Trump

[Regina Minx]

In other news, Bonespurs continues to talk and say things he shouldn't. In this instance, by saying the quiet part loud.

[Hades]

If there is a plus side to Herr Cheetos time in office, it's that the right has been forced to stop using so many dog-whistle phrases and be much more open and obvious in their horrible ideas.   Course, the fact that those same ideas remain popular with a large swath of the country is just as disturbing as always.

[Oniya]

And the Russians are even mocking Trump's parade:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/451803-russian-state-media-mocks-trumps-july-4-military-celebration-putins-america

Particular mention was made about the 'new' Shermans that Trump tweeted about.

Yevgeny Popov, a co-host on the Russian program, also mocked the equipment, saying sarcastically: “The greatest parade of all times is going to be held today in Washington, that is what our Donald Trump has said. The American president announced he would show us the newest tanks."

He later claimed “these are Abrams and Sherman tanks, used during World War II and withdrawn from service in 1957.”

[Iniquitous]

And the Russians are even mocking Trump's parade:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/451803-russian-state-media-mocks-trumps-july-4-military-celebration-putins-america

Particular mention was made about the 'new' Shermans that Trump tweeted about.

Notice how they said "our Donald Trump"?

Either way, I am not surprised that we are a laughingstock ... still.

[Lustful Bride]

Notice how they said "our Donald Trump"?

Either way, I am not surprised that we are a laughingstock ... still.

I hate it so much. Being laughed at is worse than being feared or being thought of at the villain.

[gaggedLouise]

I hate it so much. Being laughed at is worse than being feared or being thought of at the villain.

We know Trump really doesn't represent what the US is, as a country. :)

[Lustful Bride]

We know Trump really doesn't represent what the US is, as a country. :)

Doesn't matter, it will take decades, if ever, to repair the political damage he has done and the political capital which has been lost, not to mention whatever damage we don't know about thanks to his Russian Oligarch pimp and whoever else has their hand up his ass.

[Tolvo]

To be honest I think he does represent what the USA is as a country. The people of the country are quite varied, but the country and its government, Donald Trump is pretty par for the course. He's what things have been leading towards, the current government is, and the way he's doing it is so poor that people are far more angry. But if it was Pence in charge and things were mostly stable and the brown kids and queer people were being politely and quietly rounded up, a lot less people would care. The ideas of American exceptionalism, of using our supposed freedoms and democratic values to dominate others, to do whatever one wants to get what they want as long as they're loyal to the USA, he is a very "American" person. The exception is his willingness to work with dictators who are considered enemies of the USA, normally presidents try to work only with dictators who are allies. The USA is in essence an empire, just one with an elected leader, which is not a new concept. That's not to say you can't have a US government, but the US government has been like this a long time.

[Oniya]

Notice how they said "our Donald Trump"?

Either way, I am not surprised that we are a laughingstock ... still.

I think that may just be a turn of phrase - possibly a translation artifact.  I've also heard that phrasing used in English with a certain condescending flair:  'Our dear Mr. Adams would have you think...' 

The link has the actual Russian tweet in it, but I don't speak Russian, nor do I know enough of the idiom to make a call for certain.

[Tolvo]

It might be saying "America's Donald Trump" or something along those lines. Which is a common way of phrasing someone being from a country or a representative in some languages. We honestly use that sort of thing with phrases like "America's sweetheart" and "Denver's own [insert celebrity]."

[gaggedLouise]

A tone of amused condescension sounds likely to explain those words, if he did say "our Donald Trump". And the parade must have looked pitiful compared to what Moscow can put on for the traditonal May 9 parade.

[Skynet]

We know Trump really doesn't represent what the US is, as a country. :)

Unfortunately he does, and pretending that he's a new aberration is only going to harm us in the future. He's America's id, its worst emotions and fear that seeks dominance and survival. Fear against those who will tear down the higher ideals, and with that fear becomes the very monster it claims to fight against. The white nationalist who thinks that a history of immigration is an aberration, the theocrat who defines freedom of religion to not include "infidels," the warmonger who claims that laissez-faire capitalism and the military-industrial complex spreads freedom around the globe by supporting dictators. They are all Americans. Americans who own businesses, who vote in huge blocs, who thanks to the electoral college numbered one-sixth of our population, and half of all voters.

He does represent America; the Hyde to its more noble Jekyll.

This Saturday Night Live skit encapsulated it quite well:

[Oniya]

Denying that a problem exists (namely, that America does have a problem with racism and intolerance) makes it harder to try to fix it.  Is Trump all of America?  Not hardly.  But he is a symptom of many of its ills.

