Monday, June 18, 2018

questions. I got questions.

Because the immigration issues are the new way to attack the GOP and Trump, FB is full of photos of children in cages (most from the Obama years and a recent one part of a demonstration, using a child, who well might have been terrified-- and rightly so by parents who would use their child as a political tool).

How noble is it when Ivanka is attacked every time she dares put up a picture of her with one of her children. How dare she be happy. Then her husband is accused of being a super villain by an actress who used to be a friend. I hope the Trump family has good protection as such loose talk is asking for a violent reaction from the unhinged left.

The leftist rage was enhanced when one father killed himself over it happening to his child (how killing himself will make it better for his child is beyond me to understand but it ratcheted up the rhetoric and the accusations as who can't relate to upset over the idea of small children being snatched from loving arms to a cold prison).

Anyway, I saw this article on one of the facilities where children, most who came up from Central America and often are older teens, with information on how the facilities are run and what they are trying to do--  

It is, of course, only one facility. I am sure, given all the photos floating around, that there are many other articles, some not so much on what is happening but how horrible it is. The latest is the cartoonist who put up a photo of the immigrant family running into the US to escape whatever they left behind, while their child is snatched up by a specter looking like Trump. Let's keep that hate going folks-- all in the name of righteousness. 

Evil and scariness is what the left is creating day after day with their acolytes (yes, this is cult like, which the left accuses the followers on the right as being-- basically two cults and neither one with the interests of the public) sharing it all to keep the fear and anger going. 

I wrote about why it's happening in the last blog, that this is about laws that the left don't care if they change because they profit from it by those who don't find out what the law is but just repeat the distortions; so won't repeat it.

I don't have a good answer for immigration issues but have lots of questions. 

If we end up like Europe, with millions coming, will it change our culture if they are of a different one? Many do not want to speak English or be taught it, what will that mean for jobs? Many seemingly don't like our country but just want out of their own or go where there is money to be made-- what will that do to our society-- one nation Under God, what God? What of those who can't support themselves and need help? What does that do to the ones in poverty already here?  Is there a breaking point? Some try to make this into a brown vs. white issue. I think it's more a cultural one as we already aren't brown, white or black, we are a hodgepodge of ethnicities, but most who came here wanted to be Americans... not transform America into something else.
Funny thing on this from Berkley, who I guess is saying due to climate change, Americans should have fewer or no children... while they also support massive immigration from around the world through Sanctuary Cities. Is there logic in that? I think not. Has academia gone stark raving mad and is it Trump's fault? *s*

I see the difficulty of trying to fix the world's problems by taking in everyone who wants to come. I see the unfairness of letting people work here many years and then deporting them simply because they didn't wear a seat belt. The thing is if we give amnesty to all, what keeps this from escalating with increasing numbers showing up. A lot of the world is facing violence. Can we take all those from there? What happens when we ignore one law for convenience, to the rest of them? Is it really racist to want to control our borders? 

The only answer to a fair amnesty is a real end to the ease of coming here and finding work. Enforcing laws that say you can't hire someone under the table would be a start, with penalties to the businesses that hire them, and maybe a wall although I don't know if it's more than a sop. Maybe it's what we need though to make the point-- then let in the farm/construction/service workers we need with a path to citizenship if they so choose-- do it legally so they have rights. Some here don't want that-- on the right and left.

See, back to the questions with no answers.


Majormajor said...

Great post!!

One question; we have had amnesty before, how did "fair amnesty" benefit the US in the past?

Rain Trueax said...

It sure didn't stop the immigrants from coming and even encourages them, which is why we have to figure out stopping before anything else.

Diane Widler Wenzel said...

Rain, I mostly want to agree with your cogent arguments. But we are not being clear on the phenomenon of media sharing hate related content. Example: The New York Times political cartoon of Trump portrayed as a monster snatching babies from people wishing to immigrate that caused a long employed cartoonist to be fired. I used to be less upset by gross political characterizations of my favorite government personalities when they were published on the editorial page. But on social media there are no boundaries distinguishing between fact and opinion.

Rain Trueax said...

Good point, Diane

Rain Trueax said...

that guy had been regularly posting anti trump cartoons; so this might've been the last straw. Some of his earlier ones were very hate filled. You have to remember also Pittsburgh might have a conservative population (manufacturing and steel influenced) where the newspaper couldn't afford to lose those subscribers.

Dave Dubya said...

Because the immigration issues are the new way to attack the GOP and Trump

You have it backwards. The attacks on immigrants are from the GOP and Trump. Trump built his whole campaign on border anxiety and immigration fears.

children in cages (most from the Obama years)

NO evidence cited. Those cages are being filled by the Trumpists. Good God.

This is what projection looks like.

If you want to see the tools and tactics of the Authoritarian Right, check my blog.

no boundaries distinguishing between fact and opinion

The same thing is here:

the ease of coming here and finding work

So they have had it real easy, huh? Want to trade places with them?

How about we deport everyone without native blood? That'll clean the place up.

Sounds good to me.

Dave Dubya said...

So "hate filled" cartoons are worse that a hate filled racist birther president?

Not in a democracy. Not in a free country. Not if we have free speech and a free press, now called the "enemy of the people". Good God, people are blind to the creeping totalitarianism and hate.

The Pittsburgh editor is an intolerant Trumpist. The cartoonist mocked Obama too. But he got mad when Trump became the object, as what happens with ALL political satire and every leader.

Censorship is the authoritarian way. The only press tolerated now is pro-Trump. Everyone else is the "enemy".

Millions of Americans would have made good obedient Germans in the 1930s.

Why do Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump?


Why did FOX(R) condemn Obama for saying he would negotiate with adversaries, but now it's just great for Trump?


Anyone at all?

Step up, if you have the wisdom or courage to answer.

MM will deflect, of course. He's a master of "whataboutism".

How about we deport everyone without native blood? That'll clean the place up.

Only Real Americans allowed.

Take that.

Rain Trueax said...

You do know the talking points, DD. lol I am pretty sure you care more about immigration issues that you said a while back.

I happen to live in one of the states that needs those workers (and protects them from being sent back) and another where I regularly see the results of our loose policies on immigration in terms of the border.

You might see yourself as compassionate with your view of immigration. In reality, it's not compassion. It's allowing some to stay a hidden population. it's keeping wages down for the lower income workers already here. The Dem plan for immigration is just get more voters (which I think eventually they will find doesn't work since Catholicism has some strong views on things like abortion and birth control).

Reality is we need to control the border and have a reasonable plan for those who have been here and been good citizens to become citizens. If we don't do both, it will end up like Reagan's plan. A hidden society does no one any favors. I find the left's view of this very hypocritical.

As for those without native blood-- nobody was here originally... I am assuming you know that.

Rain Trueax said...

And as for the newspaper. It's a business... If it doesn't get subscribers, it doesn't stay in business. That's reality unless it's government printed and approved and not sure any of us want that

Rain Trueax said...

And as with all talented politicians, what Trump did is connect with what his people already found of concern. Obama and his ilk do the same thing. It's how you get votes. Immigration has long been an issue and not just Mexicans... Irish, Chinese, Hawaiians (before it was a state), etc. Reasonable immigration laws are part of most nations including Mexico and Canada, our neighbors. We have to have them and when our government encourages ignoring the laws, as we now see, where does that leave us? I'd hazard a guess being a people who don't respect any law with which they disagree.

Dave Dubya said...

Why do Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump?


Why did FOX(R) condemn Obama for saying he would negotiate with adversaries, but now it's just great for Trump?


Anyone at all?

Step up, if you have the wisdom or courage to answer.

Why can't you address my questions? It's not like there is no answer to them.

What about you?

"The Dem plan for immigration is just get more voters" is also a Rightist talking point. It's all over FOX(R) and hate radio. Human rights disappear from their perspective.

Hannity and Limbaugh often mocked Obama with "Obama the Messiah" rhetoric.

Funny how you have no issue with those saying, "Jesus sent Trump to save America".

Wouldn't that be closer to your "god" talk?

How is firing a satirist critical of Trump not unlike "government printed and approved"?

It's their right to do it, but I call it for what it it. It's denial of an alternative viewpoint.

That is how far right and authoritarian government propaganda operate. They also call for the imprisonment of political opposition.

How would a moderate address that?

"In reality, it's not compassion."

So you know my motives more than I do. But you can't see Trump's racism? You cannot address my questions about Trump's racist following? You can't address FOX(R)'s dishonest hypocrisy? You cannot address their call for the imprisonment of political opposition?

Hoookaaayy. As I noted, the "moderate" center has drifted far to the Right.

Now if you please, allow me to express my own motives.

I care about human rights issues. Is that complicated? Is that unpatriotic or un-American?

No. In fact, it is the opposite of far Right ideology. It is the opposite of Trump's gushing praise for dictators.

Advocating for children staying with non-violent parents isn't the same as advocating no immigration laws, is it?

They can be held and processed as families, if need be.

You want the same immigration laws as Canada? They accept Muslims and refugees, you know. They don't rip children from parents either.

There is a better way. The Right doesn't even want to discuss it with Democrats. They've already poured the koolade about "new democrat voters". You regurgitated it quite readily, in fact. That is THEIR deal breaker. Human rights be damned.

Now, how about all non-native blooded people be deported from our country?

It's the only answer. Now get off their land! ;-)

Dave Dubya said...

As for those without native blood-- nobody was here originally... I am assuming you know that.

But they were here first. Nobody was anywhere "originally".

I'm satirizing Xenophobes, in case you missed my point.

Majormajor said...

"children in cages (most from the Obama years)", you haven't seen the photos Dave of Obama built cages?

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) claimed in an interview Saturday that the Obama administration tried to cover up the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the United States’ southern border.

“It was kept very quiet under the Obama Administration. There were large numbers of people coming in. The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” the Texas Democrat told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield on Saturday.

Cuellar suggested that some adults who are not legal guardians of the children they carry over the border take advantage of the separation policy.

“Keep in mind that under the law, you can separate a child if that person, the adult, is not the real parent or the custodian because sometimes we see situations where they’ll bring a child because they know of the policy that we have over here with children,” Cuellar said.

Majormajor said...

'Why do Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump?"

Why did members of the largest racist organization in America, the Nation of Islam love Obama?

Majormajor said...


Here's another link proving the Black Guy placed kids in cages.

