Skip to main content

Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:04 PM PDT

A possible cudgel for Obama...

by Avast Ye Swobbie

... to slap around the House Repubs on immigration reform:  He could issue an Executive Order declaring a moratorium on all deportations.  I'm not the first to think of this (Moratorium on Deportations Campaign), but I don't think I've seen it here at DKos yet.

Obama could say, "Law enforcement organizations will still arrest people for committing crimes, and those people will go into the justice system like anyone else, but we won't go after anyone just for being undocumented.  Anyone we're holding for that right now, we'll let 'em go – back to their families and the lives that they've made here.  We'll still do legal immigration the same way — issue visas at entry points, have the Border Patrol still do its job, etc.  But if people find a way to come in undocumentedly, well okey dokey.  Maybe after we try this for a while & see if it smooths things out, we'll even start issuing visas and green cards (not citizenship, just documentation) to people who've been here N number of years (who can prove it in some way – employment records, housing leases, utility accounts, whatever).  You, Congress, are falling down on the job of fixing the completely messed-up immigration system.  So okay then, if that's how you want it, as of now we have only a tiny little immigration system.  If you don't like it this way, then quit forking around and FIX the damn thing already."

The righties would immediately go all hissy-fit and whiny-baby, but maybe the ones with a modicum of sense would discover enough gonads to stand up to the loonies.

And another possible benefit might be that the ICE personnel who are currently dedicated to deportation activities could be reassigned to help deal with the refugee flood.  Then we wouldn't need that $3.7billion (not all of it, anyway) to staff up for that.

I reckon there's probably a down side that I'm not seeing.  Other than the obvious things that the R's will yell, like "too many immigrants" and "not enough jobs" (like they care about jobs).  They're usually wrong about cause-and-effect prognostications, though, like "tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves" and "privatizing government functions saves money" and "supply-side economics blah blah blah" and "they'll greet us with flowers; this war won't cost us a thing," etc.  Etc.  Etc.


I'd like to hear what anyone has to say on this.  Sorry I won't be able to respond to comments right away, but will have some time tomorrow to check back in.  


... and neither of them is "How much did he pay in taxes?"  I don't really care about that.  I also think it's unlikely he did anything illegal -- the IRS should've caught it if he did.  The 2009 amnesty?  That would be interesting to find out, but that's not one of my two Qs either.

The two questions I have, that would be answered by his releasing several years of returns, are these:

1.  Has Romney been telling us the truth about what's in there?  Given that in the past he has been caught lying about his tax returns (2002, running for Mass. governor, as reported by Rachel Maddow, video below), I suspect there's a fair chance that the answer to this Q is "no".  But I could be wrong; he could be sticking to the truth this time.  But I want us to see for ourselves.  ("Trust, but verify" -- one of the very few things Ronald Reagan ever said that I agree with.)

2.  It's a non-specific "everybody knows it" kind of thing that our tax code is unfair, biased in favor of rich people.  My question here is, just exactly how bad is the bias?  (If it's there at all.)  I want details.  I want numbers.  Romney's returns will show us some numbers.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Here's what has me worried -- that the election will all come down to the efficacy of the Republican Cheating Machine.  It's pretty clear by now that Romney can't win a straight-up fair vote.  So the only reason they still have any hope at all is, how well can they cheat?

Just how much cheating has the GOP already got in place, and how much more will they manage to get set up before November?  vs how much of it will get shot down?

• New Republican-enacted Voter ID laws.
• New Republican-enacted restrictions on early voting.  
• Purges of voter rolls that target Dem voters.
• "True the Vote" polling-place intimidation squads.  
• Republican partisans running local elections, who arrange for inadequate voting stations in Dem precincts.  
• Voter registration drives that sign up only Romney supporters.
• Fraudulent registrations.
• Fraudulent absentee ballots.

... and maybe other tactics, too, that they've managed to keep secret thus far.  

Setting up this machine has been up near the top of the GOP's priority list since they seized power in 2010.  They have lots of money behind their efforts.

When I view Romney & Co. thru this lens, this is when I get really scared.  They KNOW they have good solid cheating all set up and ready to go.  It's the thing that gives them the possibility of a win.  And they DO seem to think they can win.  


