Roseanne Barr, please go to a shrink or go away.
Choose one.
I
was a big fan of Roseanne in the 80s and watched ROSEANNE all the way
through the last episode. I also watched her anytime she guest starred
on a sitcom. And when ROSEANNE came back, I watched every episode and
loved it.
I didn't care
that Roseanne and her character were Trump supporters. I thought she
made a good show on the reboot and I thought it was funny, really funny.
When the thing with Valerie Jarrett came up, I defended her and
defended her here. I noted that I also thought Valerie Jarrett was
something other than Black.
I
am furious with her but I will still say that they tried to destroy her
and that included telling her people would be out of jobs because of
her in order to get her to sign over the rights to her characters --
from her life. That was theft and blackmail. I have never watched THE
CONNERS and never will. No one deserved what Roseanne Barr was put
through and no man has ever been forced to sign over characters he
created.
Donald Trump tried to overthrow the government on January 6th. I can't with you.
I don't think you're a racist. I defended you over Valerie Jarrett and I will still defend you over that.
But
that's my line and you crossed it. I did not scream "TREASON!" here
during the January 6th violence. I waited to get the facts and I didn't
rush to judgment. But knowing what we know now, that was treason. I'm
sorry but I can't support treason. So this is where my path parts with
you.
Thursday, September 26, 2024. Kamala Harris gives economic speech, Jill
Stein is allowed to say nothing yet again and we're supposed to pretend
journalism took place.
Yesterday, Democratic Party presidential candidate Kamala Harris spoke in Pittsburgh.
Excerpt.
[. . .]
Donald's flat. He tries to run the scales but can't hit the do or the re so he just sticks to the mi -- Me, Me, Me, Me, Me.
Here's the MSNBC interview with Kamala that CNN noted above.
Now let's turn to the media.
As
Karen notes above, the media is a huge problem. There's no
accountability and we need to grasp that and demand better. CNN
invented a quote by a member of Congress and some have pushed back
against that. But it needs pushed back on all the time. Not just when
one of our favorites have been harmed.
Rebecca noted
DEADLINE and US running with the lie (FOX "NEWS" also did). How stupid
are you? If you're a journalist you're too lazy to GOOGLE? These are
basic facts and they haven't been hidden so why are you lying and
claiming that for the first time since they got married in 1993,
Michelle and David are finally working together on a project?
Jill Stein, the endless joke. Yesterday, she went on
DEMOCRACY NOW! and got the same damn pass that they give her every time
she runs for president. Let's note one paragraph above from Ava and my piece:
Mehdi's interview and Angela's the week before really just
underscored what a lazy and incompetent media we have in the US. Third
time. This is Jill Stein's third time running for president and it's
the first time she's ever been challenged in an interview. For her two
previous campaigns, the media has treated her like a child with a
terminal disease in a Make A Wish program whose dream was to run for
president. She has gotten one pass after another.
And it has been media malpractice. Jill has always had a home on DEMOCRACY NOW! and it's always been a safe space.
Bill Clinton calls in to get out the vote and Amy Goodman can be just as tough as Mehdi Hassan or Angela Rye then.
But Amy and Juan Gonzalez both failed at journalism yesterday.
There are celebrity talk shows that are harder hitting then the garbage DEMOCRACY NOW! served up.
It
was so embarrassing, and if we had more time I'd quote from Susan
Faludi's BACKLASH. But what we saw was disgusting and was not
journalism. I try to not to call out Juan. I have great respect for
him. But that interview was awful.
There were no follow ups. Jill just got to throw our her usual bulls**t remarks.
Yes, Juan, you did say, "And,
Dr. Stein, I wanted to follow up. You were talking earlier about Gaza.
This month, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, published a
poll that shows you are ahead of Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in
key swing states, like Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin. But yet the
National Uncommitted Movement, which decided not to endorse any of the
two major-party candidates, also decided not to endorse any third-party
candidates. I’m wondering your response."
That's not a follow up.
Juan, you know that's not a follow up.
You could get away with calling it "a related question," but you know journalism and you know that's not a follow up question.
A
follow up question would have taken her answer and probed it. This was
her answer to Amy Goodman's question (what's the most important
question), not to Juan's. He had asked her about immigration when he
elected to revisit Gaza by way of one poll. We'll come back to that
garbage in a moment. Here's Jill on the most important question:
Well,
let’s put it this way. The American people are in crisis in virtually
every dimension of our lives, whether it’s the healthcare crisis and not
being able to afford your pharmaceuticals. Some 8 million Americans are
not able to afford their medications. Eighteen million were driven into
poverty by the costs of healthcare in the last year for which data was
available. Half of all Americans are struggling to keep a roof over
their heads, severely economically stressed, trying to just pay their
rent. And we are spending half of our congressional dollars on the
endless war machine, of which the — this genocidal war against Gaza is
one example that the American people vehemently object to.
