Biden DID NOT ignore immigration. He put together a bill with wide bi-partisan support and tRUMP told all the republiQans to vote against it so he could continue to use it as a campaign fear-mongering issue. Those feckless republiQans are the ones who ignored the issue.
I completely agree. Biden was a great president. He worked with, not against Republicans. But they are so afraid of the Felon that they shot the bill down.
I also agree with Thomas that there's no place for violence, for destroying other people's property.
You beat me to it. There was a bipartisan immigration reform bill on the table, waiting for a vote — at a time when a bipartisan ANYTHING is damned near impossible — and the Republican lickspittles in Congress (including but certainly not limited to Thom Tillis) tanked it because Bunker Boy Fat Donny Two-Times told them to.
How many years have GOP controlled Congress refused to even introduce legislation... much less take a vote on it? Trump killed the closest chance America has had on bipartisan legislation that could started honest conversations.
And yet, we have to preserve the constitutional order. People understand due process, not pitting the military against American citizens who are participating in the protests against their neighbors being treated brutally, and the like. How best to make those points?
I can agree with you on the fact that Bunker Boy will turn this into an excuse to expand his power — the specter of martial law is overnight all over this, and that’s why he’s poking the bear. He’s too stupid to have come up with something like that on his own but his chief advisor Vladimir Putin certainly a long enough view to put that game plan on the table. The only real hope we have is that Fat Donny is too incompetent to execute it, and too vainglorious to listen to the people around him.
We had a BIPARTISAN immigration bill, ready to go to the floor for a vote, and the Republican bootlickers tanked it on orders from Hair Furor. How often in this century has there even a bipartisan consensus on ANYTHING? That’s almost as rare as a 9-0 SCOTUS decision — like the one saying you can’t send a legal resident to a third world gulag with no due process. And ICE is simply finding every brown person they can see and slapping cuffs on them with no probable cause, and in some cases they’re even rounding up American CITIZENS. The pinnacle of this happened just this week when ICE Detained a FUCKING US MARSHALL, simply because he was insufficiently melanin deficient.
But if you pull back the curtain, the wizard you’ll see orchestrating all of this isn’t Donald Trump. Trump’s one and only concern is making sure everybody thinks he’s A Big Deal, A Serious Guy. And he’s using immigrants and his military cosplay to do it because it’s the shortest distance, and Steven Miller told him it would make the people love him. Miller and Russell Vought have their own agenda ( known colloquially as Project 2025) and they’re using Fat Donny to implement it because (a) he brings MAGA (abomi)Nation with him, and (b) he’s too puerile to realize he’s being played. Putin figured this out years ago, and we already now he was whispering in Tangerine Cthulhu’s ear the whole time he was sidelined during the Biden Administration.
I had hoped I would be wrong about this, but every day only makes me more convinced that this will ultimately devolve into civil war. Not the rock throwing and property damaging kind we’re accustomed to but a full on for-real shooting war. I’d love to be wrong, but the only way I see it not happening is if we simply roll over and give Fat Donny what he wants.
Far from being remembered as a great president, Biden and his administration will be judged as a terrible failure for many reasons. Anyone with half a brain could see that the border policy was a self evident disaster and had been for four years. But the time Harris got the nomination she herself never even had a policy to deal with it.
What are the reasons? The assertion that President Biden's tenure will be deemed a "terrible failure" is presented as an unequivocal fact rather than a subjective opinion. It is important to recognize that opinions differ, and everyone has their own perspective. Regarding border policy, the issue is too complex to be dismissed with a sweeping declaration of disaster. A more detailed and precise evaluation would be beneficial. A fair critique of Harris and Biden should consider their contributions to immigration policy throughout their administration, instead of focusing solely on the nomination period. If the intention is simply to express disapproval of President Biden, then the message is clear—however, if the objective is to encourage meaningful improvement, specificity is crucial.
