Congresswomen Denounce Trump Tweets Telling Them To 'go Back' To Their Home Countries

[Frank Underwood]

A group of four minority Democratic congresswomen targeted by President Trump in a series of Sunday morning tweets are denouncing his remarks as an example of "racism" and argued that the comments are "stoking white nationalism."

Weighing in on friction between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and four liberal Democrats dubbed "the squad," Trump referred to " 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen" in his tweets, saying they should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."

"So interesting to see 'Progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run," the president wrote.

Although Trump did not single the lawmakers out by name, four freshmen U.S. representatives known for their progressive views and recent tensions with moderate Democrats viewed the tweets as directed at them: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.

As members of Congress, all four women are U.S. citizens. All but Omar were born in the United States. Omar is originally from Somalia, from which she fled as a refugee before settling in the United States.

The quartet of progressive congresswomen shot back at the president.

Ocasio-Cortez, who was born in the Bronx to parents of Puerto Rican descent, said: "You are angry because you can't conceive of an America that includes us."

Pressley, who was born in Ohio and is black, responded: "THIS is what racism looks like."

Omar replied to Trump by accusing him of "stoking white nationalism." And Tlaib said, "I am fighting corruption in OUR country." She added: "Detroit taught me how to fight for the communities you continue to degrade & attack."

Tlaib was born in Detroit to Palestinian parents. In 2018, she and Omar became the first two Muslim women to ever be elected to Congress.

Trump's decision to highlight the simmering tension inside the Democratic caucus appeared to have one clear effect: uniting the party in defense of the four freshman lawmakers.

Pelosi said that with his tweets, Trump "reaffirms [that] his plan to 'Make America Great Again' has always been about making America white again," adding that Trump's "xenophobic comments" were intended to "divide our nation."

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who is Hispanic, said that despite being born in the U.S., he used to hear "go back to Mexico" growing up, an insult that he encountered even as an adult, despite serving in the Marine Corps and winning a seat in Congress.

"To people like Trump I will never be American enough. So if you wonder why I give no inch to these racists, now you know. Nothing will ever satisfy them, all we can do is stop them," Gallego said on Twitter.

For years, Trump pushed conspiracies that President Obama was not born in the U.S., even making the false claim part of his run for president in 2016. Trump finally conceded in September 2016 that Obama was born in the United States.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., linked Trump's advocacy of the birther movement to his Sunday comments treating his political opponents as outsiders who do not belong in the United States.

"Trump is now turning the same birtherism he directed at President Obama against women of color serving in Congress," Beyer said. "Everyone should call this what it is: racism."

Several members of the Trump administration who made the rounds on Sunday morning television programs refused to comment or acknowledge the remarks.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told CNN's Jake Tapper that he was not sure whom Trump was referring to in the tweets.

"I don't, I don't," Cuccinelli said.

Other Republicans remained silent on the Trump tweets. But Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who has called for Trump to be impeached and recently quit the Republican Party to become an independent, came to the defense of the four congresswomen.

"To tell these American citizens (most of whom were born here) to 'go back' to the 'crime infested places from which they came' is racist and disgusting," Amash said.

Trump responded to criticism on Sunday, tweeting that it was "So sad to see the Democrats sticking up for people who speak so badly of our Country."

"... Whenever confronted, they call their adversaries, including Nancy Pelosi, 'RACIST,' " he continued. "If the Democrat Party wants to continue to condone such disgraceful behavior, then we look even more forward to seeing you at the ballot box in 2020!"

Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/14/7416...-telling-them-to-go-back-to-their-home-countr

 

[Frank Underwood]

Pelosi said that with his tweets, Trump "reaffirms [that] his plan to 'Make America Great Again' has always been about making America white again," adding that Trump's "xenophobic comments" were intended to "divide our nation."

Pelosi's an opportunist. She obviously wants us to forget that the reason for the fight between the moderates and the progressives was over border spending and detention centers.

 

[Frank Underwood]

 

[Angela Channing]

I cannot explain how upset it got me to hear Trump attack Ilhan Omar and encourage his crowd of supporters to chant "SEND HER BACK". It was something thIt literally brought tears to my eyes. Why are prosecutors not looking at enforcing laws against inciting violence because that is ultimately what he is doing?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I cannot explain how upset it got me to hear Trump attack Ilhan Omar and encourage his crowd of supporters to chant "SEND HER BACK". It was something thIt literally brought tears to my eyes. Why are prosecutors not looking at enforcing laws against inciting violence because that is ultimately what he is doing?