Great, Jill, you offered a diagnosis. You didn't, however, offer any solutions. You didn't even offer a minimum plan.
In
the real world -- Amy and Juan, pay attention -- people are expected to
answer questions and you failed your audience by refusing to demand
answers.
Let's continue with Jill's pie-in-the-sky remarks which she pretends are plans to address real problems.
The
American people are calling for other options. You know, who is anyone
to say they should be denied and that the two zombie political parties,
that have so poorly served the American public, are the only options?
You know, democracy is about competition. The American people are
begging for other options. They are entitled to know who those options
are.
Democracy is about competition? What is that, Jill's neocon notion of free-market democracy?
The reality that -- again -- she's yet to offer a plan. Again to crazy Stein:
It
speaks volumes that the Democrats are pulling out all the stops,
including fraudulent impersonations of the Green Party, hiring
infiltrators and spies, which they have publicly advertised for, and
hiring an army of lawyers, in their own words, to basically throw their
competitors off the ballot, quite simply because they are terrified of
actually meeting us in the court of public opinion and having a real
debate about the crises that the American people face and the real
solutions that we alone are putting on the table, from Medicare for All
to free public higher education to rent control across the country to 15
million units of so-called social housing, which would meet our housing
needs, cutting the military budget, and, above all, ending the
genocidal war on Gaza right now, which the American people
overwhelmingly support — a near supermajority, actually, supports a
weapons embargo right now.
A lot of words to say nothing at all.
And,
Amy and Juan, when you allow her to list all of these supposed crimes,
you then have to ask her to back up her accusations. You didn't do
that, did you?
No, you just gave crazy a microphone and let her spew her nonsense.
First question should have been: Who are these fraudulent impersonators you refer to?
Second
question should have been: Exactly what help are you getting from the
Republican Party? They got signatures for you to get on the ballot,
they're providing pro bono legal work? What would be the financial
estimate for what the GOP is providing you with in terms of cash
donations and in-kind donations?
Third
question should have been: Do you not believe that an attempted coup
took place January 6, 2021? If you do not believe that, what would you
call it; and, if you do believe it, how do you square taking free legal
help from attorneys who defended insurrectionists?
Fourth
question: The Green Party doesn't believe in accepting money from
PACs. How do you square that with the contributions you get from the
Republicans?
Stein then said:
And
with Israel expanding this war, not only into the West Bank, but also
now into Lebanon, this is extremely, extraordinarily dangerous. And when
we hear the Biden-Harris administration say that, oh, there’s nothing
they can do, their hands are tied, that’s absolutely false. They can do
like Ronald Reagan and simply make a phone call and instruct Israel that
this genocidal assault is over.
It's not the 1980s, Jill. And is that your plan for Gaza? To make a call and say the genocide assault is over?
Because
that might fool your cult members but the reality is that's not ending
anything. The assault on Palestinians might switch to some form of
low-grade assault for a month, maybe even a year. But it won't stop the
violence against Palestinians. Nor would such a phone call address the
very real issue of the apartheid system Palestinians are forced to live
under.
AMY GOODMAN:
As pressure builds for a ceasefire after 27 days of Israel’s
bombardment of Gaza, we spend the rest of the hour with the acclaimed
author and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates. This summer, he spoke at a
literary festival in the West Bank that connected the Palestinian
struggle with decolonization struggles around the world. In Ramallah, he
opened his remarks with a comparison between the struggle of African
Americans and Palestinians.
In recent weeks, Coates joined dozens of other writers and artists in
signing “An Open Letter from Participants in the Palestine Festival of
Literature,” that was published in The New York Review of Books
and called for, quote, “the international community to commit to ending
the catastrophe unfolding in Gaza and to finally pursuing a
comprehensive and just political solution in Palestine.”
AMY GOODMAN:
Last night, Ta-Nehisi Coates participated in another event hosted by
organizers of the Palestine Festival of Literature, or PalFest, in the
James Chapel at Union Theological Seminary here in New York City. It was
called “But We Must Speak: On Palestine and the Mandates of
Conscience.”