No it was not. It was expressed as my prediction, not unequivocal fact. Where did you get that idea from? There are many reasons for my opinion. Border policy throughout the Biden tenure was feckless and ineffective. Everyone watched as immigrants casually strolled across the borders without impediment. I have relatives in those areas who repeatedly said that it was the only thing voters cared about there. It is true that the Republicans turned on the bill that had been negotiated in Congress, but this was very late in the term when presidential politics was in full gear. Perhaps the focus should have been there first, rather than with the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction legislation. Turning to those two bills that are always celebrated as victories: first, they were presented as bipartisan victories, which was nonsense. Second, the ineffective Administration failed to distribute the allocated funds and now Trump has his hands on them. Finally, Biden took way too long to get out of the race after violating his promise not to run again., He was manifestly impaired by the time of the first debate and, again (in MY OPINION), he and his inner circle failed to put the country first. Harris never stood a chance, though even she was woefully unprepared when she suddenly had to run. Specific enough ? I am confident that historians will take the same view over time.
Let’s keep the discussion grounded in the facts—it helps ensure clarity. I appreciate your perspective and understand your concerns. The Biden administration’s border policy has been the subject of debate, with many critics citing its shortcomings. However, some reports indicate that internal disputes and logistical challenges played a significant role rather than outright negligence.
Regarding the congressional bill, it’s true that Republicans shifted their stance late in the term, but political dynamics often influence legislative decisions. As for the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Acts, although they were framed as bipartisan wins, their rollout has encountered difficulties, including delays in funding distribution.
On Biden’s decision to run for re-election, while there was speculation that he might serve only one term, he never made a definitive public commitment to step aside. His debate performance raised legitimate concerns, but whether his inner circle failed to prioritize national interests remains a matter of interpretation. As for Harris, she entered the race under difficult circumstances, and her campaign faced steep challenges.
Historians will examine these events closely, but interpretations will likely evolve over time
Exactly—persuasion relies on facts, not condescension. If there's something specific that isn’t fact-based, I’d appreciate clarification rather than dismissal. Otherwise, dismissive only weakens the argument you are trying to make."
Both Trump and Biden exercised executive privilege. The direct object of the action, if emotion is obviated from the equation, is immaterial IMO.
For example, the "Long, hot summer" can be the 1967 period of civil unrest in the U.S., marked by over 150 race-related riots — a serious and pivotal moment in American civil rights history. Fact: I lived during the one in Memphis as a child and met Dr. King in my neighbor's father's church the night before he was murdered.
or
The Long, Hot Summer (Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, and Orson Wells) could be a movie based on William Faulkner’s works.
The civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s were fundamentally driven by racial and social justice concerns, rather than religious conflicts. While faith played a role in shaping leadership—especially figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—the uprisings and urban unrest were responses to systemic racial inequalities and economic disparities. The 1992 LA riots erupted after the beating of Rodney King and the unjust handling of a fatal shooting of a Black teenager by a Korean merchant, highlighting the failures of the justice system IN A NEGATIVE fashion.
In contrast, today's tensions involve White Christian nationalism, which asserts that the nation’s principles are inherently tied to conservative Christian values. This movement often promotes nationalism, restrictive immigration policies, and resistance to secular and multicultural influences, seeing them as threats to cultural cohesion. However, the U.S. Constitution ensures freedom of belief without religious discrimination, reinforcing that personal faith should not infringe upon the rights of OTHERS.
"No offense, but what truly undermines democracy is the Christian nationalist movement. Cloaked in extreme religious ideology, it distorts the very foundations of democratic values. Moreover, casts religion in a bad light. It has the calculated, strategic maneuvering reminiscent of something the late Lee Atwater might have devised."
No offense take. But I do despise collective attribution. Reminds of how some think all. Lack men in hoodies are thugs, or all whites are racist. I am a Christian and nationalist (not globalist). I do not fit as you describe. I'd rather spend loot taking care of my own than buying condoms.for cats in the third world. I mean I hate the dallac cowboys but love football.
While I normally agree with you Tom I have seen reports that the majority of people do not like what’s going on in LA. Majority of Americans do not believe immigrants who have been here for years and have families and are working should be deported.
My substack feed for the last couple of days has been filled with pundits and content creators just running with the assumption that the protestors committing vandalism or waving foreign flags are somehow the responsibility of Democrats. If this is just engagement bait, then congrats, mission accomplished I guess.
How does one know if these same protestors even voted in the last election? Do you think they're asking permission from Democrats before standing on a burning car waving a Mexican flag?
The vast majority of protests have been non-violent and peaceful - which, as of today at least, is still a right in this country. Dems in elected office, including Gov. Newsome appear to be condemning violence and vandalism *while also* rightfully calling out the Trump admin for its needless escalation and intentional use of this event as a catalyst for a brutal authoritarian crackdown on dissent of *all* kinds.
I agree with this. The protestors are not asking the permission of Democrats nor really getting it. Democratic leadership is, for the most part, trying to hide so that they don't get tagged with every picture of damage even as Republicans gain ground by painting them as responsible. This is the same tack that they took with pro-Palestinian protests and it failed then too.
The answer is not to tell the protestors to shut up and behave. They won't. The answer is for Democrats to publicly take a stand against the things Trump is doing that are illegal (i.e. troops in the streets), to publicly call for the rule of law, *AND* to continue calling out other issues like Trump's corruption, his cuts to Medicare, and threats to education. They need to be brave enough to stick their heads up and speak forcefully not hiding out or gathering in hotel ballrooms to punch left like the out of touch consultants that they are.
The problem as I see it is not that Democrats are facing protests. It is that they are not in touch with the base voters that they expect to show up (i.e. Palestinian Americans, the young, the working class, and anyone who is sick of watching families get ripped apart by ICE) nor are they actually getting support from the voters they want (mythical reasonable republicans which supposedly includes Tillis). Deprived of a meaningful connection they cannot articulate what they are *for* or advance a program to activate it other than lame talking points. This leaves Trump free to define them in the public's mind and costs them dearly. And it leaves those of us who actually want real policy left out.
Few could have predicted that white Christian Nationalists would amass such formidable sway. For most of their history, their ideas lived on the fringes—defined by hostility and rejection of the democratic values at our nation’s core—so level-headed observers routinely wrote them off. True faith should elevate us, inspire kindness, and bind communities together in a shared mission to improve life for everyone. Instead, this movement has become nothing short of an incubator for extremists and purveyors of hate.
OMG this was evident for thirty years. Were you following when the Federalist Society was formed? When white extremists started making threats as Obama got elected and re-elected? When the FBI warned repeatedly that the danger was escalating? The history before the Internet and social media is irrelevant. With those two developments fringes acquired massive voice. I agree with your assessment of them but I think you have not been reflecting on the history.
I concur. For a long time in much of the country, the Christian Nationalism movement was unknown, presumed to be tiny, and/or dismissed as a bunch of crazy faith healers and holy rollers. Often, many of the members of these congregations didn’t fully recognize their underlying predominately political aims. But the CN movement now dominates in its wide areas of influence, while the rest of society — including the shrinking mainline Protestant denominations and progressive Catholics — struggles to figure out what Chtistian Nationalism is and what its imminent threats portend.
Christian nationalism distorts religious principles to justify political power, portraying America as divinely chosen and advocating for governance based on a narrow interpretation of Christianity. This approach contradicts core Christian values such as compassion, justice, and service to others, instead fostering division and intolerance. The movement has been linked to extremist rhetoric and actions, including the January 6th Capitol riot, where Christian symbols were used to justify political violence. There is no justification for any organization that bases it's reality on beating up cops and destroying public property. We call that an insurrection and falls into the class of treason. (FULL STOP)
Biden DID NOT ignore immigration. He put together a bill with wide bi-partisan support and tRUMP told all the republiQans to vote against it so he could continue to use it as a campaign fear-mongering issue. Those feckless republiQans are the ones who ignored the issue.
I completely agree. Biden was a great president. He worked with, not against Republicans. But they are so afraid of the Felon that they shot the bill down.
I also agree with Thomas that there's no place for violence, for destroying other people's property.
You beat me to it. There was a bipartisan immigration reform bill on the table, waiting for a vote — at a time when a bipartisan ANYTHING is damned near impossible — and the Republican lickspittles in Congress (including but certainly not limited to Thom Tillis) tanked it because Bunker Boy Fat Donny Two-Times told them to.
Yes! Purely cynical act—and why is it never mentioned in news stories? He killed a bipartisan bill, yet claims it’s all Biden’s fault!”
How many years have GOP controlled Congress refused to even introduce legislation... much less take a vote on it? Trump killed the closest chance America has had on bipartisan legislation that could started honest conversations.
It is time we Democrats stopped blaming everyone else.
It's time the GOP addresses it's serious racism problem.
I won't hold my breath
And yet, we have to preserve the constitutional order. People understand due process, not pitting the military against American citizens who are participating in the protests against their neighbors being treated brutally, and the like. How best to make those points?
I can agree with you on the fact that Bunker Boy will turn this into an excuse to expand his power — the specter of martial law is overnight all over this, and that’s why he’s poking the bear. He’s too stupid to have come up with something like that on his own but his chief advisor Vladimir Putin certainly a long enough view to put that game plan on the table. The only real hope we have is that Fat Donny is too incompetent to execute it, and too vainglorious to listen to the people around him.
We had a BIPARTISAN immigration bill, ready to go to the floor for a vote, and the Republican bootlickers tanked it on orders from Hair Furor. How often in this century has there even a bipartisan consensus on ANYTHING? That’s almost as rare as a 9-0 SCOTUS decision — like the one saying you can’t send a legal resident to a third world gulag with no due process. And ICE is simply finding every brown person they can see and slapping cuffs on them with no probable cause, and in some cases they’re even rounding up American CITIZENS. The pinnacle of this happened just this week when ICE Detained a FUCKING US MARSHALL, simply because he was insufficiently melanin deficient.
But if you pull back the curtain, the wizard you’ll see orchestrating all of this isn’t Donald Trump. Trump’s one and only concern is making sure everybody thinks he’s A Big Deal, A Serious Guy. And he’s using immigrants and his military cosplay to do it because it’s the shortest distance, and Steven Miller told him it would make the people love him. Miller and Russell Vought have their own agenda ( known colloquially as Project 2025) and they’re using Fat Donny to implement it because (a) he brings MAGA (abomi)Nation with him, and (b) he’s too puerile to realize he’s being played. Putin figured this out years ago, and we already now he was whispering in Tangerine Cthulhu’s ear the whole time he was sidelined during the Biden Administration.
I had hoped I would be wrong about this, but every day only makes me more convinced that this will ultimately devolve into civil war. Not the rock throwing and property damaging kind we’re accustomed to but a full on for-real shooting war. I’d love to be wrong, but the only way I see it not happening is if we simply roll over and give Fat Donny what he wants.
And I’m not willing to do that.
Far from being remembered as a great president, Biden and his administration will be judged as a terrible failure for many reasons. Anyone with half a brain could see that the border policy was a self evident disaster and had been for four years. But the time Harris got the nomination she herself never even had a policy to deal with it.
What are the reasons? The assertion that President Biden's tenure will be deemed a "terrible failure" is presented as an unequivocal fact rather than a subjective opinion. It is important to recognize that opinions differ, and everyone has their own perspective. Regarding border policy, the issue is too complex to be dismissed with a sweeping declaration of disaster. A more detailed and precise evaluation would be beneficial. A fair critique of Harris and Biden should consider their contributions to immigration policy throughout their administration, instead of focusing solely on the nomination period. If the intention is simply to express disapproval of President Biden, then the message is clear—however, if the objective is to encourage meaningful improvement, specificity is crucial.
No it was not. It was expressed as my prediction, not unequivocal fact. Where did you get that idea from? There are many reasons for my opinion. Border policy throughout the Biden tenure was feckless and ineffective. Everyone watched as immigrants casually strolled across the borders without impediment. I have relatives in those areas who repeatedly said that it was the only thing voters cared about there. It is true that the Republicans turned on the bill that had been negotiated in Congress, but this was very late in the term when presidential politics was in full gear. Perhaps the focus should have been there first, rather than with the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction legislation. Turning to those two bills that are always celebrated as victories: first, they were presented as bipartisan victories, which was nonsense. Second, the ineffective Administration failed to distribute the allocated funds and now Trump has his hands on them. Finally, Biden took way too long to get out of the race after violating his promise not to run again., He was manifestly impaired by the time of the first debate and, again (in MY OPINION), he and his inner circle failed to put the country first. Harris never stood a chance, though even she was woefully unprepared when she suddenly had to run. Specific enough ? I am confident that historians will take the same view over time.
Let’s keep the discussion grounded in the facts—it helps ensure clarity. I appreciate your perspective and understand your concerns. The Biden administration’s border policy has been the subject of debate, with many critics citing its shortcomings. However, some reports indicate that internal disputes and logistical challenges played a significant role rather than outright negligence.
Regarding the congressional bill, it’s true that Republicans shifted their stance late in the term, but political dynamics often influence legislative decisions. As for the Infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Acts, although they were framed as bipartisan wins, their rollout has encountered difficulties, including delays in funding distribution.
On Biden’s decision to run for re-election, while there was speculation that he might serve only one term, he never made a definitive public commitment to step aside. His debate performance raised legitimate concerns, but whether his inner circle failed to prioritize national interests remains a matter of interpretation. As for Harris, she entered the race under difficult circumstances, and her campaign faced steep challenges.
Historians will examine these events closely, but interpretations will likely evolve over time
So what is not "grounded in facts"? Condescension is not persuasive.
Exactly—persuasion relies on facts, not condescension. If there's something specific that isn’t fact-based, I’d appreciate clarification rather than dismissal. Otherwise, dismissive only weakens the argument you are trying to make."
I honestly don’t see a difference between Al Qaeda and members supportive of the DNC at this point.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/mexican-and-palestinian-flag-waving
Could you clarify exactly where the similarities lie?
Both Trump and Biden exercised executive privilege. The direct object of the action, if emotion is obviated from the equation, is immaterial IMO.
For example, the "Long, hot summer" can be the 1967 period of civil unrest in the U.S., marked by over 150 race-related riots — a serious and pivotal moment in American civil rights history. Fact: I lived during the one in Memphis as a child and met Dr. King in my neighbor's father's church the night before he was murdered.
or
The Long, Hot Summer (Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, and Orson Wells) could be a movie based on William Faulkner’s works.
The civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s were fundamentally driven by racial and social justice concerns, rather than religious conflicts. While faith played a role in shaping leadership—especially figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—the uprisings and urban unrest were responses to systemic racial inequalities and economic disparities. The 1992 LA riots erupted after the beating of Rodney King and the unjust handling of a fatal shooting of a Black teenager by a Korean merchant, highlighting the failures of the justice system IN A NEGATIVE fashion.
In contrast, today's tensions involve White Christian nationalism, which asserts that the nation’s principles are inherently tied to conservative Christian values. This movement often promotes nationalism, restrictive immigration policies, and resistance to secular and multicultural influences, seeing them as threats to cultural cohesion. However, the U.S. Constitution ensures freedom of belief without religious discrimination, reinforcing that personal faith should not infringe upon the rights of OTHERS.
You tell no lie. I concur. I am one that appeals to fact and reason. Hope I do not offend you by agreeing with your. Articulation.
"No offense, but what truly undermines democracy is the Christian nationalist movement. Cloaked in extreme religious ideology, it distorts the very foundations of democratic values. Moreover, casts religion in a bad light. It has the calculated, strategic maneuvering reminiscent of something the late Lee Atwater might have devised."
Query, do you articulate I frequency similar concerns with islam? I mean throwing gays off buildings is foul imo.
No offense take. But I do despise collective attribution. Reminds of how some think all. Lack men in hoodies are thugs, or all whites are racist. I am a Christian and nationalist (not globalist). I do not fit as you describe. I'd rather spend loot taking care of my own than buying condoms.for cats in the third world. I mean I hate the dallac cowboys but love football.
Forgive me and my over simplifications.
Quinnipiac Poll, 11 June:
“Voters were asked about Trump's handling of seven issues...
“immigration issues: 43 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove, with 3 percent not offering an opinion;…”
It’s important to protest peacefully. It’s also important to let the price increases caused by Trump’s tariffs to hurt Americans’s pocketbooks
The Wapo poll I read today is a good deal more nuanced in its findings about American reactions to events in LA.
While I normally agree with you Tom I have seen reports that the majority of people do not like what’s going on in LA. Majority of Americans do not believe immigrants who have been here for years and have families and are working should be deported.
Trump's ICE crusade is the modern day equivalent of The Trail of Tears against the Cherokee People.
OR THE NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES
My substack feed for the last couple of days has been filled with pundits and content creators just running with the assumption that the protestors committing vandalism or waving foreign flags are somehow the responsibility of Democrats. If this is just engagement bait, then congrats, mission accomplished I guess.
How does one know if these same protestors even voted in the last election? Do you think they're asking permission from Democrats before standing on a burning car waving a Mexican flag?
The vast majority of protests have been non-violent and peaceful - which, as of today at least, is still a right in this country. Dems in elected office, including Gov. Newsome appear to be condemning violence and vandalism *while also* rightfully calling out the Trump admin for its needless escalation and intentional use of this event as a catalyst for a brutal authoritarian crackdown on dissent of *all* kinds.
I agree with this. The protestors are not asking the permission of Democrats nor really getting it. Democratic leadership is, for the most part, trying to hide so that they don't get tagged with every picture of damage even as Republicans gain ground by painting them as responsible. This is the same tack that they took with pro-Palestinian protests and it failed then too.
The answer is not to tell the protestors to shut up and behave. They won't. The answer is for Democrats to publicly take a stand against the things Trump is doing that are illegal (i.e. troops in the streets), to publicly call for the rule of law, *AND* to continue calling out other issues like Trump's corruption, his cuts to Medicare, and threats to education. They need to be brave enough to stick their heads up and speak forcefully not hiding out or gathering in hotel ballrooms to punch left like the out of touch consultants that they are.
The problem as I see it is not that Democrats are facing protests. It is that they are not in touch with the base voters that they expect to show up (i.e. Palestinian Americans, the young, the working class, and anyone who is sick of watching families get ripped apart by ICE) nor are they actually getting support from the voters they want (mythical reasonable republicans which supposedly includes Tillis). Deprived of a meaningful connection they cannot articulate what they are *for* or advance a program to activate it other than lame talking points. This leaves Trump free to define them in the public's mind and costs them dearly. And it leaves those of us who actually want real policy left out.
https://open.substack.com/pub/publis324843/p/the-democratic-party-is-not-working?r=7av8t&selection=f19d3484-a757-427f-8222-47b8cdaa9c38&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
Few could have predicted that white Christian Nationalists would amass such formidable sway. For most of their history, their ideas lived on the fringes—defined by hostility and rejection of the democratic values at our nation’s core—so level-headed observers routinely wrote them off. True faith should elevate us, inspire kindness, and bind communities together in a shared mission to improve life for everyone. Instead, this movement has become nothing short of an incubator for extremists and purveyors of hate.
OMG this was evident for thirty years. Were you following when the Federalist Society was formed? When white extremists started making threats as Obama got elected and re-elected? When the FBI warned repeatedly that the danger was escalating? The history before the Internet and social media is irrelevant. With those two developments fringes acquired massive voice. I agree with your assessment of them but I think you have not been reflecting on the history.
I concur. For a long time in much of the country, the Christian Nationalism movement was unknown, presumed to be tiny, and/or dismissed as a bunch of crazy faith healers and holy rollers. Often, many of the members of these congregations didn’t fully recognize their underlying predominately political aims. But the CN movement now dominates in its wide areas of influence, while the rest of society — including the shrinking mainline Protestant denominations and progressive Catholics — struggles to figure out what Chtistian Nationalism is and what its imminent threats portend.
Christian nationalism distorts religious principles to justify political power, portraying America as divinely chosen and advocating for governance based on a narrow interpretation of Christianity. This approach contradicts core Christian values such as compassion, justice, and service to others, instead fostering division and intolerance. The movement has been linked to extremist rhetoric and actions, including the January 6th Capitol riot, where Christian symbols were used to justify political violence. There is no justification for any organization that bases it's reality on beating up cops and destroying public property. We call that an insurrection and falls into the class of treason. (FULL STOP)