entering your mind throughout the day, transforming your whole being into a kind of Trump antenna, tuned to receive the solutions to everyday problems that only Trump, in his infinite wisdom alone, can provide. He will be there always, looking over your shoulder, watching out for you. Like a big brother would.
Plus, we will probably see a lot more of Ivanka too. And you can't tell me you're not interested in that, right guys?
The media will try their best to silence him, to quote him in context and out of context until your head spins. But if you can't get enough of Trump--and I don't know who can--make your voice heard this November. Because the liberals want to change the program. Trump? He cares about making America great again.
That's what should dominate the ratings, for next four, eight, who knows how many years? Our children will thank us for it.
[Note from Adam: Views of Robbie Republican do not reflect my own... ;)]
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. And by the way, if she gets to pick her judges: Nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is."
Trump said these words. They're on video, as you can see here below:
Trump: If Clinton picks judges, "nothing you can do, folks -- although the 2nd Amendment people, maybe there is." https://t.co/7oFn4JE2D8
What did Trump mean? Well, to us regular folk, it seems pretty clear that Trump was saying that if Hillary is elected, she will ban guns, and in that case, there will be nothing anyone can do... except for gun owners. What can those gun owners do after Hillary is elected that no one else can? Trump doesn't quite spell it out. But gun owners possess something that non-gun owners don't. What is that?
Well, according to a Trump statement:
That's right... gun owners have "the power of unification." In the event of a Hillary Clinton election, this "power of unification" will prevent her from naming judges that will take guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminally inclined.
He totes mcgoats wasn't suggesting that anyone shoot her. Gosh, dishonest media, where would anyone get that idea?
The uncomfortable laughter heard in the video above makes it clear that if this is what Trump meant, those in attendance sure didn't know it.
It seems to be the general consensus--at least among Democrats--that when it comes time for the Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with Donald Trump. There's evidence that Trump himself is worried about this, already hemming and hawing about the debate schedule. If you'll recall, he actually sat out of one of the Republican debates because he didn't like the results of the previous one.
There is little doubt that when it comes to knowledge of government, public policy, and the issues at stake in this election, Hillary Clinton has a better grasp. But the Democratic nominee would be wise to study Trump's past debate behavior and rhetoric--the angry orange man may not know how to "win" a debate, but he certainly knows how to derail one. And for Trump, that could be as good as winning.
Here's how Trump "beats" Clinton in a debate:
1. Attack the questions and the moderators.
Not even Trump's biggest defenders believe he has a great handle on the issues (the most common defense is, "he'll have the best advisors.") One of his best strategies to buy time to formulate answers and distract from his lack of knowledge will be to go after a group that most of his supporters uniformly hate. No, not Muslims... the Media. He will most likely be called to task for previous things he's said on Twitter, in interviews, and rallies, and his winning strategy will be to accuse the moderators of bias (remember Megyn Kelly), the questions for being unfair, and the debate process itself as being rigged. By de-legitimizing the debate, he seeks to mitigate its impact. Instead of losing the debate, his supporters will be able to say he successfully withstood a character assassination attempt. Expect that any pointed question about his temperament, behavior, or prior statements will be parried with a defense that the media is out to get him and deliberately skewing the coverage.
2. Interrupt, mug for the camera, and talk over Hillary.
Donald Trump loves attention. He thrives on it. As we heard in their respective convention speeches, there's quite a contrast between Hillary and Donald's speaking styles. You'd think a calm, well reasoned argument typically wins out over an unhinged ramble. Usually, you'd be right. But to use the Republican debates as an example, Trump uses his demented charisma not to make a powerful argument, but to steal the stage. He's consistently robbed other candidates of speaking time. Look at what he did to "poor" Jeb Bush, an experienced politician who certainly speaks more coherently on the issues--Trump silenced him, again and again, in front of a national audience, and made him appear weak. Trump set the rhythm of the debate by never allowing his opponent to make a point uninterrupted. Trump will attempt to deny Hillary the time to make a reasoned argument and bully her off the stage, For him, it's better if viewers are distracted by him muttering, "Crooked Hillary," or if the network cuts away to catch him mugging for the camera, than if the audience is able to focus on Hillary's words. The more focus he can pull toward him--even if its negative--the more he makes Hillary disappear.