Ta-Nehisi is the recipient of a prestigious MacArthur Fellowship and
the recipient of numerous prizes, including the National Book Award for
his book Between the World and Me. We Were Eight Years in Power is another book, An American Tragedy, and his memoir, The Beautiful Struggle. His novel is titled The Water Dancer. In 2014, he wrote an award-winning cover story for The Atlantic magazine headlined “The Case for Reparations.”
Ta-Nehisi, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have
you with us, under extremely difficult circumstances. Last night, this
remarkable event almost didn’t happen. I mean, it was in the James
Chapel of Union Theological Seminary, but venue after venue had said no
to this gathering. And without almost any publicity, well over a
thousand people turned out, but the place only held 300, so people went
over across the street to another place of 300, overcrowd, overflow, and
then thousands watched on the live video stream. Can you talk about
your experience being in the West Bank, going to the Occupied
Territories, and how it changed you?
TA-NEHISI COATES:
Oh wow. I spent 10 days in Palestine, in the Occupied Territories and
in Israel proper. I’ve had the great luxury over the past 10 years of
seeing a few countries. I have not spent more time or seen more of
another country or another territory than I did this summer.
I think what shocked me the most was, in any sort of opinion piece or
reported piece, or whatever you want to call it, that I’ve read about
Israel and about the conflict with the Palestinians, there’s a word that
comes up all the time, and it is “complexity,” that and its closely
related adjective, “complicated.” And so, while I had my skepticisms and
I had my suspicions of the Israeli government, of the occupation, what I
expected was that I would find a situation in which it was hard to
discern right from wrong, it was hard to understand the morality at
play, it was hard to understand the conflict. And perhaps the most
shocking thing was I immediately understood what was going on over
there.
Probably the best example I can think of is the second day, when we
went to Hebron, and the reality of the occupation became clear. We were
driving out of East Jerusalem. I was with PalFest, and we were driving
out of East Jerusalem into the West Bank. And, you know, you could see
the settlements, and they would point out the settlements. And it
suddenly dawned on me that I was in a region of the world where some
people could vote and some people could not. And that was obviously
very, very familiar to me. I got to Hebron, and we got out as a group of
writers, and we were given a tour by our Palestinian guide. And we got
to a certain street, and he said to us, “I can’t walk down this street.
If you want to continue, you have to continue without me.” And that was
shocking to me.
And we walked down the street, and we came back, and there was a
market area. Hebron is very, very poor. It wasn’t always very poor, but
it’s very, very poor. Its market area has been shut down. But there are a
few vendors there that I wanted to support. And I was walking to try to
get to the vendor, and I was stopped at a checkpoint. Checkpoints all
through the city, checkpoints obviously all through the West Bank. Your
mobility is completely inhibited, and the mobility of the Palestinians
is totally inhibited.
And I was walking to the checkpoint, and an Israeli guard stepped
out, probably about the age of my son. And he said to me, “What’s your
religion, bro?” And I said, “Well, you know, I’m not really religious.”
And he said, “Come on. Stop messing around. What is your religion?” I
said, “I’m not playing. I’m not really religious.” And it became clear
to me that unless I professed my religion, and the right religion, I
wasn’t going to be allowed to walk forward. So, he said, “Well, OK, so
what was your parents’ religion?” I said, “Well, they weren’t that
religious, either.” He says, “What were your grandparents’ religion?”
And I said, “My grandmother was a Christian.” And then he allowed me to
pass.
And it became very, very clear to me what was going on there. And I
have to say it was quite familiar. Again, I was in a territory where
your mobility is inhibited, where your voting rights are inhibited,
where your right to the water is inhibited, where your right to housing
is inhibited. And it’s all inhibited based on ethnicity. And that
sounded extremely, extremely familiar to me.
And so, the most shocking thing about my time over there was how
uncomplicated it actually is. Now, I’m not saying the details of it are
not complicated. History is always complicated. Present events are
always complicated. But the way this is reported in the Western media is
as though one needs a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern studies to understand the
basic morality of holding a people in a situation in which they don’t
have basic rights, including the right that we treasure most, the
franchise, the right to vote, and then declaring that state a democracy.
It’s actually not that hard to understand. It’s actually quite familiar
to those of us with a familiarity to African American history.
What was described to Amy has been taking place for decades. Jill didn't address these realities.
Instead, she offered garbage answers.
They were dishonest remarks.
We've
never been honest about what's taking place. Historically and
currently. I'm included in that as well. I focus on the Palestinian
people.
I don't defend or cover for Hamas.