He's been inciting violence at his rallies for four years. He even hinted at NRA folks assassinating Hillary twice.

 

[Zable]

"SEND HER BACK"

LOCK HER UP directed at Mrs Clinton worked for Trump in 2016 -- piggybacking off the division between the Clinton and Sanders camps -- where it was evident that he was also building his base with white politics. Lately he was trailing in the polls behind several Democratic politicians, and I've heard that his base is actually shrinking. I think his re-election team have advised POTUS to overtly use white politics to rally his 'troops' around him. ....They first tried to target Kamala Harris -- Eric Trump tweeting out in the midst of the 2nd night of the 1st round of Dem 2020 presidential debates (which was when Kamala came on) that he'd just learnt that she wasn't actually a Black American, and he referenced what another Black American said about her in his tweet -- but that backfired because he was accused of trying to use the birtherism card against her just like his dad had done to Obama. Truth is, Kamala was born in America and though her parents were immigrants and her mother was Indian, her dad was Jamaican. So the real issue about what the Black American had said about her was over how much black did one need to be to have the right to be called a Black American. ....It just seems to me that this rift between the Speaker of the House and The Squad, magnified by media for various reasons, provided Team POTUS with another more convenient target. The Squad have become a political tool. ...In many ways POTUS is a puppet, a figurehead with absolutely no idea how goverment works, being managed by various Republican groups to keep him out of the way while certain leading Republicans do the 'business' their way, all the while making sure he feels he's the one in charge. After his tweets at The Squad, his people put out polls that his popularity had risen 5 points. I suspect those polls are manipulated, that Team Trump have identified and brought together a core go-to group of pollsters who will vote in his favour. And here's the danger for Mr Trump. He doesn't know how much real support has gone down for him. He's living in a fool's paradise. ...The law will catch up to him one way or the other. The Department of Justice has guidelines that it has adhered to that you can't charge a sitting president. Only Congress can impeach him. But I think the law will catch up to him one way or the other. I suspect there's more revelations of wrong-doing to come soon, with the release of documents in the Cohen case (where speculation of a co-conspiracy trial to come is mounting) and perhaps extra testimony from Bob Mueller of stuff that isn't in his report now that the House has been given more time in each of 2 separate committee sessions next week to question him.

 

[Zable]

@Frank Underwood I take it that you'll be over the moon if Shahid Buttar wins.

 

[Frank Underwood]

@Frank Underwood I take it that you'll be over the moon if Shahid Buttar wins.

I've only recently discovered him, but I like what I've seen so far. The platform on his website certainly aligns with my views.

I especially like this quote from him: “The political spectrum is sliding to the left. I am here to recapture the Democratic Party for labor and the left. Under the Clintons, with Pelosi, the party was co-opted by capital.” It would be nice to have a Democratic Party that stood up to the Republicans for a change, instead of throwing the most vulnerable people under the bus.

 

[Zable]

Shahid has pegged his chances of winning to Bernie Sanders getting the nomination though.

ETA: Pelosi made an agreement with the Dem Party to give up the House Speaker's gravel in 2022. Why is there this push to get her out ASAP?

 

[Zable]

Pelosi's an opportunist. She obviously wants us to forget that the reason for the fight between the moderates and the progressives was over border spending and detention centers.

I’ll never forget that The Squad voted against 2 bills (including the House bill) that would have provided the badly needed funds to have eased, maybe relieved, the harsh living conditions at border camps that much sooner – just so that they could vote their principles not to support a bipartisan bill that was connected to a Republican border system that should never have existed in the first place, a system that broke. Were they secretly wanting the situation to worsen so they could have a case to show the world that the camps, with families separated, should never have existed/happened in the first place? Two wrongs don’t make a right and that should weigh on their conscience. They lost the moral high ground here.

ABC News Snapshot of interview with Rashida Tlaib: Circa 16: 56 mins – 22: 05 mins, but I suggest start from beginning (to mid-video where segment ends) for full context.

And, for deeper context: a video about the 2nd bill which was the Republican Senate authored bill that got passed with the support of the Dem leadership.

 

[Zable]

I cannot explain how upset it got me to hear Trump attack Ilhan Omar and encourage his crowd of supporters to chant "SEND HER BACK".

