Re: Does it have to be saving the environment versus saving human enterprise?
[Soros] is a fat cat capitalist. The right should love him.
The problem is that the majority of the people want clean air and water and so want large corporations to be regulated. They also want a reasonable social welfare safety net and public schools and access to healthcare, and they'd like at least a minimum of labor rights.
The majority also want rich people to pay taxes to pay for this.
As a result, the 1% hate democracy. They don't want to pay taxes, and they don't want their businesses fettered by regulations or uppity unions, but these are things they've had suffer under democratic government.
But Soros is one of the few billionaires who believes that the majority is right, and who has a commitment to democratic principles, and who is willing to spend his wealth to promote these things.
Hence, Soros is the enemy of the goals of the 1%.
Since the 1950s, the 1% has gotten really good at using working and middle class white people's grievances to manipulate them into jumping through their hoops. Hence, the hatred of the right for Soros even though most of what Soros stands for would be supported by rank and file red staters if they had any idea of what they were talking about.
It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
Of course. As I said, there is only whatever side you're on, there is no such thing as respecting the other side, there is only war. There wasn't really any need to bring it up, the result was predictable, but maybe it's a good thing to demonstrate it from time to time.
Re: Planned Parenthood Refuses Federal Funds over Abortion Restrictions
Last week (circa 21 Aug) I heard an official with Planned Parenthood being interviewed on a Sirius XM Progress program about their having to stop receiving Title X funding because of a new Trump Admin rule violating the doctor-patient relationship. Not quite as bad as that recent Missouri rule (since rescinded) requiring extra unnecessary invasive exams which basically constituted state-mandated sexual assault, but created for the same purpose.
She brought up some points:
In many states, especially in rural areas, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of health services of any kind, especially for women. Many of these states are Republican-run and refused federal funding for expanding Medicaid under the ACA, which resulted in many rural hospitals and clinics having to close.
No federal money goes to funding abortions. None. Those services are kept separate. These new rules banned the doctors from even mentioning the existence of those other services, thus preventing the doctors from properly serving their patients.
Not all clinics being affected share the same name. For example, in Maine they go by a different name (I forget what it is). So when you donate to Planned Parenthood, you should do a little research to see if there are local clinics by a different name being affected by this; they need your donations too.
Now this was the kicker: Title X gives preferential treatment and funding to those clinics that practice and promote certain GOP-favored birth control methods which they say are sure-fire.
The best known one is abstinence-only. We all know how well that works. Remember when Bristol Palin, an unwed mother, became a national spokesperson for abstinence-only? Then she got pregnant again. That's how well abstinence-only works.
The new one is the kicker. They even have an app for it. It's called, "Pulling Out." Some of you may be familiar with it and with its effectiveness. Some old white male Republican official swears by it and is willing to promote it.
You should judge the quality of a news source's information by the evidence supporting it, not by their editorial stance. But the piece I cited, What to do if you're called a racist, wasn't news. It was a perspective piece. Opinion.
...this presentation on racism absolutely and utterly misses the point. Total red herring.
The piece wasn't a "presentation on racism," and it directly addressed the point it intended to address, namely what to do if you inadvertently and/or unknowingly exhibit racism and are called on it.
Real racism to whatever extent it may exist is not the point.
No, racism is pretty much the point.
The point is that racism is one weapon in an arsenal of character-assassinating weapons invented by Cultural Marxism to undermine the credibility of political opponents while avoiding ever taking their political arguments seriously.
Racism is real. We see its effects every day. Some threads here even have a died-in-the-wool racist contributing on a regular basis.
Cultural Marxism is just a name the right likes to pin on the left because it riles up their base. Yourself, for example.
It is currently specifically directed against Trump and his supporters.
When one speaks or acts publicly on their racist attitudes one shouldn't be surprised when one is called racist.
The rational bases for any of Trump's political aims is completely ignored under a barrage of personal accusations.
If Trump has a rational basis for what he says and does he hasn't yet been able to articulate it. His "chopper talk" Q&A's with reporters, which is all that passes for press briefings these days, are a random assemblage of unsupported, self-serving and often contradictory comments.
This is how the nation is being destroyed.
By Trump lies, misrepresentations and misinformation? Yes, that is true.
Call him a racist when he's not,...