And
I do get that Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7th. And had the
Israeli government just pursued Hamas, I doubt many would have
objected.
The objection was to equating every Palestinian with Hamas, the objection was to collective punishment which is a War Crime.
I
can -- and have -- speak to people who to this day defend the actions
of the Israeli government since October 7th. I don't agree with them
one bit. But I do know their arguments. And if someone other than
Benjamin Netanyahu had been in charge during this period, the world
would not have revolted against the oppression. The world's tolerated
the violence against the Palestinian people on a simmer or low boil.
It's only when Netanyahu turned into a rolling boil that the world said:
No more.
And the world's also suffering from fatigue over this issue.
All
of what I've just said goes deeper than what Jill offered but I don't
for one moment think that covered any kind of an overview on this
topic. That said, as Mehdi Hassan pointed out, "I'm not running for
president, you are."
But grasp that this is what passes for an informed discussion with someone running for president. That was a garbage answer.
And it demanded a follow up but didn't get one.
Instead, we're back on the CAIR poll. Why?
We
note CAIR here anytime they send something to the public e-mail account
(common_ills@yahoo.com). I think they do important work.
But I'm not an idiot.
And I took graduate classes in research and methodology -- poli sci.
I'm not an idiot but Amy and Juan are and so is most of the media.
One poll?
Even if it was from an objective organization, one poll is still one poll and it doesn't tell you one damn thing.
No one predicts an election on one poll.
But
I guess Amy, Juan and Jill are more comfortable with the 'horse race'
aspect because that doesn't require knowledge, doesn't require thought,
all it takes is for you to have the ability to jaw bone.
CAIR
is not an impartial organization. It has a vested interest in the
topic they are polling on. Doesn't mean they are lying. It does mean
that you factor in that, on its face, the poll is not impartial.
I
tried to be nice. I never looked at the poll until today. Just
reading of it made it clear that there were problems with the poll. But
I like CAIR so I just ignored it. If I didn't look at it, I didn't
have to call it out.
Do you know how appalling it is that the media didn't examine the polling?
How
about the fact that Cornel West is not with the People's Party? Did no
one catch that? All you had to do was read the damn summary. You
didn't have to go into the weeds on that.
What a bunch of idiots. Before we get to the next flaw, let's note Juan's words again:
"And,
Dr. Stein, I wanted to follow up. You were talking earlier about Gaza.
This month, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, published a
poll that shows you are ahead of Kamala Harris among Muslim voters in
key swing states, like Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin. But yet the
National Uncommitted Movement, which decided not to endorse any of the
two major-party candidates, also decided not to endorse any third-party
candidates. I’m wondering your response."
That's how he presented it, that's how the media presented it.
And what's clear is people are either liars or incompetent.
And the ones being polled weren't too smart either.
When
asked what party they wanted to win control of Congress in the November
2024 general election, 6.6% (162) of respondents reported the
“Republican” party while 37.9% (929) chose the “Democratic” party.
However, the largest majority of Muslim respondents (55.4%, 1357) were "Not sure".
So
over 50% of those surveyed have no idea who they wanted to "win control
of Congress" (what awkward wording)? That suggests to me that there's a
huge number in this poll who will not be voting.
And on the polling population, it's not 100% Muslim by their own self-identification. So maybe fix that in the media reports.
The sample size is far too small to extrapolate across states, let alone nationally.
CAIR's poll should have been discarded because it's pure garbage.
Allowing
for a significant increase in the number of Muslim homophobes, CAIR's
findings are not backed up by PEW or the Arab American Institute or
anyone doing polling on Muslims in the last four years. (No, Arab
Americans are not all Muslim but before you waste everyone's time
e-mailing do some research, the Arab American Institute usually does the
Arab American category and then the Arab American Muslim subsection.)
There
are so many problems with this poll and it should have been treated as
garbage the minute people saw that it wrongly put Cornel West as the
candidate for The People's Party.
If something seems to good to be true, it usually is.
CAIR's poll has repeatedly been cited by the press. The poll is garbage.
Survey
respondents included 1326 men (60.6%), 809 women (37%), and 50 (2.2%)
individuals who preferred not to report their gender from across the
nation. In reporting responses to questions by gender, only male and female responses were provided.
That
tells you several things. The first thing is that they're not sharing
the breakdown by state but it was across the nation. So less than 1326
people are now responsible not just for this crap poll but also for the
spin of what's happening in swing states. The second thing that tells
you is that CAIR needs to address its sexism immediately.