LOCK HER UP directed at Mrs Clinton worked for Trump in 2016 ...

I hope the crowd who were there come to find out that their idolized president has distanced himself from their actions and thrown them under the bus.

 

[Zable]

Weighing in on friction between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and four liberal Democrats dubbed "the squad, ...

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a media storm-in-a-teacup.

 

[Frank Underwood]

AOC and “the Squad” Are Actually the Sensible, Mainstream Centrists in Their Fight With Nancy Pelosi

The conflict between freshman House progressives, self-identified moderate Democrats, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now entering its third week. It began when Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and 91 other Democrats voted against a funding bill involving border facilities in late June. After the bill passed anyway with the blessing of Pelosi and numerous moderate Dems, members of “the Squad”—the poppy nickname that the four high-profile freshman reps have adopted—complained in harsh terms about what they saw as a pathetic cave, to which Pelosi responded by telling the New York Times that AOC et. al don’t have “any following” outside of “their public whatever and their Twitter world.” Additional arcane intracaucus feuding ensued on social media.

Now that even President Donald Trump has gotten involved—suggesting that if the four frosh are so disenchanted they should go back to the countries they “came from,” which for three of them would be the country of America—it’s worth going back to remember how this entire fight started. Was “the Squad” selfishly insisting that the Democratic Party take a radical, borderline un-American position at the expense of more vulnerable purple-district members—or were they reflecting what most of their constituents, and maybe even most voters everywhere, say they want?

The original dispute between the freshman lefties and the ostensibly pragmatic/moderate members of the “Blue Dog” and “Problem Solvers” caucuses turned on whether the House should have taken extra time to negotiate with the Senate in order to insert care standards and accountability measures, like a requirement that Congress must be notified within 24 hours after the death of a child in custody, into the border-funding bill. The progressives wanted to take the time to advocate for such concessions, while, in the words of the Washington Post, the moderates “wanted to see the House act to address the border crisis, not get locked in a conflict with the Senate, especially with Congress about to leave Washington for a week-long Fourth of July recess.” The Blue Dogs moreover wanted to protect funding for Border Patrol guards and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

You can see what the moderates were thinking: They would score a bipartisan feather in their caps by passing an administration-friendly bill that included money for “border security” in addition to humanitarian relief, just in time for America’s birthday.

Like many Democratic initiatives, this reasoning relies on a ’90s-style model of what the average voter wants—a collaborative relationship between the president and Congress, say, and conservative-leaning immigration policies. But that model doesn’t accord with polling in the Trump era. In 2018, large majorities of voters across the U.S. consistently told pollsters that they wanted to see a Democratic Congress elected to act as “a check” on the administration. This was true, as my colleague William Saletan pointed out at the time, not just in traditionally liberal areas but in swing states Trump won. In Arizona and Ohio, for example, voters—all voters, not just Democrats—said by 16-percentage-point margins (!) that their congressional votes were meant to “send a message that we need more Democrats to be a check and balance to Donald Trump” rather than to elect “Republicans who will help Donald Trump pass his agenda.”

Trump’s positions on border issues, meanwhile, are also landslide-level unpopular. A late-June CNN poll found that Americans disapprove of the way that Trump is “handling immigration” by a 57–40 percent margin, that 60 percent support “allowing refugees from central American countries to seek asylum in the United States” while only 35 percent do not, and that they choose “developing a plan to allow some people living in the U.S. illegally to become legal residents” over “deporting all people living in the U.S. illegally” 80 percent to 15 percent. The gap is too large to be just a partisan one, and a January Quinnipiac poll found that 50 percent of independents trusted Democrats in Congress more than Trump on the issue of border security against only 37 percent who trusted Trump, while an April Washington Post–ABC poll of “suburban” voters found that they disapproved, 42–33 percent, of the president’s “handling of illegal immigration.”

Given all of this, it would seem that the Democratic faction that’s playing smart politics is the one advocating for tougher oversight of the Trump administration on an issue where swing voters generally take the Dems’ side, and not the faction that wants to accommodate the administration and fund ICE.