3. Mock Hillary with nicknames and attack lines.
Trump doesn't want a debate. He wants a circus. Debates favor the best arguments and the strongest speakers. A circus is pure entertainment. John Kasich made some inroads--too late--among Republicans because he mostly stayed out of the ugly fray and stayed on topic during the Republican debates. Meanwhile, Little Marco and Lyin' Ted fell by the wayside because they stopped looking Presidential and started looking like damaged little boys on the playground. Trump got them to play in the mud, and they soiled themselves. Trump's goal is to get Hillary agitated and get her to break decorum. As Michelle Obama said in her convention speech, "When they go low, we go high." If Hillary forgets this, and goes low, Trump will be able to feed a narrative of name-calling and childish bickering to the news media. That will dominate the headlines the next day, instead of his debate failures and lack of substance.
4. Protest, then Parrot
Otherwise known as the Mitt Romney debate strategy. Also a strategy well-known to Melania Trump's speechwriter. And it's the best way for Trump to seem Presidential and "take the high road." The "Protest, then Parrot" strategy boils down to this. First, accuse your opponent of being out of touch, of just not getting it: America needs a change from politics as usual. Then--nearly word for word--lay out the same exact strategy your opponent supports. For added effect, one up it. For example, Hillary lays out a $275 billion dollar plan to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure? Accuse her of selling out the working class, redistributing wealth, and raising our taxes... and then propose spending "at least double" to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Time and again, if Hillary lays out a plan, Trump will say it will raise our taxes and sell out America, and then will recite the same plan, except he'll do it by cutting taxes and saving America. Trump won't need to bring any of his own ideas--other than The Wall--he can just steal from Hillary. Most political commentators and the audience watching at home thought Mitt Romney won the first debate in 2012, even though everything he said on stage was wildly out of character and ran counter to the policies he'd advocated for his entire campaign. It's winning by blurring the lines--sound just like your opponent, and some people won't be able to tell the difference. Even better, your opponent is caught off guard and has nothing to say.
5. Go left.
The Bernie or Bust strategy. Realistically--and the polls show this--a Bernie Sanders supporter isn't going to vote for Trump. The Donald knows this... or at least the people in his campaign do. But Trump's appeals to the Bernie set aren't designed to win votes... they're designed to lower turnout for Hillary. A left-leaning Bernie supporter who doesn't vote for Hillary is a win in Trump's book, especially in swing states, where the polls are close. If he can consistently attack Hillary's ties to Wall Street, her support for the war in Iraq, the DNC's questionable ethics, he can keep the discussion about Hillary's commitment to progressive values alive. Heck, he might even go out of his way to praise Jill Stein! If he can keep a few thousand left-leaning voters from pulling the lever for the only left-leaning candidate with a realistic shot at the Presidency, he tightens the race. And as we saw in Florida in the 2000 election, that could make a big difference.
Can Hillary withstand these strategies? Can she counter them? She's certainly heard it all and faced much worse throughout her long time in politics. If she can demonstrate her mastery of the issues and keep her emotions in check--unlike Rubio and Cruz--and command attention and respect the way Jeb Bush couldn't, she should succeed just like all the prognosticators expect. But if Trump gets under her skin and steals the microphone, the debates could be a wash, doing nothing to move the needle for her. That's a win in Trump's book, and it's something the Clinton camp should take very seriously.
Is Trump a capital-R racist? Is he the second coming of Hitler? Perhaps I'm giving him far too much benefit of the doubt, but I'd say no. Hitler wouldn't associate himself with Omarosa, for example, and he wouldn't be too happy about his daughter converting to Judaism to marry a Jew. But that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a godsend to the racists and anti-Semites out there.