[Tolvo]

Denying that a problem exists (namely, that America does have a problem with racism and intolerance) makes it harder to try to fix it.  Is Trump all of America?  Not hardly.  But he is a symptom of many of its ills.

It's also important to note if everyone in America, who pays taxes, who supports it, who lives in it, contributes or doesn't, who are a part of America voted, he probably would have lost. But many people can't. Typically those who are upper class, are white, are cis, have greater access to voting. People who are in jail, in a country where we over-jail in the extreme, cannot vote. And the prison complex targets POC more, poor people more, mentally ill people more. There are Native American tribes who don't even want to vote or who can't, as they want no part in the government that conquered and genocided them which they resist to this day. The systems of our government, voter ID laws, everything about how voting works, favors the status quo and people like Trump. Not to say they don't favor Hillary, they do if she was against a more progressive candidate, but these systems highly stack the deck. And things can also go in cycles, we often alternate, as people get pissed at and react to whatever the last president was and want something new. Typically someone from the "Opposite" party. Not always but it's one reason we end up alternating so often between Dem and Rep presidents.

We also just need some recognizable names, people that others can get behind. Hillary is heavily tied with a lot of negative shit, she has a long history of controversies many real some imagined. A lot of Republican politicians are fairly well known. It can honestly be hard at times to name Dems who can run for the presidency that you'd want to see run. AOC is out for instance she's too young, and in ten years maybe she's someone people won't want to vote for. Nancy Pelosi, Biden, and Bernie, are pretty much the only names that most people I know who are uninvolved in politics recognize. Two have heavy ties to racist, pasts, one has a very transphobic past and present, one has many sexual harassment allegations against them. The only one who doesn't is Bernie(His past is less overt in a lot of these things), but two of them also are severely old which can worry people on capabilities.

Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but people like Trump are very core to America even if they're not the majority of people.

[gaggedLouise]

The British ambassador to the US described Trump, multiple times in classified cables back to London, as "inept", "insecure" and "uniquely incompetent" (!) for a US president. The cables were first leaked to the Daily Mail, but they have now been confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/06/politics/uk-ambassador-cables-donald-trump/index.html

I wonder what the Russian and French ambasadors have been telling *their* governments in classified cables home...  ::)

[TheGlyphstone]

Maybe someone will post them on Wikileaks....

oh wait

[Oniya]

'Uniquely incompetent' is like the diplomatic equivalent of cussing.

[clonkertink]

'Uniquely incompetent' is like the diplomatic equivalent of cussing.

Especially among the British.

[Regina Minx]

As far as I know, the date to send the census to the printers has passed.

Touching back on this, maybe, maybe not. The ACLU filed a brief and it's now looking like the claim about the June deadline to print the census is false. Or at least, the Trump administration is now claiming the June deadline to be false.

Now whether or not there was a June deadline for printing is a significant question because the court case that resolved this matter (or should have resolved this matter) in an expedited basis. It went to the Supreme Court, bypassing the federal appeals court so that there could be an early, final decision. However, after losing in the Supreme Court, the Trump administration started changing their tune. For example, on July 3, they told a federal judge that they’ve been “instructed to examine whether there is a path forward, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, that would allow us to include the citizenship question on the census.”

July 3 being after the June deadline, this means one of three things. Either the Justice Department lied when it claimed that there was a June deadline, or it is lying now, or it didn’t bother to do its due diligence to determine whether its own statements about a June deadline were false.

The ACLU is trying to file for a very obscure legal intervention called “judicial estoppel” to make the courts hold the Trump administration to its claimed June deadline. Basically "You earlier claimed that you had a deadline because you sought a legal advantage from that claim. Now you're saying there was no deadline for a different advantage, and we don't want you to get that advantage because we accommodated you earlier." The ACLU brief also makes reference to forthcoming motions that will be filed, asking for sanctions against the Trump administration.

So...very interesting read.

[Humble Scribe]

The British ambassador to the US described Trump, multiple times in classified cables back to London, as "inept", "insecure" and "uniquely incompetent" (!) for a US president. The cables were first leaked to the Daily Mail, but they have now been confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/06/politics/uk-ambassador-cables-donald-trump/index.html

I wonder what the Russian and French ambasadors have been telling *their* governments in classified cables home...  ::)

None of this is news, I am sure, to anyone who has watched US politics over the past 3 years. The timing is interesting. Boris Johnson is about to win the Conservative Party leadership, and hence become Prime Minister. This leak is an excuse for him to replace the current US ambassador with someone more pliant to the right, which Johnson has decided that, this week, is his best ticket to power. He has no scruples, he is kind of a British Trump (only thankfully, not quite so stupid), but Foreign Office secret messages being leaked is kind of a big deal in the UK. And who was the previous Foreign Secretary... oh... Boris Johnson...