While future attacks on “the Squad” may not be as overtly racist as Trump’s was on Sunday, it’s likely that he and other Republicans will try in 2020 to tie every possible Democrat to AOC/Omar/Pressley/Tlaib’s purportedly repellent brand of America-hating communism, while pundits will wonder whether their prominence is a sign that the party is headed for a George McGovern–style moment of disastrous overreach. But however far left their other policy positions may be, in this case, it was the alleged bomb-throwing extremists who were trying to get the Democratic Party to appeal to the mainstream center, and the alleged pragmatists who wouldn’t let them do it.

Source: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/aoc-nancy-pelosi-squad-mainstream.html

 

[Zable]

But however far left their other policy positions may be, in this case, it was the alleged bomb-throwing extremists who were trying to get the Democratic Party to appeal to the mainstream center, and the alleged pragmatists who wouldn’t let them do it.

Who among the 2020 Dem presidential candidates do folk here see the mainstream centre coalesce around, if any?

 

[Frank Underwood]

Who among the 2020 Dem presidential candidates do folk here see the mainstream centre coalesce around, if any?

If it wasn't for the media's relentless spin that Bernie's agenda "doesn't connect with minorities," and that he can't beat Trump because he's a "radical socialist," he'd probably be leading right now. According to the polls, his policies have certainly become mainstream. But like Hillary, Biden's being framed as the pragmatic alternative willing to "work across the aisle." And by that, I mean willing to push through the GOP's agenda. Of course, he's co-opted the term "progressive," even hilariously referring to himself as "the most progressive candidate." I'm sure that's sufficient for a number of voters who are unwilling to research the candidates' backgrounds. However, now that Biden's role in crafting the 1994 crime bill and his work with segregationists has received mainstream attention, I could see Kamala Harris being next in line. She certainly checks off all the boxes the establishment cares about. A woman of color who was "tough on crime" and is willing to work with big money donors, yet knows how to give mealy-mouthed lip service to the populist progressive agenda.

 

[Karin Schill]

I think Kamala Harris could be an interesting democratic presidental candidate next year. She is Trump's complete opposite!

 

[Frank Underwood]

I get why people like Harris. It's the same reason Obama was well liked. They know all of the right things to say, but their actions don't always match their rhetoric.

Kamala Harris Is an Oligarch's Dream Politician

California Senator Kamala Harris won the Democratic presidential debate Thursday night. It was not a close contest. She will win every debate she enters during this election cycle. If she becomes the nominee, she will win every debate with President Trump.

Night two of the debates was just as vapid and ridiculous as night one. Candidates interrupted and talked over each other a lot, questions about foreign policy were avoided like the plague to prevent NBC viewers from thinking critically about the mechanics of empire, and Eric Swalwell kept talking despite everyone in the universe desperately wanting him not to. Buttigieg and Gillibrand did alright, Bernie played the same note he’s been playing for decades, and everyone was reminded how bad Joe Biden is at talking and thinking.

Biden has been treated kindly by polls and regarded as a “frontrunner” in this race exclusively because for the last decade he hasn’t had to do anything other than be associated with Barack Obama. Now that he’s had to step out of that insulated role and interact with reality again, everyone’s seeing the same old garbage right-wing Democrat who sucks at making himself look appealing just as badly as he did in his last two presidential campaigns. By the end of the night, even Michael Bennet was slapping him around.

The moment everyone’s talking about was when Harris created a space for herself to attack Biden on his citing his collaboration with segregationists as an example of his ability to reach across the aisle and “get things done”. Harris had not been called upon to speak, and once given the go-ahead by moderator Rachel Maddow after interjecting went way beyond the 30 seconds she’d been allotted in tearing Biden apart. She skillfully took control of the stage and engineered the entire space for the confrontation by sheer dominance of personality, and Biden had no answer for it.

That’s the moment everyone’s talking about. But Harris had already been owning the debate prior to that.

The goal of a political debate is to make yourself look appealing and electable to your audience. You can do that by having a very good platform, or you can do it with charisma and oratory skills. It turns out that Kamala Harris is really, really good at doing the latter. She made frequent and effective appeals to emotion, she built to applause lines far more skillfully than anyone else on the stage, she kept her voice unwavering and without stammer, she made herself look like a leader by admonishing the other candidates to stop talking over each other, and she hit all the right progressive notes you’re supposed to hit in such a debate.

Unlike night one of the debates, night two had a clear, dominant winner. If you were a casual follower of US politics and didn’t have a favorite coming into the debate, you likely went away feeling that Harris was the best.