Women
only made up 37% of those surveyed. Now there are thought to be less
Muslim women in the US than there are men but it's not that skewed.
Thought to be? The US census doesn't ask religion. PEW is probably the
most relied upon measure for a number on this and they go with Muslim
women making up 45% of the Muslim population in the US.
Yet CAIR only surveyed 37%? That's enough to trash their survey, enough to wad it up and trash it.
It's worthless. Females are backing Kamala Harris.
She has a 21 point lead in the most recent polling over Donald Trump.
When you grasp that women weren't important enough to CAIR to make up
at least 45% of the respondents, we're left with the reality that the
poll is garbage and that our media is as well because we've all wasted
so much time on this nonsense that CAIR put out when no one should have
given it a second thought.
Again,
I tried to be nice. I avoided the poll because it read too good to be
true and because it came from an organization with built-in bias.
It's
a shame that professional journalists are so stupid and uninformed.
But the prize for stupid goes to Jill Stein who, later in the interview,
insists, "the CAIR polls were quite comprehensive"
She's
always a Karen, that racist Jill Stein. If you missed it, she's
already accused AOC and Angela Rye of not having brains of their own
(Angela confronted her on her pattern of doing this to women of color in
the now infamous BREAKFAST CLUB interview where Jill Stein infamously
said there were over 600 members of the House of Representatives -- the
correct answer is 435). So let's note this section.
AMY
GOODMAN: Dr. Stein, before you selected Butch Ware as your running
mate, several high-profile Palestinian and Arab rights activists said
they were approached by your team, including Abed Ayoub, the director of
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Palestinian
American lawyer and professor Noura Erakat. Professor Erakat tweeted, “I
offered to join ticket if they would be willing to concede the election
if Dems deliver on permanent ceasefire and arms embargo. The idea being
using Stein’s margin in 3 swing states to compel those concessions. If
we truly believe the Dems would never concede, then there is nothing to
lose. It also makes clear to those eager to throw Palestinians, Arab
Americans, and American Muslims under the bus that if they lose to
Trump, they are the source of their own loss. The Green Party rejected
this as they are accountable to their broader base and the health of
their Party. I understand that but my priority in this moment is doing
everything we can to end genocide by using all the leverage we have,”
Professor Noura Erakat said. Your response to that, Dr. Stein?
[. . .]
Instructor
Jill Stein: More power to Noura Erakat for being the powerhouse voice
that she is. Some of us have been, shall we say, in the political game
for quite some time and have had time to observe how these various
strategies do and don’t work. And extracting a simple concession without
— you know, without a permanent guarantee is a very risky proposition,
especially because, as an independent third party, the obstacles to
gaining ballot status are so enormous that if you simply lay down your
arms and you give up on the race, you lose your ballot status, and you
lose it across the board, in a way that you will not gain it back. By
continuing to run for office, we maintain our ballot status, and we are
able to continue to apply pressure against this very reckless and
dangerous empire, which is a problem not only in Gaza, you know, but
throughout the Middle East and around the world. We’re currently engaged
right now in two hot wars on the verge of going nuclear and another
third cold war on the verge of becoming hot. So —
Shall
we say Jill Stein is a bitch? You can do politics without holding
elected office. But if you're someone who has run and run and run and
run and run for political office and never been elected?
Again,
Angela Rye pointed out to Stein, "It is amazing to hear you talk about
women of color as parroting talking points instead of us looking at
basic math. And the one thing AOC has done that you haven't is win some
elections."
In 2005, she received her Juris Doctor from the UC Berkeley School of Law and was awarded the Francine Diaz Memorial Scholarship Award.[10] She completed her L.L.M at Georgetown University Law Center in 2012.[11]
In 2010, she was a co-founder of Jadaliyya, an online magazine published in English, Arabic, and French, and which is affiliated with the non-profit Arab Studies Institute, operating in Washington, D.C. and Beirut.
Erakat has served as "legal counsel to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee"[3] and has previously taught at Georgetown University.[3][11] From 2012–2014, she was a Freedman Fellow with Temple University Beasley School of Law.[12] Erakat also has taught international studies at George Mason University at Fairfax, Virginia.
She currently serves on the board of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves as an associate professor at Rutgers University,[13][14] is a member of the Board of Directors for the Trans-Arab Research Institute,[15] and is a policy advisor with Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.[16]
But, hey, she's never offered junk science (like anti-vax Jill has) so what does she know, right?