Wed Aug 15, 2012 at 07:27 AM PDT

Voter fraud maybe DOES exist?

by Avast Ye Swobbie

I keep wondering why the Repubs are so fixated on the possibility that voter fraud is being committed by the Dems.  Maybe it's because the R's are doing it themselves, and they just assume that the D's must be doing it too.  If the R's are doing it, it's probably by absentee/mail-in ballots.  Requiring photo ID cards at the polls won't touch that.  

(Funny how they keep running around shouting "massive voter fraud, oh dear oh dear!"  Maybe they know more than they are letting on.)

So here is what I wonder:  Generally speaking, what is the level of verification that elections boards use to accept mail-in ballots?  What sort of oversight is going on out there?  

And why aren't the Repubs making the least bit of a fuss about the possibility of mail-in voter fraud?

(who is abysmally ignorant about most elections processes.  Sorry about that.  Just thought I'd throw this out there, since I haven't seen anyone else do so.)


Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:37 PM PDT

Maddow eyeroll

by Avast Ye Swobbie

She was reporting something about the Repubs.

While watching the episode this came from (last fall), I had to re-run these few seconds several times, just to see her do this great expression again.   Made me smile and laugh and smile.  A lot.  Then I kept remembering it for several days, till finally I had to go back and find it and grab a screenshot for keepsies.  And now for sharesies, now that I have finally fingered out how to do it.  (My pic file's creation date & time is 9/29/11 2:07 AM.  The ep was a few days earlier.)  

I still had the video and could screen-grab it because, not having a TV machine, I watch Rachel on my computer via podcast thru iTunes.  I wish MSNBC would put out some of their other shows that way.  Chris Hayes!  And Whatsername with the cornrows.... it'll come to me in a minute.... dum de dum ....  Melissa!  Melissa Harris-Perry.  Who used to be Melissa Harris-Lacewell.   (Keith Olberman was a podcast too, while he existed on MSNBC.)

Hey MSNBC!  Why only Rachel is a podcast?  Enquiring lefty-non-TV-owners want to know!  And want to watch the other progressive talking heads!  Please?!

Slightly crooked orange curlicue thingy concludes this post.


How has it ALREADY affected straight people?  Even just having the discussion about it -- right now, when gay marriage is not yet legal everywhere -- how has that already affected "traditional marriage"?

The righties claim that gay marriage will somehow undermine and destroy traditional marriage.  To this I say:  Au contraire, Pierre!  Not only is there a complete lack of bad effect on straight marriage.... there's a positive GOOD effect.  Gay marriage SUPPORTS and STRENGTHENS traditional marriage.

Here is something I've observed in my half-century-plus of hanging around on the planet:  All this fooforah over gay marriage is making some (maybe a lot of) straight couples sit up and take notice.  Take notice that there actually might be good reasons to get married, rather than just living together.  That marriage has value.  That it is more than "just a piece of paper."  

The gay folks have been articulating this really well, this last decade or so -- better than I ever heard it articulated by straight people, back in the olden days when gay people had no reason to think marriage would ever apply to them.  I guess it takes being denied something to really be able to see its value, better than those who can just take it for granted.


Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 11:24 PM PDT

Some say....

by Avast Ye Swobbie

Oh I just ITCH to be a guest on some Fox News program.  When they say something like "Some say Obama is a Kenyan, a socialist, a Muslim..." (or whatever), I'll answer thusly...

Me:  "Some say"?  Who says?  Direct quotes and attributions please!

Fox bod:  [sputter sputter]

Me:  You purport to be journalists here, don't you?  [brief pause; possibly more sputtering] Because without direct quotes and attributions, "some say" [with air quotes] -- that isn't journalism.  It's gossip.

Fox bod:  [sputter sputter]

Continue Reading

Sat Feb 25, 2012 at 08:07 AM PST

God-given rights?

by Avast Ye Swobbie

"God-given rights," the Republicans keep saying.  But that makes no sense.

(Assume for the sake of argument that we believe in some sort of God.)  If rights were God-given, then everyone would have them automatically.  Or, if you're one who'd exclude people whose beliefs don't match yours, you'll still have to agree that all your co-believers would have these rights.  

But they don't.  Whatever your religion is, there are members of it somewhere in the world who are being persecuted, and who don't have the same rights you do.  

Here's what rights actually are:  Human-claimed.  Human-demanded.  Human-fought-for.  And human-protected, or else human-lost -- taken away by other humans.

I think there is only one right that actually is God- (or whatever-) given:  The right to breathe.

Continue Reading
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site