American Politics from 2019 on

[Tero]

The link says the white natinalists want a Putin. If not available, then Trump.

[Tero]

What's not to love about Putin?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics ... sot-digvid

Here are the candidates the MAGA crowd wants for leader:
1 Putin
2 if not available, Trump
3 Reagan
4 george w bush
5 Victor Orban
He is not as good a dictator as Putin but he has at least the experience keeping Muslims out.

[Tero]

This should work for Abbott and pals. Shit hole countries send migrants directly to Claifornia.

California — a Sanctuary State — has proven more forgiving, especially in San Diego, which released a “minimum” of 125,000 migrants from detention onto the city streets “without proper vetting” in the six months since September 2023, officials told The Post this month.

The surge doesn’t reflect a change in overall arrests along the border, but just a switch in where they are entering.

San Diego saw a 69% rise in migrant arrests between Oct. 1 and March 31 while Texas sectors saw a 29% drop, the Times reported.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/18/us-news/s ... ss-border/

[Tero]

Strange views of young blacks. Who exactly do they want?

The outreach comes as Biden looks to secure a voter base that historically has supported Democrats by an overwhelming margin but that has shown some softening in support in recent polling. The latest NBC News poll shows that Biden has support from about 58% of Black voters aged 18 to 49, and 88% of older Black voters. In the 2020 election, 87% of Black voters supported Biden for president, according to NBC News exit polling data.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/bid ... rcna152731

[pErvinalia]

No one has been better for black people than Trump. Same with women. People always tell him...

[Tero]

I got most of it right.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- ... doing-quiz
Groceries went up, then down. Except coffee and beer. They just go up.

[Tero]

Elsewhere

It is incredibly simple for Biden to win: pivot hard to the Left, campaign for more Left-wing candidates, set up a Union advisory committee etc. etc

It won't cost him any votes in the Center, as there isn't anyone left there who hasn't made up their mind.

But there are a lot of voters up for grabs if Biden just hammered home the fact that he tried and tried in vain to find moderate Republicans not beholden to Trump.

The "GOP minus Trump approach of the last four years has failed, and it's time to try something else.

he is right. There is nobody left in the center except a few disinterested independents. Who won't bother to vote because Biden is too old and let Israel bomb gaza.

[Sean Hayden]

Idiots, cut off their own blah blah

[Tero]

NYT morning newsletter

Not as intended By David Leonhardt
The modern idea of asylum stems from World War II. It is meant to protect people fleeing political oppression — Jews during the Holocaust, dissidents from the Soviet empire, Iranians after the revolution and, in recent years, Muslim Uyghurs, Afghans, South Sudanese and Ukrainians.

But asylum has expanded far beyond its original intent. Today, many migrants claim asylum even though they are not at risk of being persecuted. They instead want to move to the U.S. — understandably enough — because it is a richer, politically freer and less violent place than much of the world.

After migrants arrive at the U.S. border and request asylum, the federal government allows many to remain in the country while their cases are considered. The process can take years, partly because the system is overwhelmed and doesn’t employ enough border agents and immigration judges to decide cases quickly.

The situation has become self-reinforcing, giving more migrants reason to come to the U.S. As my colleague Miriam Jordan has explained:

It is not just because they believe they will be able to make it across the 2,000 mile southern frontier. They are also certain that once they make it to the United States they will be able to stay.

Forever.

And by and large, they are not wrong …

Most asylum claims are ultimately rejected. But even when that happens, years down the road, applicants are highly unlikely to be deported. With millions of people unlawfully in the country, U.S. deportation officers prioritize arresting and expelling people who have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety.

Two decades ago, the typical way that people tried to enter the U.S. without legal permission was to evade border agents. Today, the typical way is to surrender to agents and request asylum.

It’s true that migrants typically face difficult circumstances at home, but that alone doesn’t explain the recent surge. The 1970s and ’80s offer a telling comparison: Global poverty was far higher then than now, and much of Latin America was convulsed by political violence. Yet the number of people who tried to cross the U.S. border was far lower than in recent years.

The recognition of the asylum loophole (along with other factors, like social media and affordable airfares) is a major reason.

As a result, the U.S. now has an immigration system that permits many more entrants than Congress intended — and many more than Americans support.

Polls show that most Americans consider illegal immigration to be a serious problem and favor tougher border security. Mayors and governors, who are dealing with the costs and turmoil associated with the surge, are also unhappy. As Noah Smith, who’s generally pro-immigration, recently wrote on Substack, “Americans like immigrants, but they strongly dislike the idea of giving up popular democratic control over immigration.”

Until recently, Biden and many other Democrats were uninterested in passing such a law unless it also expanded legal immigration. Democrats, sensing their political vulnerability, changed their approach late last year and agreed to a bipartisan border-security bill — only to watch Republicans kill it at the urging of Donald Trump. Trump preferred letting the border crisis fester to hurt Biden. Yesterday’s executive order was Biden’s response.

Whatever happens in the courts, the executive order may reduce migration simply by sending a signal that Biden has become more serious about border security.

[Tero]

Republcans fall in line. Cartoon at link.
https://www.threads.net/@esa55jarvi/post/C71qfasxWbm

[Tero]

Guvment wants to ban free speech!

Here is a puzzle at the center of online life: How should we balance freedom of speech with the flood of slanderous statements, extremist manifestoes and conspiracy theories that proliferate on the internet? The United States decided decades ago to let private companies solve that quandary themselves. The Supreme Court made this position official in three major rulings in the 1990s and early 2000s.

But lawmakers aren’t sure about this arrangement, now that giant online platforms are the new town square. The left says Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and the rest should take more content down, especially hate speech and disinformation. The right says the companies, which removed posts about Covid and the 2020 election, shouldn’t set the rules for discussions about politics and culture.

Now a series of federal court cases will address these questions. Supreme Court justices will decide a few in the next month or two. In today’s newsletter, I’ll explain how those cases could change the way the First Amendment functions in the internet era.

Can the government force social media sites to host political content? Twitter, YouTube and Facebook suspended Donald Trump in 2021 after the Jan. 6 riot. Then Florida and Texas passed laws designed to restrict such moves. The Supreme Court will soon rule on those laws, and the justices appeared skeptical of them during oral arguments in February, my colleague Adam Liptak reported.
When can the United States push social media sites to remove content? The government prodded social media services to take down certain posts related to Covid and elections. Missouri, Louisiana and five individuals argued that’s a violation of the First Amendment. They say the government used private companies to stifle a specific viewpoint. The Supreme Court seemed wary of the lawsuit in March. The justices’ skepticism of conservatives’ argument is a sign of how complex it is to draw boundaries in this area of the law.

Courts have faced six broad questions about online speech. The Supreme Court has ruled on two of them.

When can social media sites be sued over what users post? Rarely. Two Supreme Court rulings last year kept protections in place for websites from most lawsuits related to content posted by users. Relatives of victims of terrorist attacks had argued that Google and Twitter should be legally responsible for content posted by the Islamic State. The justices disagreed.
Can government officials block constituents on social media? Sometimes. The Supreme Court ruled in March that public officials can’t stop a constituent from commenting on their posts if they are acting in their role as political officeholders.

What this means for users
With this many kinds of cases, the range of outcomes is vast. If the courts decide the status quo is wrong, internet platforms might limit what you can post — or take down more of it — just to be sure they are complying with the laws.

Another possibility: The courts could decide that they got this question right the first time they considered it, 30 years ago. Free speech online might not change much. But private companies would now formally be entrenched as its arbiter.

David McCabe NYT

[Tero]

Hunter Biden won't be on the presidential ballot. We don't elect felons.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

[Tero]

Biden 53% simulation:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

[Tero]

Sinclair owns hundreds of local stations. Bombarding viewers with senile Biden story all in the same week.
https://youtu.be/eAw8fEeARWU?si=suXYj2hK0hYFDg3t

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you hate freedum?