The photos of the "crowds" at the tank parade remind me of when Bill Hicks would come on stage in an almost-empty club, scan the room slowly, and announce "I've had more people in bed than this" ...
When the president sends a cabinet member on TV to announce "We are using the military to liberate an American city from its elected leaders," where do you go from there. What is left to say. The idea of that being anything short of a near-universal "Wait, what the fuck is going on" moment proves how far we've backslid.
This is from 2022 but it was absolutely right. The practiced buffoonery of Trump 1, all the "just kiddings" and "seriously but not literallys" absolutely succeeded in desensitizing people who are hardly paying any attention to the harder stuff they always intended to do next. ...
The basic fallacy in chasing votes by being "tough on immigration" is that the modal American's position on the issue is "Deport the Bad ones and keep the Good ones," and they alone know who is which, and that simply does not translate into workable policy. So this kind of gestapo stuff horrifies some of the same people who cheered when Trump promised to do it. There are true sociopaths who love this, but "No, I meant only the BAD immigrants! Not my coworker/friend/neighbor!" is as likely a reaction as enthusiasm. You cannot do immigration policy that satisfies these people because what they want is nonsensical.
So by the time center-left parties fully commit to chasing the far right by "getting tough" on immigration, the backlash has already begun to build and they walk right into it. "I thought you people wanted this!" No, they want something impossible and convinced themselves they'd could have it - the "eat whatever you want AND lose weight!" of immigration policies.
It is hard to grasp but large masses of Americans are both racist/xenophobic AND not racist/xenophobic enough to applaud what Trump is doing. It's goldilocks shit, they want a level of racism/xenophobia calibrated exactly to their personal preferences, and you just can't make that policy. Don't try. ...
AP: Trump extends olive branch, invites Musk to White House cellar to taste some brand new amontillado ...
Shane says:
I am willing to wager a substantial bit of money that most of my undergrads could have given a more intelligent response to this question. I don't think she can even name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.
Ed says:
How fucking hard is it to say "Boy, that Dred Scott decision sucked!"
Granted, she was asked to name a case she disagreed with and therefore couldn't whip out Bush v Gore or Brown v Board of Education, but for CHRIST'S SAKE. Not ONE? She can't even name another Supreme Court case that right-wingers hate?
Lawrence v Texas?
Hamdan v Rumsfeld?
Anything??
Kati says:
God, tomorrow is going to be better than my birthday. I CAN'T WAIT!
cerb says:
This isn't surprising considering she also can't name one magazine or newspaper that she has read over the past two years. To be honest I was just hoping for a slip of Brown v. Board of Education, but what can you do?
Brandon says:
The thing is, I think she still could have salvaged herself without naming a specific case, if she had at least given an indication of her judicial philosophy. I think a perfectly acceptable answer would have been, "Well, I don't want to single out a specific case, but I agree with John McCain that judges shouldn't legislate from the bench," or "Supreme Court justices should strictly interpret the constitution." The most appalling thing is that, aside from not naming a specific case, she doesn't appear to have ever given ANY thought to the role of the supreme court, to the point that she isn't even able to speak about the TYPES of decisions she opposes.