This wasn’t a fluke. Harris has been cultivating her debate skills for decades, first in the Howard University debate team where she is said to have “thrived”, then as a prosecutor, then as a politician, and she’ll be able to replicate the same caliber of performance in all subsequent debates. There’s more to getting elected than debate skills, but it matters, and in this area no one will be able to touch her.

Harris won the debate despite fully exposing herself for the corporate imperialist she is in the midst of that very debate. While answering a question about climate change she took the opportunity to attack Trump on foreign policy, not for his insane and dangerous hawkishness but for not being hawkish enough, on both North Korea and Russia.

“You asked what is the greatest national-security threat to the United States. It’s Donald Trump,” Harris said. “You want to talk about North Korea, a real threat in terms of its nuclear arsenal. But what does he do? He embraces Kim Jong Un, a dictator, for the sake of a photo op. Putin. You want to talk about Russia? He takes the word of the Russian president over the word of the American intelligence community when it comes to a threat to our democracy and our elections.”

Harris is everything the US empire’s unelected power establishment wants in a politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she’s like Obama, only better.

Harris was one of the 2020 presidential hopefuls who came under fire at the beginning of the year when it was reported that she’d been reaching out to Wall Street executives to find out if they’d support her campaign. Executives named in the report include billionaire Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray, 32 Advisors’ Robert Wolf, and Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly. It was reported two entire years ago that Harris was already courting top Hillary Clinton donors and organizers in the Hamptons. She hasn’t been in politics very long, but her campaign contributions as a senator have come from numerous plutocratic institutions.

Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the establishment, citing the open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for him. But the establishment doesn’t hate Trump because he opposes them; he doesn’t oppose existing power structures in any meaningful way at all. The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely because he sucks at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that America’s permanent government is constantly doing. He’s bad at managing their assets.

Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She’d be able to obliterate noncompliant nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She’s got the skills to become president, and she’ll have the establishment backing as well. Keep an eye on this one.

Source: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/k...hing-the-establishment-wants-in-a-politician/

 

[Zable]

Some of the things I would look for in a Dem presidential candidate:
Anyone under 60, centrist/progressive capitalist, have administrative experience of managing much more than 100 salaried people, play close attention on what tax dollars, whether from individuals or businesses, are being spent on, and attuned to the hardships from those in red states mainly dependent on welfare and food stamps. A unifying force for reform. Not consciously making race, gender or sexual orientation part of their playbook.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Some of the things I would look for in a Dem presidential candidate:
Anyone under 60, centrist/progressive capitalist, have administrative experience of managing much more than 100 salaried people, play close attention on what tax dollars, whether from individuals or businesses, are being spent on, and attuned to the hardships from those in red states mainly dependent on welfare and food stamps. A unifying force for reform. Not consciously making race, gender or sexual orientation part of their playbook.

Here's what I'm looking for in a Dem presidential candidate:

I'm more concerned with a candidate's health than their age. I want a candidate who fights to get money out of politics so that the politicians work for their constituents rather than their donors. When it comes to paying close attention to tax dollars, I want a candidate who will start with the military industrial complex. It's time to end increasing our already bloated military budget, as well as putting an end to unnecessary wars. I want a candidate attuned to the hardships of people in red states, as well as everybody else in the country. That's why I want a candidate who supports a living wage, won't make cuts to social safety nets, and will expand Medicare coverage to everybody. I want a candidate who will ensure that everybody can receive a college education regardless of income. I too want a candidate not consciously making race, gender, or sexual orientation part of their playbook, yet supports policies that would benefit people of all backgrounds by default. I want a candidate who will work to combat climate change. Ultimately, I want a candidate who is ambitious rather than the status quo.

 

[Zable]

I'm more concerned with a candidate's health than their age.

Fatique would be a telling factor.

When it comes to paying close attention to tax dollars, I want a candidate who will ... ensure that everybody can receive a college education regardless of income.

Being equally fair across the board vs Good use of precious tax dollars.... I wouldn't spend tax dollars funding or fully funding the tuition of children of the wealthy (unless they can prove they've been disinherited). Never mind if those tax dollars are not coming from Joe Public but from corporate taxes, possibly from Wall Street entitites. I'm open to them being allowed to receive scholarships based on academic merit though.

Ultimately, I want a candidate who is ambitious rather than the status quo.

All work and no play ...., lol. The status quo seems to me to be those who see the highest office in the land as their personal Mount Everest with nothing left to conquer.