Jill also offered this garbage, "So,
first of all, we don’t go away between presidential elections. What
goes away is the media coverage. And I’m sorry, you know, if you’re only
tuned into mainstream media and believe the propaganda that we go away.
No, we’re here. We are working. We are doing the work."
That
is exactly what you do. You go away every four years and you can pull
your garbage on some people because they lack the spine to call you out
(apparently that's Amy and Juan) but don't run your game on me,
The
Green Party disappears every four years. That's what Jill did. By the
way who did Jill donate the millions too in 2017 -- is anyone ever
going to make her answer that? She publicly stated she was donating the
recount money for 2016's election. Where did it go?
Grifter.
Until Howie Hawkins -- 2020 presidential candidate -- they all did.
Correct
me if I'm wrong, but Howie didn't get a salary for his YOUTUBE videos.
But after the election, immediately after, he did at least one video a
week. These were Green Party issues as the topic, often with Green
Party guests. Jill never did that. We gave Howie credit for that. He
also offered writing.
And,
as we have long documented here and at THIRD, the Green Party --
national -- can't even handle press releases. They hibernate between
elections. So stop your garbage, Jill.
The
Michigan Green Party? They're out there working every month of the
year and I applaud them for it and I note anything they send to the
public account and have for years now.
Jill's a liar and she and the national Green Party are a joke.
She's never done any work to build the party, not once.
Juan and Amy let her lie about the Working Families Party -- which is a political party even though Jill lied.
Rudolph
Ware was on with her. If he wants to be called "Butch," why doesn't he
legally change his name? There's something rather sad about a
fifty-year-old man wanting to be called a nickname as he runs to be vice
president of the United States. We aren't interested in his b.s. or his
comments about "Dr Jill" -- is she a radio personality?
Jill Stein is and remains a joke.
And
I can say that because Ava and I are the only ones who ever called out
DEMOCRACY NOW! for the way they treat the Green Party. Jill won't do
it. She's the queen of accepting crumbs.
Every
four years, DN! devotes a week to the GOP convention and a week to the
Democratic Party convention. And that week? They expand from one hour
to two hours daily. 10 hours of coverage for the GOP convention and 10
hours of coverage for the Democrats. And the Green Party? Amy tosses
them a paragraph in headlines when she bother to note their convention
at all.
Back
to Idiot Jill. The only plan she offered in her entire interview was
this "on day one of our administration, we would legalize marijuana"
and that's it. Smoke 'em if you got 'em, Jill. That's her plan for
immigration. She offers a lot of empty words but that's the only
concrete thing she offers. I'm not sure how you legalize something on
day one of your administration -- be it pot or whatever.
Because you don't.
That's
reality. She could try to legalize pot. But on day one it will not be
legal -- not even via an executive order which many states in the union
would object to.
So she lied.
But
she lied in a bigger way and note that Juan and Amy took civics classes
(Juan is a very intelligent man and I'm pissed at him right now for
making me tear him apart).
The president can sign something into law.
The president cannot introduce a law or pass a law. That's Congress.
Where,
on day one or any day in her mythical four year term, would President
Jill Stein get the votes -- from Democratic, Republican and independent
members of the House and Senate -- to pass any legislation?
That's right, she wouldn't.
She thinks it's unfair now?
Try
being a Green in the White House (which will never happen for her, but
let's pretend). That's when you're a real threat to the duopoly and,
no, it is not in the interest of either major political party to help
your agenda succeed. They are out to protect their own party and their
own seat and they're not going to let you achieve. When Barack Obama
got elected, you had Republicans immediately saying that they wanted to
see him fail -- elected Republicans. That's politics and she may think
she's above politics but Jill still has to work in the system that's
been established.
She
has a laughable concept of doing immigration at the border -- she has
no workable plan for it but she appears to think that you can be
processed in about the same time as you'd get a room at Holiday Inn.
The only reason I mention that is she has "background checks" -- among
other things -- being done as people are queued up in line.
Background checks?
Has
anyone bothered to check out the Green Party's embarrassing gun
policy? It's no stronger than the Democratic Party's and I thought the
Greens were going to wake the nation, come the new Jerusalem.
Apparently not on that issue or any other.
One
more thing that the media failed to note on CAIR's poll? Not all
Palestinians are Muslim. Most are but there are significant numbers who
are Christian. Palestinians, however, are Arabs. Meaning put a little
more faith in a poll of Arab-Americans if you're trying to figure out
where Palestinian-Americans might stand on an issue. There's a whole
thing we could go into here about holy wars and how categories can
provide the wrong impressions but we'll save that for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment