Not that I generally approve of anything Senate Democrats do, but the fact that a $TRUMP is actually becoming a thing, really makes me wonder about the 48 Republican senators who "wouldn't" vote against giving it the permanent imprimatur of an act of Congress. Are they just crazy or am I missing something here? Thanks to Hawley and Paul for taking one for the country. Nothing in particular against Trump, but what if this were a Biden Dollar we're talking about? Sigh. Our so called government is such a mess.
Please see Paul Krugman's Substack column today. Cryptocurrency has no legitimate (non-criminal) use. It is enabling this President to take enormous bribes anonymously. This is major corruption. Cryptocurrency enables extortion and money-laundering. In short, there are MANY good reasons for Democrats to oppose this bill.
The media (mainstream and non-mainstream) spend no time on important issues until they become hot burner or partisan issues. They have forfeited their right to be a considered a “watchdog for democracy.”
Long before the current immigration situation, it was widely publicized that there were 11 million illegal immigrants. Few, if any, media sources engaged with the issue of what to do about them. Surely, some of that number did run afoul of the law. [I remember when it was routine to advise criminal defendants offering a plea that a conviction could affect their legal status.]
Now we have a heated demand mantra for “due process” without any serious impartial coverage as to what current due process requires. How long does it take to get a hearing? If the migrant does not qualify for some protected status, what then? How many appeals are there? How long does that take? What assistance, if any, does the migrant receive pending adjudication…work permits, Medicaid eligibility, etc. etc.
There is no coverage of this even now although most people concede that a large number of the recent migrants claiming asylum who crossed the borders do not qualify for legal status. The only “coverage” I see is sob stories. [Many of those stories feature people who are more attractive candidates for empathy and better qualify as champions of due process than the wife beater Garcia whose allowance for a deportation stay relies on a years old threat to his parents’ business, just as there are many more attractive spokesmen about our flawed immigration protocols than the current President.]
There is endless attention to the price of eggs. Why no coverage about those who thrive “under the table” or benefit from years of “waiting” for adjudication and the price of that reality--for democracy, for the economy, for our school system?
If we insist on being satisfied with heat over light, we deserve our fate.
Not that I generally approve of anything Senate Democrats do, but the fact that a $TRUMP is actually becoming a thing, really makes me wonder about the 48 Republican senators who "wouldn't" vote against giving it the permanent imprimatur of an act of Congress. Are they just crazy or am I missing something here? Thanks to Hawley and Paul for taking one for the country. Nothing in particular against Trump, but what if this were a Biden Dollar we're talking about? Sigh. Our so called government is such a mess.
Sigh. I'm with you. Sigh. What if we simply allow all Congressmen and the President to counterfeit $100's?
Gabe. Always with an insightful take that little else discuss 👍
Please see Paul Krugman's Substack column today. Cryptocurrency has no legitimate (non-criminal) use. It is enabling this President to take enormous bribes anonymously. This is major corruption. Cryptocurrency enables extortion and money-laundering. In short, there are MANY good reasons for Democrats to oppose this bill.
The media (mainstream and non-mainstream) spend no time on important issues until they become hot burner or partisan issues. They have forfeited their right to be a considered a “watchdog for democracy.”
Long before the current immigration situation, it was widely publicized that there were 11 million illegal immigrants. Few, if any, media sources engaged with the issue of what to do about them. Surely, some of that number did run afoul of the law. [I remember when it was routine to advise criminal defendants offering a plea that a conviction could affect their legal status.]
Now we have a heated demand mantra for “due process” without any serious impartial coverage as to what current due process requires. How long does it take to get a hearing? If the migrant does not qualify for some protected status, what then? How many appeals are there? How long does that take? What assistance, if any, does the migrant receive pending adjudication…work permits, Medicaid eligibility, etc. etc.
There is no coverage of this even now although most people concede that a large number of the recent migrants claiming asylum who crossed the borders do not qualify for legal status. The only “coverage” I see is sob stories. [Many of those stories feature people who are more attractive candidates for empathy and better qualify as champions of due process than the wife beater Garcia whose allowance for a deportation stay relies on a years old threat to his parents’ business, just as there are many more attractive spokesmen about our flawed immigration protocols than the current President.]
There is endless attention to the price of eggs. Why no coverage about those who thrive “under the table” or benefit from years of “waiting” for adjudication and the price of that reality--for democracy, for the economy, for our school system?
If we insist on being satisfied with heat over light, we deserve our fate.
Thank you, Gabe.