The Real timschochet

Clinton was wrong. Many Democrats have been wrong on this issue IMO including and especially Barack Obama. But no Democrat or Republican has ever been as wrong on this issue as the current administration. They are taking horrors to new levels and in the name of humanity they need to be stopped (legally and peacefully through protests, public opinion, and ultimately elections.)

No I‘m not. I know what he said T the debate and I agree with that statement but he has a rather long history on this subject:

It’s mainly because of his views on immigration, both legal and undocumented. They’re similar to Trump’s. As you probably know that’s a core issue with me, I can’t abide any politician who targets undocumented immigrants as scapegoats.

Pretty close at this time. I’ve said it before: all hands on deck. I regard Donald Trump and the MAGA movement as an existential threat to all the things about America that I cherish. Therefore I’m going to support nearly any political candidate opposed to him. There are exceptions but not many.

I don’t think anyone should be tied to “foundational upbringing” that ends when you’re 5 years old. It’s true that the Sharia law practiced by Muslims in Uganda is antithetical to our Democratic system. But what you fail to mention is that Democratic socialism, as preached by Mamdami, is also antithetical to Sharia law. Mamdami cannot be both a radical Muslim and a Democratic socialist. The two are vastly opposed. And Democratic socialism, though I reject it, is NOT antithetical to our democratic system or western ideology in general.

I think people who contribute to this thread, especially conservatives, fail to recognize the source of Mamdami’s appeal. In one word, its affordability. He’s promising to bring down prices in New York City. That’s it. People aren’t voting for him because he’s a socialist. And they don’t care about his views on Palestine. They’re voting for him because he’s offering solutions to lower prices. Now personally I don’t think these solutions will work. Most of them he won’t have the power to enact, and the ones he does won’t be very effective IMO, but then Mamdami is a Democratic socialist and I don’t believe in socialism, price controls, government ownership of goods, all the stuff he is proposing. It doesn’t work. Even so, he seems like a good guy, he opposes Trump, so if I was living in NYC I’d vote for him, especially given the alternatives. I could not vote for him, whatever his other views, if I believed like @jerryskids that Mamdami is a fanatical Islamist Muslim and an anti-Semite. But I don’t think either of those are true.

I haven’t done that this year, though I have before. I informed the family from Afghanistan we have helped that if they lose any benefits my wife and I will help them more than we already do. However as Newsom plans to protect California SNAP recipients that hopefully won’t be necessary.

Trump makes deal with China. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/live-trump-xi-meet-south-korea-trade-2025-10-30/ Essentially if the reports are true this new deal gains us nothing that we didn’t have a year ago, it’s basically Trump tacoing again. Still it’s good news especially for the soybean farmers.

I get it but there are other factors to consider. Republicans are willing to let people go without SNAP benefits. Personally I’m not. I don’t like seeing anyone suffer. I would rather have the Dems give in, and see people fed, and deal with the fallout later on. But that’s just me.

They’re going to lose it anyhow.

Not a lot of people- the same 4-5 people. Yourself @shadrap @seafoam1 @supermike80 @Strike Probably a couple of others. You all have a few other things in common as well.

You make an interesting point about recent African immigrants. There are certainly long lasting cultural elements among American blacks that contribute to their problems more than any current racism that exists- (though I do believe that current racism DOES exist and is still a factor) and you list most of them- high crime rates, single family homes, glamorization of crime, etc. However my argument is that all of these problems were created by the history- 300 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow- and therefore it is still our collective responsibility to fix. The white conservative always says to me, “it’s been 50 years since the Civil Rights Act and I had nothing to do with Jim Crow. Why is this my problem, and when does it stop being my problem?” My answer is never. It will always be our problem and our responsibility.

It’s a waste of my time to have arguments with people who refuse to accept nuance and implication. If you choose to see me as a liar go ahead. It only highlights your narrowness and limitations while failing to impugn my honesty.

Of course it won’t happen. But if it doesn’t it only makes the Republicans look worse. If the Dems open the government back up and the Republicans then refuse to negotiate on ACA then the Dems are blameless. Politically it’s a win win. On the other hand if the Dems continue to hold out at some point the public is going to blame them too. Do you see? I don’t believe you Chamberlain analogy is applicable in this instance.

Yes black Americans remain among the poorest of Americans. Historically black Americans have also been the most mistreated of Americans along with native Americans who are also among the poorest of Americans. Isn’t it obvious at this point that there is a connection between the mistreatment of these people and their economic plight? Unless you believe that there is an inherent reason for their poverty (the definition of racism).

The Democrats have won this battle in terms of public opinion…so far. But that’s not going to last IMO. Very soon it’s going to be “a plague on both your houses” with Dems being blamed as much as Republicans. I think the Dems should at this point consider voting for the CR. They can explain to the base that they didn’t want to see people lose their SNAP benefits. The base will be angry but it will quickly be forgotten because (1) the health care premiums will go up and the public will nearly unanimously blame the GOP (2) prices will continue to rise and the public will nearly unanimously blame the GOP (3) if Democrats do this it will immediately force Johnson to open the House which means a vote on Epstein which will cause that scandal to rise to the forefront again. I think the Dems have gained as much as they can out of this shutdown and should now appear to be the adults in the room. Just my take and they don’t listen to me.

I didn’t make it up. Did he say that exact line? No and I never claimed he did. Did he heavily imply that argument on a constant basis? Yes, as shown. Did conservatives lap it up and still do? Yes as shown in this very thread.

I’ll stop there because I don’t like to speak ill of the dead- whether it’s Rush Limbaugh or Charlie Kirk. But my point stands- conservatives have held false views about food stamp recipients for a long time which border on racism. That’s why @peenie’s posts in this thread have been so accurate and so important. She is setting the record straight.

And this article refers to Limbaugh suggesting that food stamps are a means to increase illegal immigration- the “Lazy Mexican” part: https://wildcat.arizona.edu/99132/uncategorized/food-stamp-fallacy-an-insult-to-mexican-americans/

Or here’s one when Limbaugh claimed that the real purpose of food stamps is “reparations for slavery”: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/colorofchange-takes-on-rush-limbaugh-and-gop-racism/

Feel free to Google “Rush Limbaugh and food stamps” and be prepared for about a thousand offensive quotes in this general direction. My favorite is probably this one: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rush_limbaugh_454800

I know. I am personally opposed to these restrictions.

Well that was my point. My answer to your question is yes. Term limits on nobody. But I want them on Supreme Court justices because that is an appointed position not an elected one. I don’t think any appointments should be for life.

Again, pointing out the age of these people and any possible deficiencies is a legitimate topic- but I think one the voters should decide. If someone from Kentucky says to you “I’m well aware how old Mitch McConnell is and how he sometimes isn’t all there, but I like his politics and I trust him and I want him to remain as my senator” why should you or I have the power to say no?

It’s two years so that the House is more devoted to pleasing the public whereas Senators are allowed to make their own decisions. I think the Founding Fathers were wise to do it that way. But I strongly disagree with your other point. If the good people of Iowa want to keep electing Charles Grassley every 6 years why shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? Just because he’s old as fock and I don’t like his politics, too bad, that should be their right to decide.