In brief it says: "Multiple stories about those family detention centers written during the Obama era–just not by the mainstream media. In particular, dozens of stories about the Nogales Placement Center in Nogales, Arizona particular were written by journalists at Shadowproof, a reader-supported media outlet, alone. Journalists for Shadowproof also frequently reported on the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas. Most media declined to investigate these facilities until fairly recently."

Majormajor said...

"Trump built his whole campaign on border anxiety and immigration fears. "

Dave Dubya

Are you the same Dave Dubya who said Trump rose to President on his racist birtherism stance? You starting to lose focus.

Dave Dubya said...

MM is right on cue with more deflection and Whataboutism".

See "Authoritarian Tactics And Rules Of Discourse:"

Obviously he lacks the courage and wisdom to answer the question.

I will address his if he addresses mine. Deal?

Didn't think so.

Rain Trueax said...

I can't answer your questions point by point, DD because you throw out so many that I'd be here all day and I can't afford that.

I don't hear enough Hannity or Rush to know about the messiah comments. I'll have to take your word for it. Guess you listen to them both?

Human rights means you care about bringing in everybody for any country who wants to come here? does that include Asia and Africa or just Central America? where do you draw a line or do you? We do not have the ability to interfere in all these governments and fix them but we are supposed to be responsible for what happened there and take anyone into here whether they can work, whether they are drug dealers, whether they are just here for jobs? Whether they are hoping many states, with generous programs for the poor will help them? Where do you draw a line on human rights? I guess you must be a globalist and it would fit.

I don't think you know much about Canada or Mexico for immigration policies. You might look it up. It's not as easy as you think. We btw also allow in Muslims... just he wanted to block them from countries Obama named as failed states, which means no records to prove who is a terrorist and who is not.

Canada is having some problems now with the ones coming from here and afraid they will be deported. You might be surprised to know they don't even let someone visit there with a felony on their record including DUI.

What makes anyone own land? They keep it safe. They can defeat an enemy who would take it from them. Europe was reworked multiple times. The US had a combination of actual defeats as well as lying treaties for how they got the land from those here first (who often also took it from someone else); but it was taken one way or another to form this nation. For those who don't like the element of force, do you honestly think we could keep this land if we didn't have force to preserve it from those who'd like it? My husband and I own land in two states. We depend on the legal system to keep them both from being overtaken by someone who might be more brutal than we are in maintaining them. We actually had some enter the Tucson home through breaking into a window, left the door open, and only our neighbors being vigilant found it before someone moved in. That was happening and it's called squatter's rights in some places.

TBC as I overran the characters again, of course.

Rain Trueax said...

DD, you do like to debate. I am done with this here as it's pointless. I have made my points. I do not get them from Fox or pundits. I get them from how I was raised and how i live-- on rural land with which comes responsibilities and hard work to keep it. I grew up with parents who worked and taught me that.

Sadly, for me, I've come to be in a country where many believe everybody is entitled to whatever they want. Not saying you but it's behind Bernie's suggestion (in a time of low unemployment) that the government would give everybody a job if they couldn't find one. Who was he catering to? When you say human rights involve everybody from every country around the world having the right to come here, who are you catering to? And when you apply human rights issues, as you did above, to immigration, you are talking about open borders even though you seemed to say earlier you didn't support that.

Anyway, I am done with this. You will go on forever and we will never agree. Feel free to post as you wish but I am not into the game where it's a lose/lose. We won't convince each other. I've seen how this goes other places.

And politically speaking, I have lost faith that I'll ever find another candidate I can support with enthusiasm as the extremes have taken over both parties. I guess we have to destroy ourselves over this before we can maybe someday find a reasonable way to live. Maybe we are too diverse and too populated for it to happen and it's why most live in bubbles with their tribes. Trying to convince someone from another tribe just doesn't work.

Oh and as for moving farther right. I actually have changed my position on some things but like gay marriage, I used to support civil contracts. Now I support gay marriage. I do believe we need immigration laws enforced and probably in the workplace and with welfare but favor a path to citizenship for those who have worked here 20 years and where we have profited as a people from them being here. I have said on abortion, i am in favor of it being legal and available but only for the early part of the pregnancy. After that I'd make it illegal, which would send it to back alley butchers but i've seen those tiny babies and can't believe in killing them once they reach that stage.

THOSE are the reasons I am an independent and don't fit either side of the partisan gap. I don't fit in boxes. I don't have a party. If I am farther right, it's only on something like immigration where the left wants everybody in-- even though they don't say it. I am not a globalist and most dems are. I believe in this country, the hard working people in it and think our entertainment industry has gone off the wall with what they throw out that is often destructive to good values-- you know the kind I grew up with and maybe you did too.

Majormajor said...


You claim deflection when you are asked to explain your own comments, when historical facts that go against your position are presented, you claim "whataboutism". But you never want to be held accountable for your posts.

Why is that Dave?

Majormajor said...

"Why do Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump?"

The same reason the largest racist organization (Nation of Islam) in the USA love Obama, they think Obama agreed with their racist positions.

There Dave, you got your answer. Now how YOU about explaining how YOU can claim Trump's rise to power was based on his birtherism (even though he wasn't running against Obama, and he recanted his position), and then your claim that Trump's rise was based on border anxiety and immigration fears?

I thought his victory and rise to power was due to the Russians?

Dave Dubya said...


we will never agree

I have acknowledged your centrist positions and even agree with them. Abortion, 2nd Amendment, marriage equality, etc. We like puppies and kittens too, I suspect. ;-) I merely point out where you go with the dogma of the far Right. That is where we will never agree.

"Why do Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump?"

MM: The same reason the largest racist organization (Nation of Islam) in the USA love Obama, they think Obama agreed with their racist positions.

Very good. However you offer no evidence supporting your contention that they thought Obama agreed with their racism. He openly disavowed it.

This represents the far Right tactics of Fallacies (False equivalence), Deflection and Whataboutism.

See “Authoritarian Tactics And Rules Of Discourse”:

I couldn’t find a single instance of Obama having a racist position. He’s never demeaned any ethnic group or religion. Never said “shithole countries”, never said the White guy isn’t an American. Never called white athletes “sons of bitches”. Never discriminated against white renters. Never called for the deaths of exonerated white kids.

All of these types of statements and actions from Trump about Blacks were greeted with applause. THIS is why Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and white supremacists LOVE Trump.

From David Duke:

“Voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage".

“Mr. Trump’s appointment of Bannon, Flynn and Sessions are the first steps in the project of taking America back”.

“Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa”. - David Duke

From Alt-right leader Richard Spencer. “Really proud of him. He bucked the narrative of Alt-Right violence, and made a statement that is fair and down to earth”.

See the pattern here?

Then there’s Roseanne Barr... "Ambien induced racism".

Trump built his base with birtherism, and based his campaign on border anxiety and immigration fears. This is factual and recent history. (Look it up, while you’re looking up whether gravity exists or not.)

Many racists in Trump’s cult still believe Obama is not an American.

“Birtherism was why so many Republicans liked Trump in the first place”

Polling data supports this claim that birtherism launched Trump’s political career within the Republican Party. Indeed, consider these graphs from a USA/Today Gallup Poll conducted at the height of birtherism, just days before Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011:

This base grew even larger over the past five years. A YouGov Poll from earlier this year showed that 53 percent of Republicans thought Obama was not born in the United States, compared with 21 percent who said he was. Most Republicans have also consistently espoused the closely related belief that Obama is a Muslim in 2016 surveys. Political science research shows that those intertwined beliefs that Obama is foreign-born and Muslim are caused in large part by ethnocentric suspicions of minority groups in general, and by anti-black and anti-Muslim attitudes in particular.

Any account of Trump’s rise to the top of the GOP must start with his origins: exploiting widespread backlash against the country’s first black president by peddling birtherism.

How these people sleep is beyond me. No conscience and willful ignorance, is my guess.

Majormajor said...

Oh Dave.

You will not change my mind any more than I will change yours, let's leave it at that and go on with our very different lives. I only wish you peace and happiness one day, just as I have in the past.

Dave Dubya said...

No hard feelings, MM. It's all in the nurture environment, social circle, DNA, and amygdala.

We like similar music, so we are from the same planet after all.

For my fellow media critics:

More “Liberal media”?

Columbia Journalism Review

It seems incredible that only five out of 150 front-page articles that The New York Times ran over the last, most critical months of the election, attempted to compare the candidate’s policies, while only 10 described the policies of either candidate in any detail.

In just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.

Rain Trueax said...

I didn't count how many times the NYTimes wrote about her email but considering the likelihood that most taking it are liberals, I doubt it hurt her and maybe what they wrote was not all critical since after all, that was when Comey made his statement and it had to be covered.

I didn't intend to but watched some of the Congressional hearing on the IG Report, and then the press conference where the Homeland Security secretary answered questions. IF I'd had any doubt the press had its agenda, listening to them badger her would have settled it and likewise with the hearing where the Senators used it as an excuse to pontificate-- on both sides. IF I could, I'd throw them all out of office. i guess we can't throw reporters out but their bias was so obvious as they also used it as a chance to pontificate. I generally avoid those kinds of events. I used good judgment in the past...

Dave Dubya said...

Who believes this con?

Kirstjen Nielsen says, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

Kirstjen Nielsen says, “Don’t believe the press.”

The German Nazis used the term “L├╝genpresse”, or lying press, in their campaign to destroy journalism. Now American fascists cry “liberal media” and “fake news” when the truth threatens their agenda.

And yes, Nazis also had a policy of separating families.

How to create future sociopaths and criminals?

Traumatize children by taking them from their parents and locking them in cages.

Mission accomplished, cold-blooded fascist Trumpists. This cannot turn out well. But they don't give a damn.

Many decent Republicans are appalled.

I stand with them.

Who do you stand with?

Rain Trueax said...

i stand with those who do not know. The law is that when parents are arrested, children are put into a safe place. We have been overwhelmed at the border. There are, she said, 10,000 kids who came up without parents. There are 2000 who came up with someone who at least claimed to be a parent. She said the numbers have increased by over 300% that they are not with a parent but someone who used the child. It would be nice to follow a tribe and believe what they say. I simply don't know-- other than we cannot take in everyone who wants to come here.

