Friday, March 8, 2019
Ann Coulter is finally starting to put 2 & 2 together: Does Trump WANT to stop the invasion?
As everyone knows by now, Trump pulled the campaign trigger in 2015 about one month after reading ADIOS AMERICA. He had found his issue. It was not his issue. It became his issue. He had found his angle, his tool.
Immigration restriction marked Trump out from all the other candidates. It got him elected, narrowly. The tilt to the libertarian open borders Mercers with Conway and Bannon in August 2016 nearly did him in. He prematurely tracked to the middle (DACA waffling in Arizona townhall, showing he was never sincere), and once in office, did nothing of substance about the issue. There was no liason to Congress on the issue in the White House, coordinating policy. All the appointments in the White House were opposed to immigration restriction save one here or there, confounding his supporters to this day. It was not a priority, until after the House was lost. None of the cabinet appointments were restrictionists, but for Sessions, whom he neutered early over what really matters, muh MAGA presidency.
Now he returns to immigration, putting it front and center as a matter of what, policy? No, as a matter of the reelection campaign, as it was in the beginning. It's an election tool, a campaign issue like abortion has been for decades. He never really intended to do anything about it, and doesn't now, except in a half-hearted kind of way where if he gets lucky with it here and there as a matter of policy, so much the better. That keeps the believers believing, as does the dumpster fire he's created at the border. He keeps signaling over and over again since losing the House how he wants more immigrants to come here than ever before. Well they're coming over like never before! Trump created the National Emergency. Trump created the surge at the border. He wanted it. He needs it. We are in a political campaign.
Donald Trump will go down in history as the man who forever put the stink on running as an immigration restrictionist, which is why you never trust a "former" Democrat with the leadership of your party. It ain't called stupid for nothin'. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who started us down the road to exporting all those jobs Trump now says he wants to bring back.
How's that working out for you on this winter day reporting a mere 20,000 new payrolls in February?
We are screwed. "Conservatives" and "Republicans" have failed us, utterly. And that much Coulter already knows.
We are screwed. "Conservatives" and "Republicans" have failed us, utterly. And that much Coulter already knows.
Trump as state capitalist: Once was a one-off, twice is a Freudian slip
Trump's brain has no room for the individual qua individual, only for the individual as representative of a brand. The higher reality, the organizing principle of society is the group and the corporation, without which the individual doesn't exist. In that sense he's a good Aristotelian:
This is just stupid: Trump is causing the invasion, he wants the invasion, he needs the invasion!
Trump will veto the bill. There aren't enough votes to override. The National Emergency must and will continue! There's another election coming you fool.
Trump used immigration to distinguish himself from the rest and get elected: It was merely a political tool then as it is now
Wake up and smell the coffee, served up fresh and hot by Juan Valdez you idiots. You are so owned.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
ANYBODY who runs for president now as a Democrat is an anti-Semite
How quickly they drop out now is an index of their disagreement with the Democrat Party's new embrace of anti-Semitism.
Way to go, Sherrod Brownie! Didn't take you even one day!
The New York Times' Paul Krugman: No anti-Semitic enemies to the left, only to the right!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
What a douche bag, writing for a douche rag.
Contra Dan Henninger of the WSJ, this is hardly the hottest job market in half a century when Obama's was actually better, which ain't sayin' much
This past weekend, The Wall Street Journal published a series of stories titled “Inside the Hottest Job Market in Half a Century.” As far as I’m concerned, this jobs record is the story of the year. The Journal’s articles transformed a year of economic data into the new daily reality of getting paid to work in America. ... It requires a remarkable degree of obtuseness to stare at the policy success of the past two years and pretend it hasn’t happened. Democrats are doing exactly that. Conservatives should pocket the Trump presidency’s Reaganesque policies for massively matching job producers with job seekers.
There's nothing obtuse about the facts, which show that the current job recovery is nothing out of the ordinary and simply continues the recovery which began despite Obama. The fact is that since the election of Trump in 2016 there's actually been a slow down in the rate of job growth compared with the immediately preceding, more robust period from 2013-2016.
Reaganesque policy under Trump hasn't produced a better outcome for job growth compared with that period, which was the immediate result of the John Boehner-Barack Obama deal to make the Bush tax cuts permanent starting in 2013.
For all the bluster by Trump-aligned organs in the media, especially at The Wall Street Journal, Fox and on talk radio, Trump's results so far also haven't come close to matching the pre-2000 era of job creation.
The economy shrank after the end of the 20th century, and we're still trying to recover to the former glory, nineteen years later.
So far, no one has a solution. Short of a giant spending cut and an actual structural commitment to onshoring instead of offshoring, there will not be one.
Repeal the 22nd Amendment, 2019 edition
Limiting the president to two terms when House and Senate members are not so limited increases the political power of the legislative over the executive, contrary to the founders' vision of separated and balanced powers. The executive is automatically lame on reelection as a consequence, and the Congress knows it and exploits it.
The growth of the so-called "imperial presidency" in the post-war has been simply a response to this infringement on the executive. To be sure the individual responses of the executive often become offenses in and of themselves, but nothing has been more offensive in the history of the Republic than Congress' sorry record of unimpeded theft of the American people's money and its headlong leap into the spending abyss.
Like guilty dogs caught peeing on the carpet of the Constitution, the Congress occasionally bows its head and cedes a little power back to the executive in one form or another, the latest example on display being the National Emergencies Act of 1976. With that the Congress is quite content to let the executive take all the political heat for making the difficult decisions in extremis while posturing as defenders of the Constitution. They win both ways, and the president loses. Congress' incumbents know they'll be back for the long run, but the president won't.
Repealing the 22nd Amendment would actually put more of the onus on Congress these poseurs to do their damn job for a change instead of dumping it all on one person while crying "Tyranny!" after he acts to clean up their puddle. And that's why it won't happen.
But it still should.
Why Twitter is better than Facebook
Facebook makes you go to all the trouble of unfriending people for what they believe whereas Twitter saves you a step by automatically unfriending you for that. Much more efficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)