[ReijiTabibito]

Unfortunately he does, and pretending that he's a new aberration is only going to harm us in the future. He's America's id, its worst emotions and fear that seeks dominance and survival. Fear against those who will tear down the higher ideals, and with that fear becomes the very monster it claims to fight against. The white nationalist who thinks that a history of immigration is an aberration, the theocrat who defines freedom of religion to not include "infidels," the warmonger who claims that laissez-faire capitalism and the military-industrial complex spreads freedom around the globe by supporting dictators. They are all Americans. Americans who own businesses, who vote in huge blocs, who thanks to the electoral college numbered one-sixth of our population, and half of all voters.

Those are the people you're hearing about - the theocrats, the ethno-nationalists, the capitalist superpredator.  But they are not indicative of our country as a whole, they are a minority that has been deliberately played up as the Trumpian base because it draws eyeballs, ratings, and clicks.  If your typical Trump voter was a 39 year old accountant named Steve from Long Island who ate pizza, watched Jeopardy, and did people's taxes, there's not really a lot of sensationalist material to pull from that.

Immigration is not an aberration.  But the rate at which people are immigrating to America is higher than it even was back during the Ellis Island days.  A successful immigration policy is not solely based on how many people get to come into your country in a given year.  It's also based in part on how well those people integrate into society.  I personally don't care if we get 10,000 people a year or 10,000,000 people a year, as long as they come here and choose to integrate into our society.  But that's not what I'm hearing from immigration advocates.  I'm hearing that people can come here and don't need to learn English.  People don't need to inculcate American values.  We've taken the melting pot and replaced it with a salad bowl.  At the main card 2020 Democratic debate the other week, all 10 of the candidates onstage (and 2 from the undercard debate, Warren and DeBlasio) raised their hands when asked if they would extend Medicare to illegal immigrants.  We already have people - native American citizens - who are struggling.  Where's that sort of political consideration for them?

Theocracy is bad.  But a number of religious people are looking at the social spheres of our country and many of them feel like they're no longer being given a choice to teach their values to their children, and live those values out in the public square.  Those people are feeling like they're now the shoe on the other foot - a thought leader of this movement is James Dobson of Focus on the Family.  Dobson once made the remark that being religious occupies today what being gay was back in the 70s and 80s - 'perfectly acceptable, as long as it's practiced behind closed doors between consenting adults'...in 2007.  And FTR, before you go painting Christians with the brush that they're hypocrites for voting for Trump, let me put this down.  The Cato Institute released a study it did on people of religious background (primarily Christian) who voted for Trump in 2016.  The study found that the likelihood of voting for Trump decreased with church attendance.  Someone who only went to church 'seldom' or 'never' had an 80+% chance to vote for Trump.  Someone who went 'weekly' or 'weekly+' had only a 32% chance.  In short, people who identify as religious but don't actually go.  That's like someone identifying as a vegetarian and saying that eating a salad once a month makes them so; it's absurd.

Capitalism does spread liberation around the globe.  A World Bank study published just after Trump's election evaluated the number of people living in 'extreme global poverty,' defined as living on less than $2/day, in terms of the value of the dollar in the year 2000.  In 1980, that rate was 39%.  As of 2015, that number was just under 10%.  Jonathan Haidt cited in one of his lectures a study from Our World In Data that measured the same thing, but rather on $1.25 a day, the value of the money fixed at 1990.  In 1820, the rate at which people lived there was 95%; in 1981, it was 52%, and in 2010, that number was 21%.  Whichever study is closer to the truth, that cannot be the result of some government policy or redistributionist program; that can only be the result of capitalism and the free market.  But, as people invent new ways to generate wealth and provide a rising economic tide, people also invent new ways of exploitation.  In short, capitalism is not the problem, people who exploit it for their own ends are.  The solution is not to attempt to stick capitalism in a box where it can't exploit people - that will rob it of its power to innovate.  Rather, the solution is for people to learn values from places that say exploitation is bad.  Andrew Yang, the 2020 candidate, has noted repeatedly in interviews that the rates at which people voted for Trump strongly correlated with jobs being outsourced to overseas countries or replaced through automation.  These are not the rich elites who exploit capitalism to run up the score - these are the people left behind in the economic crater by the former.

Trump is the Id of the American psyche, yes.  But people only listen to the Id when they feel - as you stated yourself - fear for their own survival.  Remove the fear, and Trump disappears.

[Tolvo]

Why would extending medicare to undocumented immigrants negatively impact Native Americans? A lot of these candidates in general want to expand medicare. There are more people in the world, so there are more immigrants. The population was around 2 billion for the entire planet during the historical period you're referencing. The population of the world has more than quadrupled since then. Also Steve from Long Island could be a very bigoted person, he just also does people's taxes. What American values do people have to show to prove they are loyal enough to the state to be allowed to live here? Many undocumented immigrants work harder than a lot of born citizens, since they have to.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2018-02-06/from-an-economic-and-civic-standpoint-immigrants-are-good-for-society

Though this only matters if people are valued by how much money they make for the country they're in. Not an ideology I'm fond of.

Also Focus on the Family is frankly a hate group, that's focus is trying to erase LGBTQIA+ from existence.

https://www.hrc.org/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-focus-on-the-family

As well as the Family Research Council.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

They btw openly support Trump and help work with him on LGBTQIA+ legislation and executive orders as well as other branches of the government who they work with.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

Also are you referencing this sort of World Bank study? Where World Bank mentions how these rates are not evenly distributed and parts of the globe are far more heavily impoverished such as in Africa, and how others are doing better such as East Asia? East Asia being a place where you're most likely to find non-capitalist governments?

However if you don't mean that World Bank and mean another one a source for these things would help.

[Skynet]

Immigration is not an aberration.  But the rate at which people are immigrating to America is higher than it even was back during the Ellis Island days.  A successful immigration policy is not solely based on how many people get to come into your country in a given year.  It's also based in part on how well those people integrate into society.  I personally don't care if we get 10,000 people a year or 10,000,000 people a year, as long as they come here and choose to integrate into our society.  But that's not what I'm hearing from immigration advocates.  I'm hearing that people can come here and don't need to learn English.  People don't need to inculcate American values.  We've taken the melting pot and replaced it with a salad bowl.  At the main card 2020 Democratic debate the other week, all 10 of the candidates onstage (and 2 from the undercard debate, Warren and DeBlasio) raised their hands when asked if they would extend Medicare to illegal immigrants.  We already have people - native American citizens - who are struggling.  Where's that sort of political consideration for them?

Actually a lot of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants become fluent in English due to cultural immersion. There are many non-fluent speakers, but history shows that in regards to a US context this problem solves itself over time.

Everything you said prior generations have said about Germans, Italians, European Jews, and the Irish. They practiced different Christian religions, they weren't fluent in English, they are from poor and war-torn nations. If they were Irish they're tied to terrorists. If Italians they're tied to the Mafia. Even Jews fleeing the Third Reich's terror were smeared with the Communist label, as a lot of the worst-affected were coming from Eastern Europe and a Soviet Jew, Leon Trotsky, was the second most powerful man in Russia before Stalin's purges executed and imprisoned countless leftist Jews.

On the contrary, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is more likely to spawn ethnic separatism and violence. Liberal immigration policy, as well as social democracy and government safety nets, can help but native-born Americans who are struggling as well as preventing immigrants from being abused, like in those horrid ICE camps I may a thread for elsewhere in PROC. The more a government supports state-sanctioned violence, the more radicalized disenfranchised groups get when nonviolent protest becomes less and less feasible.

Voting Democrat is clearly the better option than Republican; not perfect, but far better than yet another round of "tax breaks for the rich whose companies will pay money out of their own pocket to pay for millions of American's basic living standards."

[Skynet]

Double-post. ReijiTabibito, regarding immigration advocates saying that they don't have to learn English, can you provide sources? Are these people mainstream in said circles, or fringe voices?

[ReijiTabibito]

Actually a lot of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants become fluent in English due to cultural immersion. There are many non-fluent speakers, but history shows that in regards to a US context this problem solves itself over time.

Yes, English proficiency rates amongst the descendants of immigrants are higher than amongst the actual immigrants themselves - mostly due to having to attend schools where English is the primary communicative language.  But, that number is decreasing (see below for relevant statistics).

On the contrary, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is more likely to spawn ethnic separatism and violence. Liberal immigration policy, as well as social democracy and government safety nets, can help but native-born Americans who are struggling as well as preventing immigrants from being abused, like in those horrid ICE camps I may a thread for elsewhere in PROC. The more a government supports state-sanctioned violence, the more radicalized disenfranchised groups get when nonviolent protest becomes less and less feasible.

Camps that were terrible before Trump took office.  Camps that were underfunded before Trump took office.  And a judicial system that was overloaded with cases before Trump took office.  He hasn't done much to make this situation better, but he did not exactly inherit a gold-standard immigration service.

And support of state-sanctioned violence.  You mean like this?  https://quillette.com/2019/06/30/antifas-brutal-assault-on-andy-ngo-is-a-wake-up-call-for-authorities-and-journalists-alike/

Voting Democrat is clearly the better option than Republican; not perfect, but far better than yet another round of "tax breaks for the rich whose companies will pay money out of their own pocket to pay for millions of American's basic living standards."

The largest 225 companies - according to Forbes - made up just over 4.5 million people in 2017, out of over 150 million working Americans.  Those companies represented 5% of the size of the US economy.  An American is more likely to draw a paycheck from a company whose revenues do not even reach the hallowed $1 million status - again, according to Forbes, the likelihood is, across the US overall, 13.1x more likely.  According to the Bureau of Labor, only 14% of the US workforce occupies a government position.  Any position, local, state, or federal.  So, yes, those companies do pay money out of their own pocket for millions of Americans' basic living standards.  Trying to do otherwise would break the government in half financially.

And FFS, I'm tired of hearing how Trump's tax cut benefited the rich.  The Wall Street Journal cited an analysis of the tax cut done by the independent Tax Policy Center - while it did find that 90% of people making more than $100k a year did get a tax cut, that A: only counted on federal taxes, not state and local taxes, which blue states like CA raised in response to Trump's cut.  The remaining 10+% did get a tax raise from Uncle Sam, and that was concentrated in the upper Ks and into the millions of income.

Double-post. ReijiTabibito, regarding immigration advocates saying that they don't have to learn English, can you provide sources? Are these people mainstream in said circles, or fringe voices?

If an actual mainstream Democrat came out and said something like that openly, Republican new outlets would pick it up and begin broadcasting that within hours.  It would be the only thing they talk about for the rest of the week, and heaven forbid if one of the 9 billion candidates for President (or as I prefer to call it, Democrats: EndTrump) said it.  No public Democrat is that stupid.  (Save one.)

However, so I am not simply seeming to just blow hot wind, consider the following.

1: According to INS, which handles the US citizenship test, tests administered are up approximately one-third since the year 2000.  That test is given in English - but you can apply for a linguistic exception.  Those exceptions are up nearly 400%, again, since 2000.  The only INS recognized linguistic exception is what's called the 50/20 rule; you must be over the age of 50 and have lived within the US for at least two decades.  Now, those years do not need to be contiguous, but let's say that they are.  That means that someone comes into the US at the age of 31, and then lives here for the next 20 years but does not make the effort to learn English to even a conversational level, which is what the INS test is rated as.  (There's a difference between conversational proficiency and academic proficiency; the latter is higher.)  Fewer than 1 in 10 of those exceptions are given for a non-Spanish language.

2: You mentioned rising generational rates of English speaking due to cultural immersion.  That factor is beginning to wane, mostly in states that border Mexico.  In 1999, first-generational immigrant English proficiency (as measured by the US Census Bureau American Community Survey, which is taken every year) hovered around 41%.  As of 2014, that number had only slightly decreased to 36%.  For third generational proficiency, the numbers were 99% and 96%, respectively, for the same years.  For the generation between, however - in 1999, English proficiency amongst second-generation immigrants was at 84%.  As of 2014?  Barely cresting 61%.  Why the huge drop here and not amongst the preceding and following generations?

For the previous generation, it's a relatively simple explanation - the bulk of people who came here as immigrants (and openly identify as such) are likely to have come in through the front door, via legal means of immigration.  Having English on your visa application means you usually get moved ahead several places towards the front of the line.  Along those same lines, the trend of 'educational tourism' developed over that same period of time - our college campuses now have people who come here from foreign countries (in this case, primarily China, India, and Korea), go to university, and then when their education is complete, go back to their home country.  While those people do need to know English, there are communities on campus that can help them if their linguistic skills aren't up to snuff.

For the third generation?  3% is often margin of error on studies, so is it statistically significant?  Hard to say.

Second-gen, however, those are either children of immigrants born here, or people who immigrated to the US as a child along with their parents (e.g., a Dreamer).  They're required to go through the US school system, regardless of origin, since they're minors.  If that's the case, and English is still being taught in our schools, then why the major drop in English proficiency?  The two most immediate answers?  Either the English teaching in those schools is so poor that our educational system turns out kids who can barely read or write...which given literacy and overall reading rates, is entirely possible - or those schools are simply choosing to teach in the native language of those students, rather than in English.


3: Before I present this piece of data, I must ask - are you familiar with linguistic isolation?