My guess is you don't live in a community, where the new arrivals will be next door, a community that will be overwhelmed by those who claimed asylum and didn't come back for the hearing. So many, like Pelosi, who are out there saying we must let them all in, live in gated communities. They only profit from cheaper labor. I can imagine how it must be to live in a place, such as from where these people are coming, where the cartels are overrunning them, but it could happen to some of ours and evidently has in places like Long Island, not the moneyed side but the others.

This has been a huge issue for dems to claim the moral high ground. They act as though anyone who wants a border is a racist and evil. It might work for them. I have no idea. I though favor a border with realistic rules for who gets in. I don't see a democrat offering that ever.

Of course, the children are terrified. They don't know what's coming. Their parents likely did.

Dave Dubya said...

While I’m addressing the zero tolerance policy with children put in effect by Trump, I’ve seen all the resentments, the victim card playing, accusations, and deflections. (See Dave Dubya’s Rules and Tactics of Authoritarian Discourse)

when you apply human rights issues, as you did above, to immigration, you are talking about open borders even though you seemed to say earlier you didn't support that.

NO. Just no. You are falsely associating “open borders” with my position. What does that even mean? Not once have you defined that. Are you saying the stupid liberals don’t want ANY border security? That’s what it sounds like, and it is a lie and a smear and an insult.

Or are you suggesting a false choice of human rights or secure borders. Do you realize illegal immigration is waaaaay down?? But you all seem more agitated than ever before. What changed? Authoritarian leadership has taken over.

Good God. Condemning unnecessary cruelty by the US government is the point. We’re not talking about immigration requirements, numbers, bans, or even any policy save one. This grotesque zero tolerance rule Trump and Sessions initiated.

Falling in line with this is what separates the pro-torture people from the rest of us. This is where the authoritarian personality emerges. How about we waterboard those kids if they get out of line? After all , they’re just a bunch of young gangsters anyway. Right?

“Mrs. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform," according to a statement from her spokeswoman. "She believes we need to be a country that follows all laws, but also a country that governs with heart."

Instead her husband is the most hateful and heartless president in history.

Of course, the children are terrified ( More will be, and that’s good, how?). They don't know what's coming. (They DO know America aint so great)Their parents likely did. (Right, they got all their news from cable in the back of the truck on their way up here)


Let’s go back to this:

a path to citizenship if they so choose-- do it legally so they have rights.

THIS! ^^^^^^^^^ This indicates a conscience. Will it rise to the occasion?

Even convicted child molesters in prison have more rights than those parents and children. Yes, THEY can get visitors.

Zero tolerance won’t allow even that Basic. Human. Decency. This is about Justice, is it not? It is nothing but cruel punishment for innocent victims.

“I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.” – Laura Bush

I stand with Laura Bush.

I ask again. Who do you stand with?

Sorry if my questions seem too difficult. You’ll find they are easier to answer when you examine your conscience, and stop wildly reacting as if I’m suggesting “Open Borders for Rapists and Gang Members”.

The emotional strain and trauma for CHILDREN needlessly taken from their parents arms is State Sponsored Child Abuse.

Rain Trueax said...

If you don't believe in no control over our borders, how would you proceed when the numbers increase and flood the system. You are going by old data, not current. Here's the latest-- May Graphic in immigration. The numbers began to jump in March according to my reading of the articles. Has the violence gotten worse in Central America or is someone down there recruiting and fooling these people into what they will find. Many come up here with little or no education. it probably would not be hard. If all of our border agents also speak Spanish, that doesn't help much with those from farther south, who do not.

There was that caravan that came up and it probably impacted the numbers although maybe it's not just it but more like it being paid for by someone. The yearly caravan was partially at least funded by a Soros group. What is his purpose in all this? Are billionaires standardly globalists? Not all billionaires benefit from lower income in this country but certainly some do.

If we are being bombarded by new arrivals and the statistics say we are, who benefits, I repeat?

Currently, zero tolerance means, the law will be followed. It has not been. It's why the change. In the past, catch and release meant they were let go and could come back for a hearing. They did not come back.

You and I are wasting our time on this. I am not heartless but I also not a fool. If this is a way, the latest barrage and they say there could be 30,000 children in these shelters by the end of the summer, to break our borders, to force us to accept what Europe did and only now is Italy trying to stop-- forcing in millions (and don't tell me that's stupid. Millions are out there. Just think of what Venezuela is going through. South America isn't that far away if this continues and we have no control of a border.

So my idea is we control the border first. Reagan tried it the other way and it got us where we are. We need to prove we mean what we say. So far, we have not. We should get a reasonable immigration plan for needed workers. Green cards where people can come up for a season and go back when they don't want to live here.

Then, we give amnesty-- and only then-- to those who have lived good lives here and not just DACA kids but all of them. They are here and if they are responsible citizens, we should do it since so many Americans profited from their working below minimum wage and even sometimes being abused or cheated by employers. It can't be the cart before the horse or our situation will see more here and on our streets as there won't be jobs.

My belief in what should be done is based on logic not emotion. The latest from the dems is typical of them-- stir up the emotions of the vulnerable but NOT offer a reasonable plan for control of our borders. It's all hysteria and makes me think I'll never vote for another dem as long as I live until they start offering plans and not phony tears for something that has profited them.

That's compassion by the way-- with logic. It is nothing I hear from the left! Nada, zilch, zero. They use the children a one more way to attack the man they see as a monster already-- including you, Dave...

Dave Dubya said...

Your embrace of the zero tolerance policy is embracing needless suffering. Parents are not charged with violent crimes. They can be held together with their children. You don’t like that suggestion? Too “emotional” and not “logical” enough for you?

If you don't believe in no control over our borders

There you go again. Please STOP with your “Open borders” crap. Stop with the deflecting and accusations. I am addressing the zero tolerance directive. When will you see that?

You are right about the current surge in immigration, still historically lower than past years, but rising due to horrible conditions in Central America.

Zero tolerance means violent immigrants are no longer the priority. They go for the easy pickings and most vulnerable victims. This is why the war on drugs was skewed to marijuana users for so long. “Zero tolerance” should be for violence, ignorance, and hate, not for the cruel punishment of innocent children.

who benefits, I repeat?”

Trump and is base. Um, how about those kids?

The latest from the dems is typical of them-- stir up the emotions of the vulnerable but NOT offer a reasonable plan for control of our borders. It's all hysteria

Projection. You join Trumpists in stirring up fear and resentment.

Here is more projection:

"They use the children"

No., Trump is using children as bargaining chips for the damn wall. Just like he’s doing with DACA.

Trump has rejected all efforts at bi-partisan discussion on immigration. Yet he is blameless. How authoritarian is that?

“Logically” the best solution for your resentments and fear is snipers on a wall picking off all the brown people at the border.

That’ll stop ‘em.

I may as well go back to the “evicting non-natives” idea.

While you have a sensible attitude about amnesty and other approaches, this zero tolerance policy has triggered your fears and resentments. Just like Trump, you want to blame liberals and democrats. This is an emotional reaction. Never mind many conservatives and Republicans agree with me and the Democrats on this issue. Yet you have no blame for those conservatives and Republicans, only for liberals and democrats. This is your clear bias showing.

While you and Trumpists wallow in blame, accusation, deflection, resentment, fear and bias, we prefer a rational and humane approach.


I told you who I stood with. Who do you stand with?

Since you can’t come out and say it, I’ll state it for you.

You stand with Trump and Sessions on zero tolerance. You side with the separation of families and the trauma of cruel punishment for innocent children.

Rain Trueax said...

I stand with years of democrats who used to believe in a border. I am tired of how you keep saying this is evil. If you let them go, you don't see them come back. If you detain parents with children, you need to have a place to do that. No money for that.

You like to give people motives despite claiming otherwise. You draw your own conclusions. I don't know how many are with you on this but I'd guess most liberals who don't have a real loss from this to face.

And yes, currently I stand with the law, which means Trump and Sessions. If Congress changes the law, that's another story.

I want a meaningful border and then amnesty. We don't have a meaningful border and you won't accept that.

Lose/lose for you and me. We can't communicate. I read what you say and find you cherry pick. I don't mind standing with someone when they are right. Trump and Sessions are right. Fix the law.

Rain Trueax said...

I've btw made my children cry too when I knew it was what was best. Those parents chose this or they were manipulated into it by someone else and lied to. Those are the real problem with the children.

And you ignore the ones who came up unaccompanied because it doesn't suit your emotion driven agenda-- which is let them all go and then figure out how to care for them. Might be more tears in the end than if we fix the problem and send back those who we can't allow in for economic or criminal reasons. We have a right to say no. Everybody should have that right-- except as radical dems see it.

On this issue, you are a fundamentalist with no answer except let them go into our country and in the meantime claim you believe in a border. That's a farce. You are standing with the wrong side for the long-run. You see, since I don't see Trump as evil and believe he has to be wrong on all issues, I have no problem with standing with him... and know that a fundamentalist, who can't look at the issues for the long-run, will now call me evil. Luckily you don't live close enough for that to be a problem to me

Rain Trueax said...

also, you didn't address how they deal with someone holding a child as though it's theirs but it isn't-- it's a tool and the parents must have let it go with the migrant

Rain Trueax said...

the cruel result for those children has a short time before foster homes or their relatives. The result of no border and letting in everyone has a lot longer to suffer. In the past, the US had orphanages for children when their parents or family could not or would not care for them. They were eliminated and then it was foster homes but not always were those kind. This issue isn't just about immigrant families. What do you do when parents cannot care for their children or brought them on a dangerous journey with hope of safety or sometimes political gain? No answers other than Trump is a meanie.

Dave Dubya said...

Trump and Sessions ARE THE LAW! And there is NO law that mandates innocent children be taken from parents and sent to jail.

They can be held together. Did you read that part?

”I read what you say and find you cherry pick.”

Then you are not reading what I write. You continue with deflection, blame and accusation.

democrats who used to believe in a border... We don't have a meaningful border and you won't accept that.

And there you go again. More deflection, blame and accusation.

“Zero tolerance” is a priority of enforcement. No law says the parents and children can’t be held together.

Go ahead and accuse me of cherry picking. It’s easier than rational discussion.

And you ignore the ones who came up unaccompanied

More deflection. They were not two-year olds taken from their mother.

you are a fundamentalist with no answer except let them go

Easy, girl.

One. More. Time.

They can be held together. Did you read this part??

Damn! That’s some fine cherry pickin of your own.

See what I mean about your deflection and projection?

you didn't address how they deal with someone holding a child as though it's theirs but it isn't-... What do you do when parents cannot care for their children...

This is the far Right deflection tactic of “Whataboutism”.

Here’s an example. “You didn’t address the crying babies in detention when nobody knew who was supposed to change their diapers. Well? Why didn’t you?”

See what I mean?

I suggest you read my blog post on “Authoritarian Tactics and Rules of Discourse.”

Consciously or subconsciously you are employing quite a few of them.

Majormajor said...

Nazis also had a policy of separating families"...This is a total false comparison on your part Dave. The Nazis searched and hunted down those they separated, unlike now where the "victims" are coming here in an attempt to illegally enter the USA, which is a crime.

The law does mandate that if you arrest an illegal immigrant with children, the children not be held in custody for longer than 20 days. The other choice is to release entire families. Furthermore, those who approach points of entry for asylum are not treated as illegal immigrants; they’re treated as asylum applicants.

Just as an American citizen is separated from their family when incarcerated because of breaking the law, those who break the law by illegally entering the USA are separated from their family. Separation is part of the punishment for breaking the law for citizens AND non-citizens. If it is that non citizens have the same protections under the law as citizens, then should they not also also be subject to the same penalty's for breaking the law as citizens?

The solution is not to ignore the law, the solution is for those who are attempting to enter the USA illegally to stop breaking the law, or for Congress to change the law. To not enforce the law is a violation of the law.

Rain Trueax said...

Dave what if they don't have facilities that can handle these numbers and have them together?

You are the one who doesn't get it-- Congress makes the laws. Some Presidents choose to ignore them... i.e. Obama and evidently Bush, but laws are not made by presidents.

To believe this is not an attempt to break our border is to pay attention only to the left wing media who is using this as another emotional sop. The left doesn't want to change the law. They have found something they can use against Trump.

And yes, I agree with MM. I am still a centrist btw, but just the only answer leftists have for this all or nothing. Mine is fix the border and then look to amnesty. To do otherwise is to be swamped and they won't all find jobs. They aren't all trained for the work we need in this country.

Rain Trueax said...

As for my being an authoritarian, Dave. I damned well am. I believe in the rule of law and that when it's disobeyed to suit one group, it will be meaningless eventually-- anarchy. I believe in rules. Wow, how amazing in our world. But rules can be changed. Congress though has to do it unless you want a lawless president. Wait, you already said you think we have one for obeying this law. Irony

Ingineer66 said...

Lots of good points here. I agree with you Rain. It is a complicated issue and needs a comprehensive solution and nobody in DC except for Trump seems interested in actually fixing it.

Dave Dubya said...

Dave what if they don't have facilities that can handle these numbers and have them together?

(Whataboutism deflection.)

Logically, if they have the capacity to hold them separately, they have the capacity to hold them together. The numbers are the same.

To believe this is not an attempt to break our border is to pay attention only to the left wing media

(Deflection and accusation again.) You are very authoritarian.

You insist bad laws be enforced with equal or more tenacity than good laws. You are very authoritarian.

the only answer leftists have for this all or nothing.

(Projection and false accusation again.) You are very authoritarian.

MM: The law does mandate that if you arrest an illegal immigrant with children, the children not be held in custody for longer than 20 days.

Rain: I believe in the rule of law and that when it's disobeyed to suit one group, it will be meaningless eventually-- anarchy.

Well, well.

So Trump and Sessions broke the law. What was that you said about irony?

Lock them up!!

Now where are our “law and order” authoritarians when we need them? Hiding behind Trump's wall of lawless unaccountably?

Oh, wait. I forgot the ONE primal law of the land.

It’s OK if you are Republican.

As Rain implied, Unlike Obama, Trump doesn't "lie". He's just wrong sometimes.


Trump seems interested in actually fixing it.

Obama urged immigration reform for years, but the Republican congress did NOTHING. But all Obama gets here is hate and blame.

Now Trump refuses to negotiate or compromise with Democrats.

Just the facts.

Rain Trueax said...

Obama wanted immigration reform that didn't involve stopping the border. Why would he as we later learned, he's a globalist.

As for saying Trump might just be wrong. I said the same thing about Obama.

How do you compromise with people who don't want to stop the border? You and I can't even come to any agreement on this let alone those who profit from not fixing it-- on both sides.

Rain Trueax said...

As for holding families together, the numbers are not the same for what it takes-- especially if some of these 'parents' aren't... Anyway we will have to agree to disagree. You can vote your way given a choice and me mine. I will not vote for someone who doesn't have a plan to stop the kind of influx that is not controlled and not helping the lower income folks (out of which my family came hence my bias to protect not just the elites). Not to mention not stopping MS-13, which is now spread through this country.. how's that for deflection when I don't agree with you... whenever anybody doesn't.

Majormajor said...

Dave, it is against the law to do what you want. Fix the border, change the law, but to do nothing is criminal.

Dave Dubya said...

As for holding families together, the numbers are not the same for what it takes-


stopping the border.

Here we go again. Is “stopping the border” more of the same undefined “open borders” claptrap?

I’ve learned not to expect clarification.

These are dog whistles with no meaning except to agitate anger, blame, accusations, and resentment.

stopping MS-13

More deflection and dog whistle fear mongering. None of the kids taken from their parents are MS-13.

Running away from this one, I see.

MM: The law does mandate that if you arrest an illegal immigrant with children, the children not be held in custody for longer than 20 days.

Rain: I believe in the rule of law and that when it's disobeyed to suit one group, it will be meaningless eventually-- anarchy.

Well, well.

So Trump and Sessions broke the law. What was that you said about irony? Lock them up!

Cherry picking again. I guess hypocrisy and being caught in a blatant double standard is embarrassing.

It always comes back to false accusations against critics of Trump and Sessions. They react as if we are advocating “Open Borders for Rapists and Gangs”.

And you wonder why we can’t communicate?

Someone clearly doesn’t WANT to communicate. They just want to blame, accuse and deflect.

It is the authoritarian way.

MM: ”it is against the law to do what you want.... but to do nothing is criminal,”

Nobody is advocating doing nothing.

How is it against the law to hold parents and their children in the same facility?

And I agree, to do nothing when Trump and Session are breaking the law is criminal.

Except as we all know by now, IOKIYAR.

Dave Dubya said...

At least we have an answer to this question:

Who believes this nasty woman's con, anyway?

Kirstjen Nielsen says, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period. Don’t believe the press.”

Rain Trueax said...

It's not that it's against the law it's how you interpret someone coming here illegally and whether it's criminal. If it is, then we separate children from their parents if the parents are jailed. That's not detention.

Anyway I have said all I can think of here... got some more tomorrow on MS-13 and what it's doing to our penal system from a small town newspaper in Washington. I doubt it will be anymore agreed with than this one

At least this discussion mostly stayed to the issue without disintegrating into insults. That's a plus whether people agree or disagree.

Rain Trueax said...

Although nasty woman comes close. I guess though to a dem, that's a compliment lol

Majormajor said...

Now Is the Time, Congress — End Family Separation
The Truth about Separating Kids
By Rich Lowry

May 28, 2018 10:37 PM

The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.

As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.

For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.

The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is PUT INTO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)

When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

Majormajor said...


Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Four points to think about.

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.

4) Congress can fix this.

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum.

Rain Trueax said...

I was thinking that in Central America, our embassies should hear asylum claims and those who are coming from a dangerous region and have a history of being threatened could even be bused up here to make it safer for small children.

I also saw link that was interesting on the history of this policy. It's complicated: Family Separation Policy from the Times

Rain Trueax said...

We have to admit we've contributed to the problem in some of these countries with our people buying the drugs and even the Iran/Contra policies of the past. A lot though is corruption in their governments. We can't intervene in sovereign nations-- at least not openly lol

Majormajor said...

Mexican polls show the leading candidate for President is a socialistic of the likes of Sanders. If he wins the election Mexico will become a socialist paradise where no one will want to leave, be they Mexican citizens or illegals from further south, Mexico by this election could end our problem at our border. In fact Mexico may have to build their own wall to prevent the leftist and socialists in America from trying to get into the Socialist Paradise of Mexico. It will that great I'm sure.

Majormajor said...

Dem Sen. Dianne Feinstein Says All Senate Democrats Support A Bill Not Allowing Arrests Within 100 Miles Of The US/Mexico Border…

results of this can be found here

Majormajor said...

The Los Angeles Times reports that Rio Grande Valley border agents prosecuted 568 adults and separated 1,174 children since the administration announced its "zero tolerance" policy in early April. However, it only took a matter of hours to reunite more than a third of these children with their parents.

That hardly constitutes an inhumane policy of "ripping" children away from their parents.

Rain Trueax said...

What got me was what showed up on FB from my liberal friends-- a photo of this adorable little 2-year old sobbing and it's presented as an example of the Holocaust with the other photo alongside, with a girl in a red coat and guards taking her somewhere from the Nazi years.

Well, I looked for the photographer of the current image that has gone viral. Turns out he was with Border on one of their patrols when they saw a boat crossing the Rio. The mother of that girl was apprehended and it scared her-- logically, but he had no idea if they were ever separated. Lefties didn't care. The photo suited their agenda.

Majormajor said...

Here are photos that our unbiased media didn't publish in 2014/2015 when Obama was President.

"Lefties didn't care. The photo suited their agenda." So true and what is even more telling is they try to disguised themselves as liberals.

Dave Dubya said...

Rain is shocked, shocked that liberals on facebook would share an emotion conveying photo relevant to the latest zero tolerance State Sanctioned Child Abuse. (Look who the "statists" are now! That FB stuff is down there with those uppity Blacks and liberals who want us to see images of cops shooting unarmed Black men in the back. Their evil "agenda" again. Proof they hate cops, amirite?)

Conservatives NEVER do that sort of thing, amirite? Never happens on FOX(R), amirite?

Remember when we learned to diagram sentences back in school?

It’s time to “diagram” Rain's use of Authoritarian Tactics and Rules of Discourse:

but he had no idea if they were ever separated.(1. “Whataboutism”. What the Hell do you think will happen to that kid? We know damn well what zero tolerance means by now.) Lefties didn't care. (2.“Projection, 3. Demean, 4.Discredit”.)

The photo suited their agenda. (5.“Discredit”, 6."Dismiss" And what is that agenda again? Yeah, we know. “Open Borders for Gangs and Rapists”.)

Rain scores 6 points on the Right-wing Authoritarian Tactics and Rules of Discourse Scale.

Rain Trueax said...

and you judge that, Dave... Does that make you authoritarian. I don't really mind being called one as I said above.

And I'm not shocked by what I see liberals share. Disappointed is better as I thought better of them... I don't have any extreme conservative friends there; so can't say much about what they might share. All of my friends either stay out of it, are moderates or are liberals.

Majormajor said...


"Lies", Dave how about letting your readers determine for themselves if they are lies?

Either you are afraid they might have their eyes/mind opened or you think your readers are not smart enough to make up their own minds. Which one is it Dave?

For those of you who wonder what Dave removed, he removed links showing this all started under Obama, proof that the photos you are being told were taken 2018 were instead taken in 2014/15, proof that the separation of families isn't as long as you have been lead to believe by the unbiased media exampled by a report that Rio Grande Valley border agents prosecuted 568 adults and separated 1,174 children since the administration announced its "zero tolerance" policy in early April. However, it only took a matter of hours to reunite more than a third of these children with their parents.

This hardly constitutes an inhumane policy of "ripping" children away from their parents.

Lies not so much, but you will have to take authoritarian Dave's word for it. Isn't it great having Dave make up your mind for you?

BTW the youtube link Dave deleted was a skit from Monty Python about championship hide and seek, inflammatory right wing I'm sure. But he published and thanked TB3 for his link, LOL. Some links are more equal than others.

Dave Dubya;
"Running away from this one, I see."
"Someone clearly doesn’t WANT to communicate"
Which is why Dave deletes posts on his blog that prove his position is weak at best.

Dave Dubya said...

Majormajor has been through this all before. It's not like he wasn't warned to stop his deflection and false or off-topic spamming behavior numerous times before.

This is from the thread in question:

Majormajor has been told several times in the past to not copy and paste articles here.

Since doing so, he dumped several more loads of lies and youtube links crap.

Those dumps are now gone. And we know what that means.

It's crybaby time. It calls for another "victim card" about "censorship".

He'll have to whine at another blog.

And he assuredly will.

Right on cue.

Majormajor said...

Now we are getting to the REAL story:

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer told reporters. “Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it.”

Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump.

Let's not fix the problem, let's keep after the President cause the Russian thingy is a bag of waste material and is going no where. So let's deflect form that failure on to something else, like Dave does.

Just like Dave Dubya, Schumer doesn't want dialog, he doesn't want solutions he wants to destroy President Trump..

"Running away from this one, I see."
"Someone clearly doesn’t WANT to communicate"
Dave Dubya.

Majormajor said...

Sorry about this Rain, but Dave deleted my post and has blocked me from posting on his blog. As you can see and as you have yourself experienced, Dave simple can not handle any form of debate that allows his opponent to present facts or opinions that cause his to be found "wanting".
In fact Dave becomes out of control with anger, playing the race card, and name calling. One has to wonder if the politics Dave supports ever got into power, became the law of the land, if it's leadership would be as out of control, closed minded and angry as Dave is? Scary isn't it.

Rain Trueax said...

Well, it's his blog and his loss in terms of opinions on what is going on. It is this blog's gain. I like diverse opinions so long as they don't get nasty (because unlike some liberals I do not consider nasty a good way to debate or be). I wrote a lot more on this but will be thinking how much of that I want to share lol

Rain Trueax said...

in the meantime, when I decide whether to be smart or just put out what I think lol, i came across this link with how nuts the left has gone Peter Fonda encourages targeting children of Border Patrol and ICE agents. Of course, extremism in this case is praised by some. I wonder how much he had to drink before he went off the rails.

Dave Dubya said...

We have MM's opinion well-documented at my blog.

I have told him it is unacceptable to copy and paste entire articles into threads. He did so in the past and did it again before and I cut him off for his disrespectful behavior. As you would do with name calling.

Like dumping articles and name calling, it is not "debate", but disrespectful trolling.

He can disagree and argue and present information or links to articles, and even insult me, but he can't defy my terms.

I also cut him off when he posted racist content. When he's more respectful and on topic, I allow his comments. Would he allow the same from me IF he had a blog? I highly doubt it.

It's not like he hasn't similarly worn out his welcome at other blogs, you know.

Rain Trueax said...

It is your blog as I said. We make the rules when it's our blog.

Majormajor said...

"We have MM's opinion well-documented at my blog." No we don't because you removed my opinion. Irt's your word vs mine.

"he posted racist content." LIE,LIE,LIE.

The LA Times is racist? Cause that's the source of my C&P.

Oh and you forgot the bit about a youtube link, you didn't like it. But you liked the link TB3 gave you. Got something against Monty Python I guess. Or no sense of humor.

More "respectful", like calling me a white supremacist, Nazi, racist because I support our President? Really Dave, you need to redefine the word "respectful".

You are just crying in your milk cause I have a way, thanks to Rain and T. Paine, of responding to you and getting out my side of the story. Could it be you don't like it be due to a hidden authoritarian stripe of yours?

Rain Trueax said...

MM, of course, I don't know since I don't read many blogs these days, but I'd guess he has mostly those who think like he does. That's the norm. Probably what you post there, if it differs, will convince no one. It's been my experience at least. Maybe you should start your own blog :). It takes a while but by posting on other people's blogs, you can get readers. If you want all of one sort, that's possible. It's harder to get diverse opinions. People today tend to like their bubbles to reassure themselves they are right.

Majormajor said...


The left has lost their minds, and Mr. Fonda is surely one of them. They continue to fail in neutering President Trump as his popularity rating is at an all time high. Why? Because he is keeping his promises made when he ran for office. Something politicians just don't do. But President Trump, like him or dislike him is not a politician.

I won't list all the things that have caused this popularity rating, as it just infuriates the left even more. And as we know the left has no limits in expressing their outrage.

Just ask Congressman Steve Scalise. Or the ICE agents who Antifa spread a list of their names compiled using LinkedIn & then blasted it over Twitter. Or as you pointed out the targeting of the children of ICE agents and Border Patrol officers.

The left is desperate, desperate to the point that they will use anything including children to deflect from their failed Russian collusion claims, anything to deflect from the IG's reports which are showing the depth of the left's hold on the FBI leadership and it's collusion with the DNC for HRC. Anything to continue the weakening of America, including supporting bad trade deals, having no borders, and pushing for globalization.

Unlike the owner of a blog, the left can not turn off a source of facts, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying. As I've said before, Leftist cannot compete in the free market place of ideas.

Rain Trueax said...

You know, I agree for the most part, MM. I see the manipulation of children as being as much a left wing thing as right wing. The kids are innocent although a lot of those coming up are not kids even if they claim to be under 18. They are young men and when you see the photos, it's obvious. The question is for what purpose?

Majormajor said...

The question is for what purpose?

Their votes.

I did some research on the Flores case on Wikipedia (granted not always the most reliable source) to better understand how the events of today on our border started.


"Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s regulations regarding the release of alien unaccompanied minors did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

In 1997, the parties agreed to a consent decree in which the litigation would end once the government implemented certain standards for the detention, treatment, and release of unaccompanied alien minors. AS OF June 2018, the litigation is ongoing."

Involved in this case were the ACLU and the 9th, neither would be considered as conservatives. Why?

Dave Dubya said...


Maybe you should start your own blog :)

If I had a dollar for every time that was suggested to him. LOL.

If you want to take part in a debate not censored by Dave W go here

It's crybaby time. It calls for another "victim card" about "censorship".

He'll have to whine at another blog.

And he assuredly will.
Right on cue.

MM: "We have MM's opinion well-documented at my blog." No we don't because you removed my opinion. Irt's your word vs mine.

Yes we do. Go see for yourself how long I tolerated his distractions and deflections.

I removed someone else’s opinions he posted.

LA Times is racist? Cause that's the source of my C&P.

Another lie. Notice he “forgot” to post that LA Times link here.

Anybody wonder why?

I have a copy of the deleted posts. Does MM?

Verbatum from MM’s comment:

The Los Angeles Times reports that Rio Grande Valley border agents prosecuted 568 adults and separated 1,174 children since the administration announced its "zero tolerance" policy in early April. However, it only took a matter of hours to reunite more than a third of these children with their parents.
That hardly constitutes an inhumane policy of "ripping" children away from their parents.

The un-cited source of this quote is from an un-credited editorial from the conservative Investor’s Business Daily. The same source also linked the Lowry article MM copy and pasted in its entirety in my comment thread.

The editorial was slanted in trying to downplay the extent of child separation. It was limited to the Rio Grande, and not the Arizona and California borders.

MM is not honest, but authoritarians seem to accept other authoritarians at their word.

But why am I bothering you people with facts? They are useless in Trump’s post-truth America.

You are either authoritarian enough drink the koolade or not.

Rain Trueax said...

He's not the only authoritarian, Dave. Look at universities who won't let those speak with whom they disagree. We are in a time where each side thinks only they know the truth. I thought one was funny that I got from FB. I can't share the image in a comment but it was a sign that said-- 'I don't agree with you therefore you are ignorant and wrong.' And so it goes.

It'll be interesting how Trump's base takes him doing an executive action as Schumer asked to let children stay with their families (hopefully making sure they are with their families). The question has to be for just 20 days or how do they work that out? I'd guess Trump was getting a lot of pressure from his wife and daughter. Considering the horrible threats from Peter Fonda regarding his son, how Nielson was harassed at dinner, I can see the reason to back off on one part of it. If he backs off on it all, the borders are going to be wide open again. How will that work out for jobs and human services?

A lot of people are authoritarians, Dave. When you think only you know the answers and ridicule all who stand against you, what is that? Authoritarians don't always have to just believe in the law. They can believe in their own rules and be unwilling to look at any facts that threaten that.

Majormajor said...


RE: the suggestion I start my own blog..a little background. I started on the now almost dead blog of Tom Degan's I guess 5 or more years ago. A lot of crap was flung by me and those opposed to me. That's were I met Dave and to my regret Jg. They, as always did their best to shut down any voice other than their own by lies, mocking, plain old fear mongering and race hustling.

Over the past 5 years I have posted on Jg' long dead blog maybe 5 times, and on Dave's much more. But not as often as I have on Mr. Paines. I went to Mr. Paine's blog and guess what, the same drivel duo of Dave and Jg were there blasting any post that was counter to their beliefs. To the point where Mr. Paine has stopped posting on his own blog.

I started following your blog as I found you a true liberal that as a conservative we could meet in the middle for the betterment of our nation. Something leftist do not want to do. Well it wasn't long before the Drivel Duo started doing the same thing they had done on Tom's and Mr. Paine's blog. Taking over.

Now I fear Dave is attempting to do the same with your blog. Good luck in defending your beliefs from him. I wish you the best in all that you do. But I am tired of being call the dozens of names that Dave calls me. He simply will not allow any point of view to be posted that is counter to his without a rebuttal. He reminds me of a poster named Richard Mourdock on the comic strip Mallard Fillmore with his hate and lies. Almost word for word.

I don't need this anymore. The left is destroying America, from the inside. No amount of facts will deter them from their goal. They are Globalist and proud of it. The results of their failed policy's will be blamed on their opponents, just like this border thing. No amount of historical data, no amount of links to past articles no 1st hand account of how wrong they are will cause them to pause, reflect and say, "I was wrong".

If I were to start my own blog it would be called "Dave Dubya and Jefferson's Guardian are large lying bags of human waste material, and here is why". Then I would ban them from posting on it.

Rain Trueax said...

lol MM. Well, a lot of people don't want to start their own blogs. You know you will be welcome here whenever you want to post. If Dave ever starts calling commenters names, he will be blocked. I am hoping he continues to disagree but not get nasty. We shall see. I believe there are many ways to see what's going on and good people often see it otherwise. I also don't mind when you post someone else's articles instead of a link. If people don't want to read it, they just skip.

Keep the faith. I am hoping someday people will start to look at issues and not defend political tribes. It will take a lot for some to go there... I listen to The Five, when I can, on Fox, and sometimes I want to scream at Juan Williams. I did better with Donna Brazille earlier this week :). I like to hear reasonable responses when someone differs. Juan just follows the talking points like trying to deflect from Peter Fonda's revolting comments on twitter. Ugh.

Rain Trueax said...

Incidentally, when someone goes on and on here, I skip to the end ;)

Rain Trueax said...

One other thing, for anyone who comments here. It's rare that a political blogger who has strong views doesn't have only readers who agree. It's a total waste of time to try and pose as an opposing view for people in bubbles. They get mad. They don't listen. They will not change their minds. I've tried and I consider it always a losing situation. When I am on FB, I try to hide their posts, block their sources, or if necessary snooze them for a month. Being tempted to debate them is not beneficial.

Here might be different in that I do have both who read here but honestly-- does anybody change their minds? Maybe but I think unlikely in this partisan, tribal time.

Dave Dubya said...

Thanks, Rain.

Minds can only change when they are open.

I won’t be surprised if this is met with glazed eyes. ;-)

“He's not the only authoritarian, Dave.”

(I agree. This is probably where I lose you...

Reasoned debate and discussion depend on mutual definitions of terms. Otherwise the argument is simply reduced to the definition itself and discussion goes nowhere. I have posted on how the Right unilaterally defines terms, thereby disabling effective communication and discussion. One example is how readily some here accepted conservative Dennis Prager’s definitions of liberal and leftist. Remember that? [See MM's "I found you a true liberal"] Instead of listening to what a liberal had to say about it, those who latched onto those new definitions dismissed the other viewpoint and challenges to those definitions.

This is a trait of authoritarianism. I don’t think some people understand the accepted definition of this term or the research that has studied the authoritarian personality.

“Following the law” is not authoritarianism. This doesn’t make Rain and authoritarian. Brutally enforcing it would be.

These studies are likely to be dismissed by an authoritarian personality, so I’ll just give the Wiki intro. This is taken from books and studies and other sources. It’s not made up by loser liberal in the basement.

There’s the political/government definition:

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime.

And there the authoritarian personality:

Authoritarian personality is a state of mind or attitude characterized by belief in absolute obedience or submission to someone else’s authority, as well as the administration of that belief through the oppression of one's subordinates. It usually applies to individuals who are known or viewed as having an authoritarian, strict, or oppressive personality towards subordinates.

Bob Altemeyer conducted a series of studies on what he labeled right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and presents the most recent analysis of this personality type. The focus of RWA research is political preferences as measured through surveys, that suggest three tendencies as noted in attitudinal clusters. These are: 1) submission to legitimate authorities; 2) aggression towards sanctioned targeted minority groups; and 3) adherence to values and beliefs perceived as endorsed by followed leadership. McCrae & Costa (1997) report that the big 5 dimension of openness to experience is negatively correlated to RWA (r=-0.57) as measured by the NEO-PI-R Openness scale.

Later, Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway (2003) have proposed that authoritarianism, RWA and other similar constructs of political conservatism are a form of motivated social cognition. These researchers propose that conservatism has characteristics similar to those of authoritarianism, with resistance to change, and justification for inequality as the core components. In addition, conservative individuals have needs to manage uncertainty and threat with both situational motives (e.g., striving for security and dominance in social hierarchies) and dispositional motives (e.g., terror management and self-esteem). Despite its methodological deficiencies, the theory of the authoritarian personality has had a major influence on research in political, personality, and social psychology.

Rain Trueax said...

Thanks for reasonable discourse on this, Dave. Much appreciated :)

Dave Dubya said...

Still with me?

"Look at universities who won't let those speak with whom they disagree."

(You’re attacking educators for not being far Right enough to host alt-right white nationalists and bigots. Yes, some of the protesters were destructive anti-fa anarchists. True authoritarians would NEVER allow those you are blaming here to speak in their realm. Do you think Bob Jones University or Liberty University would host Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or atheists, or socialists? Double standard here?)

“We are in a time where each side thinks only they know the truth.”

(I agree. One side more than the other, due to how open minded they are and their openness to experience. We are in the post truth era thanks to the far Right propaganda of FOX(R), and hate radio. Then there idiots who blindly BELIEVE crap from social media. The latter can be both of the Right and Left.)

'I don't agree with you therefore you are ignorant and wrong.”

(This is an authoritarian position. This is why facts, truth and evidence are needed for discussion and debate. The Right has been waging war on all sources of information that don’t convey their viewpoint. College professors are a favorite target of blame. This far Right authoritarian tactic has now gone to the totalitarian extreme of attacking higher education, dismissing climate science, calling for the imprisonment of political opponents, and declaring news media and journalism are the enemy of the people. This is unprecedented and horrifyingly fascist.

As I said, we are in the post truth era, a direct creation of the far Right. Birther Trump is the culmination of this descent from from reality. Never before have we had a vast media network dedicated to partisan propaganda. Mainstream news media has NEVER been as far to the Left as FOX/Sinclair/talk radio are to the Right. An unbiased media would appear liberal to the far Right. Only those on the far Right would doubt this fact.)


There it is. For your thoughtful perusal, or your flippant dismissal. Think of it as sort of test on how much an authoritarian personality you are. There are degrees of authoritarian personality.

Rain Trueax said...

Well, I don't mind being called an authoritarian. I am fine with it. I have other names I'd less prefer. I don't agree with you oh a lot, Dave, but don't mind your posting your thoughts for others to consider. Just keep it polite as you did.

I have a post that I had planned but decided to take a personal break and post some of our world here in Oregon, the ones we share it with and have for forty years. What is so cool is that it was in one family, a homesteading family, until the time we bought it with our small kids. It's been a good but hard working life. I don't know how long we'll be able to keep it as old age interferes lol but it's been good while it lasted.

While I agree more with what MM says or Ingineer, I like the idea of diverse opinions here. :).

Dave Dubya said...

Just by reading and understanding what I offered means you are far less authoritarian than die hard Trumpists. They would dismiss it without offering any facts or evidence in rebuttal.

I hope you see the reasonableness of just these two sentences, as a moderate surely would.

This far Right authoritarian tactic has now gone to the totalitarian extreme of attacking higher education, dismissing climate science, calling for the imprisonment of political opponents, and declaring news media and journalism are the enemy of the people. This is unprecedented and horrifyingly fascist.

There are more Republicans and former Republicans coming to this conclusion. We disagree on many things, but they can see what is becoming obvious. Perhaps you should hear them out?

This illustrates degrees of Authoritarianism.

“Complacency is our enemy. Anyone that does not embrace the @realDonaldTrump agenda of making America great again will be making a mistake.” - Ronna Romney McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee
"We're in a strange place. It's becoming a cultish thing, isn't it?" the Tennessee Republican told reporters. "It's not a good place for any party to have a cult-like situation as it relates to a President that happens to be purportedly of the same party."- Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker

Majormajor has NEVER disagreed with Trump. NEVER admitted that Trump lies. Are you sure you agree with him more than a moderate like me?

Rain Trueax said...

Are you really a moderate, Dave, Have you ever thought Trump did something good? lol I myself don't know what I think about Trump or even Obama. I will wait and see. I am definitely not one who sees one side as always right.

Dave Dubya said...

Let me know when Trump does something wise and compassionate, or admits he was wrong and apologizes for birtherism, or helps the less fortunate rather than the well off. Let me know when he stops with the lies, blame and false accusations. Let me know when he stops praising dictators and shows a desire to be like them. Let me know when he admits Russia interfered with our election and DOES something about it, instead of denial and obstruction of the investigation. Remember unlike Trump's lies and victim card, the investigation is of Russian interference. Trump was not the target, but if he is complicit, like many of his staff, we need to know.

I see no good from the man personally or politically. He's plainly a hateful narcissistic buffoon and bully. Many Republicans agree with me. This is a moderate position now.

ME, moderate? I was only half kidding. I AM with the majority who disprove of Trump.

And who's definition would be used? I noted how the Right seizes authority to define liberals as well as other terms. "Death taxes" for Inheritance taxes. "Death panels" for end of life counseling, etc. They are far more effective propagandists than liberals.

Like most Americans I'm neither a communist nor a fascist. I don't support government ownership of everything nor do I support economic elites, or the military owning the government. I support equality under the law, and equal rights and opportunity, NOT equal outcomes as the Right's propagandists would claim.

Let's define terms, then discuss please. That is vital for real communication.

Polls show we agree on a lot more on issues than politicians admit.


Have a look at this :

"Most Americans Are Liberal, Even If They Don’t Know It"

The Economy

• 82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
• 69 percent think large businesses have too much power and influence in Washington.
• 59 percent—and 72 percent of likely voters—think Wall Street has too much power and influence in Washington.
• 78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
• 65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”
• 59 percent of Americans—and 43 percent of Republicans—think corporations make “too much profit.”


• 82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
• 66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
• 72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
• 59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.

These are two categories.

Dave Dubya said...

"The Elite"

“You ever notice they always call the other side ‘the elite.’ The elite! Why are they elite? I have a much better apartment than they do. I’m smarter than they are. I’m richer than they are. I became president and they didn’t.”

His cult cheered wildly.

Rain Trueax said...

I hope you can see that the right thinks the exact same thing, different accusations but equally untrustworthy with Obama as you think with Trump. That's the irony and where fundamentalism proves a better word than anything else for how people get locked in to their bubbles.

As for polls, I have no use for them at all. I had one call me in '16 and asked who I was voting for. I said Trump lol. I didn't tell the truth as I knew I was voting for Hillary but I had no use for polls. Once in a while we still get them but I consider them a joke even when they are on issues. What we answer is skewed by how the question is asked.

If 80% agree on anything I'd be amazed. That anybody believes polls amazes me even more. Just, that one question of thinking economic inequality is a big deal is a good example. So what to do about it or how to distribute it... Crickets. Well, except for the far left, who know how to do it-- communism. Confiscatory taxes. Redistribution to government programs and administrators.

Last night, I listened, for maybe the first time, to one of Trump's rallies. I saw all ages there. I saw some protestors. I saw what looked like ordinary, working people enthusiastic in Minnesota... Did it mean anything? The media said it didn't with Bernie . I should add I was not brainwashed into thinking I'd now vote for Trump, but it was interesting and the enthusiasm he feels for those people is not faked. He may not have the elites. He's got a lot of ordinary folks... and those elites only get one vote come 2020-- if he actually runs again, which I would say is iffy even though he's avoiding looking like a lame duck by saying he will. He might run again as he does like the work-- not sure about how he sees the hate spewed out against his family. That has to be toughest on them all as it was equally thrown at Obama's wife at least, not his daughters though as it has been with Trump's.

Rain Trueax said...

As for the elite comment. It was a joke, DD. You do have a sense of humor, don't you? Or is it only inactivated by Trump? That's a problem for many lefties lol

Dave Dubya said...


If 80% agree on anything I'd be amazed.

Then why don't you prove it? Show me where you disagree with most of those majorities. I dare you. And if you do disagree with most, you are on the far Right.

You don't believe polls because you lied to one. But you believe any accusation the Right levels at liberals. You believe Prager's demeaning definitions of me and other liberals.

You practically believe the hateful far Right Trump rhetoric that the press is the enemy of the people. That is frightening. That is far, far from moderate.

Do you believe the polls that said Hillary won the popular vote? Or do you believe 3 million illegals voted at the polls for Hillary too? It is sad that I need to ask this. (Sigh.)

You believe what you want to believe. We all do to some degree. What matters most is our ability to seek and process information. Your dismissal of facts and evidence, and your accusations that I want "open borders" showed you do not do this at times.

"The media said" it didn't mean anything? What didn't mean anything with Bernie?

Define "it" and explain. I don't understand your point.

So Trump is known for his sense of humor? Now THAT is a joke. It is Trump's ego, wanting to be seen as an "elite", but his cult has been brainwashed by the BS term "Liberal elite" for years.

See the irony? Who gets to define "elite"?

He may not have the elites. He has the Kochs, Waltons, Mercers, Sinclairs, and all of Wall Street. Are you saying they are not elites?

Maybe you can enlighten me. Define elites, please. I have no idea what you mean.

Are you getting my point on definitions yet? In Trump's post truth America words have no mutually accepted meanings. This is destructive and leads to anarchy of dialogue. And only the Right gets to define words to suit their agenda.

You bought into Prager's definition of me, didn't you? Now YOU are the "elite" in word definitions. See my point yet?

"Russia if you're listening..." was NOT a joke either. Nobody laughed but Putin.

He's still laughing at how gullible Americans can be. Not MOST of thankfully.

I was not brainwashed into thinking I'd now vote for Trump

This is your conscience and wisdom showing.

Rain Trueax said...

kochs are not on Trump's side... I don't even know who the sinclairs are but the other two I have read did support Trump.

Nobody has a right to call my home and ask me questions. I generally hang up but the idea of polls is invasion. I am just saying the numbers are meaningless.

I prefer the term independent. I don't like the word moderate though I have used it. It implies moderation. My views are not moderate. They just don't fit boxes.

I don't think anyone who heard his talk was brainwashed...

Elites are those who consider them better than others and they come in education, entertainment, news and government. They think their idea of the rules is superior. Someone espousing communism as a philosophy would never want to divide up their own money-- just everybody beneath them.

The 'it' that was ignored is that big crowds don't mean anything and didn't for Bernie. They did for Bernie and if it had been a level playing field, he'd have been the one running against Trump -- and I think won, but can't prove it since the DNC made sure it was her.

Your disdain for Trump has been said again and again... just don't ridicule those who supported him. Some voted for obama thinking they'd get money given to them. That might be naive but it's not someone to treat as a fool.

Sorry but right now I'd rather be linked with Trump than someone like Peter Fonda or the ones like him who advocate violence and somehow get away with it because they are the 'good' guys.

Dave Dubya said...

I'd rather be linked with Trump than someone like Peter Fonda

Peter Fonda is not president, and is not a leader. Invoking him is "Whataboutism".

Why be “linked” to either one? It’s not a black and white world, despite the far Right perspective that it is.

Fonda apologized. Trump never did for his racist birtherism and hate rhetoric. Never.

Trump advocated violence by saying he would pay legal fees for his thugs who assault protesters.

Remember “what we used to do to them”?

I prefer not to be linked with any thug and bully. I cannot admire anyone who says “very fine people” marched with Nazis. And I will always challenge and question those who agree with that, as any moderate would do.

Elites are those who consider them better than others

All right.Thank you. By your definition Trump is one of the elite.

The dictionary says: a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

Trump is not one of these. Except for his ability to stir hate and anger, I suppose. That is his greatest ability.

just don't ridicule those who supported him.

I ridicule the racists who support him. I ridicule the gullible fools who cannot see that Trump is a liar. As a “libtard commie” I ridicule those who hate me.

I don’t ridicule the uninformed voters who think Trump cares about them, even though it is obvious he doesn’t care for anyone but himself.

You haven't shown me where you disagree with most of those majorities yet.

Why not? It's easier to dismiss and ignore it, right? Be honest.

Just say whether you do, or do not, agree with most of those majorities. I don't need details or an explanation. There are more categories at the link. If I am asking too much of you, fine. But it goes to my point on seeking and processing information.

Dismissal out-of-hand is a tactic of the Right. "Rigged". "Fake". etc.

Rain Trueax said...

The sad part for me is I used to like Peter Fonda, his work and how he lived in Montana... Now, i just feel he's a sad caricature and what he said, the attacks on the ordinary ones, who protect our borders and even those who come across and would die without them, was inexcusable.

I wrote a book where the hero was Border Patrol. It was from years back but I researched it heavily at the time for what they do, how hard it is, even then how they get disdained. Fonda proved himself to be a fool. I'd never respect him again as I'd guess his kind of apology was only to avoid the Secret Service charging him. It wasn't just about a small boy but the children of the border people. No excuse can justify it except we are in a mean time, where nasty is considered power.

Dave Dubya said...

"I tweeted something highly inappropriate and vulgar about the president and his family in response to the devastating images I was seeing on television," he said in a statement. "Like many Americans, I am very impassioned and distraught over the situation with children separated from their families at the border, but I went way too far. It was wrong and I should not have done it. I immediately regretted it and sincerely apologize to the family for what I said and any hurt my words have caused."

But Trump is fine....

I'd guess his kind of apology was only to avoid the Secret Service charging him...or not. We aren't all as omniscient on motives as you are. ;-)

Rain Trueax said...

I should be working and but I'll do that for your poll... agree or disagree but not whether I think the poll got those answers but instead if i would have agreed to the answers myself, and then my reasoning before the answer you had. Btw, I am hard-hearted, not easily maneuvered emotionally, so you won't be surprised at how I answer. I actually went over the limit; so have to see if I can divide it to keep it together...

Rain Trueax said...

The Economy

Disagree-- if they are lobbying, I don't know but did Clooney influence Obama? he was evidently there a lot. Because Congress heard from Zuckerberg, did it influence their laws? A reality star just got Trump to let a woman early out of prison. Is that an example of wrong use by someone rich? I am more leery of lobbyists, who give benefits one way or another even through PACs-- and yes it can be unions, NRA, etc. Some of those movie stars have perks to offer in hobnobbing with the glamorous-- does that give undue influence?
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.

Disagree-- If they can give them money, maybe they influence but what if it's about more jobs for a senator's constituency? It's logical that they'd be into that industry; so is that too much?
69 percent think large businesses have too much power and influence in Washington.

Disagree: We should have done more about hedge funds but they influence a lot of small pensions and big ones; so is that too much? What should we do about Wall Street? Not allow them to go to Congress to ask for something?
59 percent—and 72 percent of likely voters—think Wall Street has too much power and influence in Washington.

Disagree-- how do we determine that the rules they should follow? We lost our bank in Oregon in the '70s because government regulations suddenly mandated it have more money on hand. A big bank bought it... Who maneuvered that?
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.

Disagree-- I don't see how you'd make the corporations pay their CEOs less money. Do we want government running businesses? It's been ridiculous what their salaries have gone to but did government create that? When someone sells a business, like I guess Murdock is with a bidding war on his entertainment division, should Congress say they can't get that much money? What could it do about it? Without saying what they'd do, I'd not want to give Congress a blank check. Too bad Clinton undid Glass-Steagall but guess he had good reasons...maybe
65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”

Disagree-- do people even know what kind of profit they make? There might be more looking at tax setups to avoid people hiding money but how much did anyone know about our tax system among those who answered the question. Because our economic situation is complex, I know how it's not easy to even see profits.
59 percent of Americans—and 43 percent of Republicans—think corporations make “too much profit.”

Rain Trueax said...


Disagree-- I'd not actually answer yes without an idea how to fix it. We do have more poor. Maybe if we end illegal immigration and their cheaper wages, the lower economic levels will be more competitive and get better pay. Do you take away money from richer people? We have that now with a progressive system but more needs to be taken by government? i.e. communism
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.

Disagree-- see above
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.

Disagree-- we've seen a war on poverty since I first began to vote. How do we do this? I am in favor of programs to help the poor with heating, food, housing, but does it help? Does it end poverty? Not likely at least not in my lifetime. even homelessness, which has become a huge problem in big cities-- what do we do about it? How long before defecating in streets leads to plagues? We seem to want to give people freedom but what if their choices mean someone else always has to pay for it? I am all for help for the mentally and physically handicapped but when we are spread so thin, we don't even help them. More jobs in the get rid of poverty sector might just lead to more bureaucrats' jobs...
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.

Agree-- I see no loss on this but not sure it'd help 59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.

Rain Trueax said...

From Fonda I see no apology regarding the working men of the Border Patrol, ICE and their families. Sorry but that is all about the Secret Service. btw, whose family did trump threaten?

Rain Trueax said...

I have a tough view of the problem of immigration coming up-- probably tomorrow-- another one with no heart but a hope for a better plan for us and those wanting to come here-- fairer and more honestly facing the problems in immigration.

Dave Dubya said...

Thank you for your answers, even though many were in the form of questions. Perhaps if you knew the answers to those questions your answers would be different.

Case in point.

On the influence of larger businesses and the wealthy, you never acknowledged the influence of campaign contributions, PACs, and Dark money in election advertising.

Another case:

78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry. A big bank bought it... Who maneuvered that?

Um. Maybe a big bank? See the disconnect here?

If none of you answers would be amended by having more information, or if you dismiss other information, then I was correct that you are out of the mainstream and to the Right.

Do we want government running businesses?

No. But we also don’t want businesses running our government. You don’t seem to see the influence. The US Constitution empowers the government to regulate commerce. If it didn’t do their job, then Big Money would have even more control of the government.

Too bad Clinton undid Glass-Steagall but guess he had good reasons...maybe

And who do you think had the influence to have “maneuvered that?” Like Reagan, Trump, and the Bushes, the Clintons were “good friends” with Wall Street, too. See the problem here?

Anyway, thank you.

And now that Trump is shifting towards my suggestion of holding the parents and kids together, will you accuse HIM of wanting “open borders” like you accused me, or is this just more IOKIYAR?

And you REALLY don’t think it’s important to reduce poverty? Then a kingdom of aristocrats and peasants would be fine.

Make America Medieval Again!

Rain Trueax said...

You have to then trust government more than business to fix it. See your own disconnect. Anyway I'm done with this. I've said all that is on my mind and then some lol More on immigration to come :) but maybe not tomorrow. We begin getting in hay tomorrow-- not that I do it but it does disrupt my day :)

Rain Trueax said...

and as for trump nd the border. more coming on that ;).

i didn't say it wouldn't be good to reduce poverty. i say we've been a failure at doing it and thrown money at it... hence we have more than ever.

Rain Trueax said...

Oh and my questions is why I'd disagree with a pollster asking me what those people were asked. I've hoped for better answers in the past and sometimes even with people I have directly given money and seen how it turned out. I think it's the result of reaching nearly 75 years of age ;)

Dave Dubya said...

whose family did trump threaten?

This indicates your bias or lack of information.

First, Fonda's tweet was NOT intended as a threat, get over it. The same for ICE. It was angry rhetoric. He should apologize to them too. They'll be fine. No boo boos for them.

You never complained about Nugent calling Obama a sub-human mongrel and yelling for Hillary to suck on his rifle muzzle, did you? Free speech is only OKIYAR, after all.

You never even complained about Trump THREATENING to lock up Hillary. Isn't that a threat in your bubble? I bet Chelsea thought her family was/is threatened.

Here are more real threats.

Putting kids in cages is MORE than threatening. Cutting the Children's Health Insurance Program to cover tax cuts for the economic elites is a real threat to families and their kids' health.

Whose families did Trump threaten by urging black NFL players be FIRED for protesting police brutality. Just because angry white snowflakes SAID they were "disrespecting the troops" doesn't mean they were.

Want more?

Rain Trueax said...

Dave you only see one side. What trump has said about hillary is what she did would have put her in jail if she'd been anybody else-- he didn't say it but including Martha Stewart. You are such an extreme leftie to think he wasn't joking again. He actually said once he got in that he'd not do anything to get her investigated. After he found out she paid for the dossier, he might have thought differently.

As for Fonda. You consider coming to the home of these agents and their kids' schools not a threat. I can't even deal with how unfair that is. It's a real threat. Such talk leads to shooters coming to the homes as we've seen way too many times. He apologized to the Trumps. He should have to law officers only doing their jobs or do you also want them threatened. Oh my gosh.


Rain Trueax said...

I'm done here. You can feel free to rant. I am not responding. this is going nowhere. i might put off the new one for saturday as this is beginning to irritate me. I need some deep breaths lol

Dave Dubya said...

You consider coming to the home of these agents and their kids' schools not a threat

Only if it REALLY HAPPENED! It did not. I will not. Get over it. Let go of your anger. ;-)

kochs are not on Trump's side

They disagree on tariffs, if that’s what you mean.

What do you call this?

They put their money into electing his Party’s candidates. They donated to Pence.

This article merely scratches the surface of the Koch brothers’ influence.

The Kochs’ well-known political group, Americans for Prosperity, helped turn out thousands of Trump voters in battleground states. From the time Trump picked his vice presidential running mate, Koch favorite Mike Pence, the brothers’ influence on Trump World has grown ever stronger. David Koch gave Pence’s two gubernatorial campaigns $300,000. Americans for Prosperity ran ads supporting Pence, and the Republican Governors Association, to which Koch and Koch Industries have donated a combined $10.8 million since 2003, spent $4.2 million in 2012 and 2016 backing Pence.

From transition team staffers to his Cabinet, Trump has brought numerous Koch lieutenants and allies into his inner circle.
Kellyanne Conway is also a board member of the Koch-aligned and Koch-funded Independent Women’s Forum, which, The Nation reports, has pushed the Koch agenda.

Several of Pence’s former staffers have gone on to work in the Koch political network, including Marc Short, who went from being Pence’s chief of staff when Pence was a congressman to president of Freedom Partners, the Koch political operation’s “central bank,” which gives out enormous amounts of money to right-wing political spending groups. He is now White House Director of Legislative Affairs and Assistant to the President

David Koch attended Trump’s election night victory party. Then on Dec. 21, Trump had an informal chat with Koch at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida (where Koch is a member) about “preparations for his administration.”

Texas oil and gas investor Doug Deason, who, along with his billionaire father, Darwin, is a Republican political mega-donor and key figure in the Koch political network, pushed for his friend Pruitt to head the EPA.

a former lobbyist for Koch Industries named Thomas Pyle. Was the head of his energy transition team

Mike Pompeo, a U.S. representative from the Kochs’ home state of Kansas, was involved with the brothers long before his days as a politician; his private aerospace company used seed money from Koch Venture Capital, and Pompeo was president of a company that worked with Koch Industries’ Brazilian distributor.


You are probably more informed than most Americans. And that scares me.

I understand defending your positions can be exhausting. I won't trouble you with facts for a while.

Rain Trueax said...

Facts are okay, Dave. Conclusions are where the problems start. I had a temporary irritation and find it mildly amusing now ;).

I don't have any use for the Kochs and have followed how they operate but they didn't want him. They wanted a more malleable candidate. They knew, as did most of us, that he's a loose cannon.

Anyway, I am saving my next salvo on immigration for Saturday to be sure also that I am saying it the way I want... a writer's bane ;)

Dave Dubya said...

Point being, Pence is their primary inside man, among many others.

Oh, Melania. Really??


Nothing else in the wardrobe for the occasion?

This will be the new, "Let them eat cake!"

Majormajor said...

"I'm done here. You can feel free to rant. I am not responding. this is going nowhere. i might put off the new one for saturday as this is beginning to irritate me. I need some deep breaths lol"

Warned you Rain. But at least you have photography in common.

Rain Trueax said...

MM, I'd seen him before lol. Mostly I don't mind offering my ideas :). Whether he and I have photography in common, I have no idea since I've seen none of his :)

Dave Dubya said...

For some good Fox News:

Rain Trueax said...

Cute on the foxes, DD, very nice photos. I had a wonderful time with foxes making a den under our porch in 2013. It's been years since they've been back but this is a video from that time with the babies. Both parents raised them and we had a wildlife cam that let us see them bringing in food. i took a lOT of still photos too. The neighbors raised chickens later and maybe that ended our appeal. Fox Story. I tried to resist making myself too friendly to them as they are wild and in the end, humans are not their friends.

Majormajor said...

Tough on chickens for sure. We live on very far western edge of Fort Worth, very open very rural. (and very hot!!) Anyway, the Grey Fox in our area disappeared. Found out recently our stupid had it trapped by the City and released in another area.

Miss that fox, use to enjoy watching it eat the peaches that had fallen from the peach trees.

Rain Trueax said...

I loved ours as they are so cute. I had no idea how they could climb trees until i watched them do it. So cute.

Dave Dubya said...


What a perfect play garden for those little critters.

What can be more fun than watching young kits chase, pounce, tussle and tumble?

They are top shelf cute all the way. Such a joy it is to watch them. I bet they bring us all a laugh, or at least grin of delight.

I was pleased to see both parents as well. I soon learned there was an alpha kit. She was always the first and closest to Mama. I assumed it was a she for some reason. She was also the first to observe and imitate Mama.

Mama was so tolerant of the kits charging downhill and pouncing on her. They loved to practice pounce.

I watched the little ones learn one important rule in the Fox family. "Do Not Pounce On Papa!" He would turn and give a little snap at them, maybe teaching them to be prepared for resistance when they hunt. Or he was just grouchy. ;-)

We are very lucky to have been treated to such a beautiful and entertaining gift of Nature.

That unique experience is something else we have in common. It's good to know we'd have a lot of things to talk about apart from silly political disagreements that we really can't do anything about anyway. :-)

Dave Dubya said...

How about that!

We are all three Fox watchers!

Rain Trueax said...

We are, DD. I also learned that with the quail in Arizona that both parents are involved. How wonderful is that :)

Rain Trueax said...

And totally agree that what we have in common is more important. I think there are those who would divide us. We don't have to let it happen :)