Even Republicans think Trump a racist, for example, George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president: "Naivete, resentment and outright racism, roiled in a toxic mix, have given us a racist president." Or Paul Ryan: "Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sorta the textbook definition of a racist comment." Or the four Republicans in the House (Will Hurd (TX), Fred Upton (MI), Susan Brooks (IN), Brian Firzpatrick (PA)) who voted to condemn Trump's racist comments (Joe Amash (MI-I), recently resigned from the Republican party, joined them).
An anti-facist has been working inside Patriot Prayer and documenting and filming their activities.
As the group waits, they discuss their weaponry. A few men try to guess which way the wind's blowing to avoid getting "spray" in their eyes, presumably when they use it against members of antifa. Another man holds a thick wooden dowel, and practices swinging it like a baseball bat. A woman carries a red brick in her hand. Some don goggles, helmets, and tactical gloves ... [Andy] Ngo doesn’t film any of the conversations, and smiles when the group cracks jokes.
“He overheard everything,” Ben recalls, “and said nothing.”
Since this May Day clash, Patriot Prayer and its supporters have uploaded edited clips of the fight to social media, trying to prove that their unprovoked attack was actually an act of self defense.
quote:For wives of soldiers stationed on the base, it means that they must leave the base after they reach 36 weeks of pregnancy as it is unsafe to travel after. So, expectant mothers must not only leave their spouse to ensure their child is an American, but it means they must also spend the remainder of their pregnancy, including the birth, without their partner.
“According to USCIS, previous legislation also explicitly said that spouses of service members who were living outside the U.S. because of their spouses were considered residing in the U.S., but ‘that no similar provision was included for children of U.S. armed forces members in the acquisition of citizenship context is significant,'” reported Task & Purpose.
It’s one of the reasons USCIS has decided those children are not considered to be residing in the U.S. and will no longer be given citizenship. They can begin the process to become “naturalized” after they return to the United States.
quote:Ngo, who has used selectively edited videos to paint antifa as a violent, criminal group was hit with punches and milkshakes during a clash between antifa activists and members of the Proud Boys, an organization labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many on the right rallied around Ngo after that altercation, and spread false rumors that the milkshakes thrown at him and others had contained quick-dry cement.
Ngo used his newfound fame to boost his profile, appearing on Fox News and other cable news outlets and embracing his victimhood.
Just weeks later, however, a video surfaced on Twitter showing Ngo pal around with the Proud Boys-adjacent group Patriot Prayer.
The video shows Ngo laughing as the group plans a violent attack on antifa members at a Portland bar in May. The video surfaced as part of a lawsuit brought by the bar, accusing Patriot Prayer members of causing a riot.
The Portland Mercury reports that Patriot Prayer members targeted antifa while they were celebrating a day of peaceful May Day celebrations. The lawsuit brought by the bar owners alleges that Patriot Prayer leader Joey Gibson and six others trespassed onto the property with the aim of engaging in violence.
The video of Ngo laughing as the group plans their attack, wrote Portland Mercury news editor Alex Zielinski, “is the clearest evidence I’ve seen supporting the claim that [Patriot Prayer] & leader Joy Gibson were intent on instigating a fight that afternoon.”
Video and demonstrations of dishonest editing at the link.
I then read through the first three and a half pages of Defining “Residence” in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship and found it hard to follow. I think the implication for the military is that children born to non-citizen members of the military while stationed outside the US would not automatically be US citizens, that it would depend upon how much time the parents had resided within the physical borders of the US.
It also seems to be saying that it would be a similar situation for US citizens born outside the US.
It might also introduce an interesting conundrum. If a child born outside the US to US citizens is not a citizen of the US, and is not a citizen of the country where born (because that country doesn't have birthright citizenship), then what is it a citizen of? Are such children automatically stateless?
I could easily have this wrong. Like I said, I found the language hard to understand, but my initial impression is that USCIS is tying themselves in knots trying to reconcile corner cases whose resolution has been rendered ambiguous because of evolving law. In normal times they would probably have written a policy that interpreted citizenship leniently for such corner cases, but in the time of Trump they have to develop policies that make citizenship as restrictive as possible.
quote:USCIS issued a clarification to the rule later Wednesday, explaining that the new rule would only affect three categories of people: Children of non-U.S. citizens adopted by U.S. citizen government employees or service members; children of non-U.S. citizen government employees or service members who were naturalized after the child's birth; and children of U.S. citizens who do not meet residency requirements.