Even if he doesn't intend to be, Donald Trump has become a very public mouthpiece for bigots, xenophobes, and white supremacists. This is not in debate. It's fact:
The tweet above? Originated in a vile white supremacist message board.
He does this a lot. Passes on memes, photoshops, and tweets from some of the most hateful people from the darkest corners of the Internet. He does it uncritically, no filter. During a presidential campaign, when he knows every piece of communication from his camp will be heavily scrutinized, he copies things he sees and sends them to millions of people, without even checking the source or worrying about whose message he's passing on.
If he's not doing it deliberately, then he's being hoodwinked, again and again, by KKK-loving anti-government hatemongers. We should worry about someone who is continually deceived into spreading messages lovingly crafted in the backrooms and basements of people determined to wipe out everyone except for white American Christians.
How stupid can one be, really? [UPDATE: Pretty damn stupid. Trump put out an official statement saying the image was taken from another Twitter user. This is another image put out by the same Twitter user.] Trump's latest defense, that the star in the tweet above is a "sherriff's star" is absurd on its face. The image was produced by an anti-Semite for a white supremacist message board. Hillary's email problems have nothing to do with the $100 bills and Jewish star... That's common messaging from Hitler worshippers who believe Hillary is bought and owned by the so-called Jewish elite.
It's not "the media" (the Jewish-owned media, the image's creator would point out) that is twisting this image into something it's not. It takes a lot of squinting and a ton of mental gymnastics to interpret this graphic as a criticism of Hillary's email shenanigans and a reference to the FBI's ongoing investigation. For instance, why $100 bills and not emails or email inboxes as the background (those cute little AOL inboxed would be a particularly germane graphic to use)? And why not use the FBI logo or the FBI shield (which is not a Star of David) if you intend to refer to the investigation taking place? Nothing about this image says emails or FBI. It's made entirely of anti-Jewish imagery.
Which is exactly the kind of imagery you'd expect once you know this was created for a white supremacist message board.
The fact that Trump has continually given a voice to this type of hate imagery and hate speech should worry anybody who isn't a card carrying racist. Trump's own staff attempted to take his Twitter privileges away because he repeatedly shares content from the internet's scariest trolls. So claiming the image above depicts a sherriff's badge and isn't in any way connected to anti-Semitic bullshit doesn't hold water--if that were the case, then why is Trump's communications team trying to reign him in?
If Trump retweets something, does he believe it? It doesn't matter. What matters is he is exposing these hateful viewpoints to millions of his followers. Every time he retweets a supremacist, he sends that supremacist thousands of new followers. Whether he means to or not, Trump has emboldened the once dormant hate group movements in this country.
If he's giving them such a voice now, can you imagine how loud they'll get if he ever comes to power?
It doesn't matter if Trump is Hitler. He hasn't done anything to counter these voices. He hasn't preached tolerance or expressed scorn for the people who would gas his Jewish grandchild if given a chance. For someone who talks so much, he's said remarkably little about the white supremacists who have gravitated to his campaign.
Plenty of politicians rose to power in 1930s and 40s Germany on the back of Hitler and the nazis. They didn't have to make speeches about the stab-in-the-
back myth or come out against the Jews. All they had to do was give the growing tenor of hate their tacit approval. All they had to do was go along for the ride.
Trump may not be Hitler. But he sure is enjoying the benefits of that kind of hate. He's riding on the backs of racists, bigots and xenophobes. He's echoing their voices and spreading their messages far and wide.
If we don't hold him accountable for that, then he'll only be accountable to them.
I had a moment of panic tonight, when I read reports about the Brexit vote. I never imagined Britain would actually vote to leave. I was not prepared, despite the close polls.
I guess after that young MP got murdered by a wacko Britain First guy, I figured people wouldn't want to vote on the same side as a xenophobic domestic terrorist. But Britain was so afraid of being attacked by immigrants that they decided to attack themselves first.
Their currency is currently collapsing. No one knows whether you'll ever be able to buy tea and crumpets in Brussels anymore. Even Game of Thrones, GAME OF THRONES!!! will probably never film its scenes in Northern Ireland again (but where will Yara and Theon call home?).
What's worse, markets everywhere are crashing. That means your... Well, everyone's, investments will drop considerably in value. You will be worth less tomorrow because of some racist British guy.
And the bottom could be really low. We're bound to see Northern Ireland and Scotland (and possibly other territories--like Gibraltar) make their own Brexits, leaving England behind. That would send markets tumbling further.
So yeah, I was flipping out. About to write an email to my investment advisor... SELL SELL SELL! But then I remembered something I read, a truism preached by Ben Graham and Warren Buffet. I can't be a slave to "Mr. Market." He can offer me $20 for my shares in a company one day and $5 the next. Yeah, the price someone will pay for my investments will drop... For now. But if the things I've invested in are solid, those pieces of companies and properties--they will still be solid no matter what Mr. Market offers. They won't disappear. New deals will be cut, commerce will resume. It may take a while, especially in this political climate. But we'll get most of the value back with time if people do what's in their best interest and don't do things that will sell their investments short.
But... Will people do what's in their best interest? Panic tends to make us do things that hurt ourselves. And make no mistake, the Brits will suffer for this, that's clear by the market's reaction.
There's a lot of panic in the United States right now too, obviously. People so scared of Mexicans and Muslims that they want to elect a mealy tomato (sorry, that's insulting to tomatoes) who vows to kick those immigrants out, keep them out, and hey, maybe send Muslim citizens to some sort of secret "summer camp."
Imagine that the states of the Northeastern U.S. — New York and New Jersey, plus New England — don’t like the outcome of November’s election (not that far-fetched!) and decide they would rather split off on their own. After all, the Northeast is culturally different from the rest of the U.S., it has the most prestigious universities and the dominant financial capital, and it pays far more in taxes than it gets back in benefits. Why should people there let leaders they didn’t vote for impose policies they dislike?
Now, this is really getting eerie and makes me wish I hadn't slacked off writing my novel. But in the story I envisioned, New Jersey and New York DO secede. The President (elected on a nationalist platform) announces a new policy of "Discernment," where Muslims are required to report to centers where they will undergo interrogation and investigation to establish their loyalty to the U.S. (You could see Trump proposing this!) New York and New Jersey immediately refuse to contribute their tax receipts to the federal government and declare they will not enforce or cooperate with the order. Troops are sent in to make sure they do, some shots get fired, and the states officially secede. The independent nation of New New Amsterdam is short lived, however, as federal troops arrest the Jersey governor (not Chris Christie, in my book) and New York gets in line under a Vichy-like regime puppet-mastered by Washington.
I honestly thought the plot was, perhaps, too complex and unrealistic. But now? Our country is panicking just as bad as the Brits, and its easy to see how some may be ready to break it all up too.
We've got to remember something. We haven't just invested in some invisible concept called America, that is worth $20 one day and $5 the next. We bought into something real. The same land our parents bought into, and those first generations of immigrants: from those who crossed a land bridge from Siberia to follow wild game, to those who crossed an ocean to flee famine, war, and hate. America is something real--houses built and businesses grown and yeah, even cars parked on the Moon. We bought into a land built by people who had seen enough of the misery people make for one another and wanted to lift their families up. That America is still here, despite what some will say, despite its flaws. America doesn't need to be "great again." It is great. It always was. Now is not the time to panic. Now is not the time to sell.
Some people want us to. Because it benefits them when things fall apart. One of those opportunists cheered on the Brexit, knowing full well it would launch a recession. He's also cheered on other policies that will lower us in the eyes of the world, wither away our perceived value, make us forget how great we are with vague promises of how great we'll be.
Donald Trump wants to buy us for $5.
Don't sell low. That's how people lose everything.
