Regarding TDS, I honestly don't think in this case people are necessarily bitching about his policy but about how that policy is relayed.

1-2 days ago Trump was all talk regarding going to war. "We know who did it, we're ready to fight," etc. Today, he backtracks BOTH of those statements PUBLICLY.

The same people who chided Obama for his red line statement are going to be on the DR praising Trump for his careful handling of this situation.

As for me, I'm happy to not go to war. This is the right way to approach a problem like this. But also, you can't broadcast 1. that you're going to attack, and 2. that you're going to attack when ANOTHER country says it's time, and then back off and be like, "Meh, I think maybe caution is the right answer here." The problem is not really Trump's policy; it's his PUBLIC inconsistency in creating any sort of a unified response to this attack.

If the people can be trusted to make the "right" decision the first time, why shouldn't they be trusted to make the same "right" decision with a second referendum? If you oppose a second referendum, it can only mean a few things:

1. You don't trust the people's vote, which begs the question why the first vote should be valid in the first place.
2. You're worried that additional information voters might receive between the two referendums will sway them from the original result, which sure seems like you're afraid of information.

I understand the counterargument that elections have consequences and you can't have a do-over for every vote you disagree with, but it seems that with an issue this complex and impactful, careful deliberation and assurance of the will of the people would be seen as a an admirable goal and not something to be avoided.

With all due respect, while both actions are shady AF, putting your fingers on the scale is clearly not the same as throwing the scale out altogether. You implied they were the same thing; they're not.

#24 - fair enough.

*revision: "...not here to comment on the content of the article..."

22 posts so far. 17 are a r-wing-----------.

No, I'm not here to comment on the content of the thread - just to observe the self abuse.

People have Obama forced on them

Yeah. Winning two presidential elections with both an electoral college majority and a popular vote majority is reeeeaallllly "forcing" Obama on us. Thank God I survived. It was a really horrific 8 years, what with the tan suits and Beer Summits and whatnot.

Jeff,
I appreciate your response. A couple thoughts:

1. I understand the hesitation around "Because Trump" as reasoning, but I think you're oversimplifying the matter. Context matters, the speaker matters, statements are not made in a void. When a person who has a troubling history of racist remarks makes another remark that COULD construed as racist, they have lost the benefit of the doubt. It matters that it's Trump who said it, so yes, these remarks are racist at least in part "because Trump."

2. I agree that women, people of color, and other marginalized groups are not above criticism. But when that criticism is worded as a racist/nativist attack, it's not criticism; it's an attack.

Jeff,
Telling US citizens to go back to where they came from (which I hope you can agree implies country of origin and not home district) indicates that the person does not belong here. Now, given the context of the speaker and the people about whom the person is speaking, most of the posters here are presuming that the reason that they don't belong here is not ideological, it's race or country of origin. As has been previously noted, Trump has not made similar statements to other people with whom he has had political disagreements or squabbles. He specifically targets four women of color. You can play a hypothetical game and question whether a similar statement made about white men would be racist, but here's the thing: the comment was made about four women of color, Trump has a troubling history of veiled or overt racist comments, and context matters. I respect you as a poster, generally, but I do not respect your unwillingness to connect these pretty obvious dots. Trump is implying that these women do not belong in America. Why do YOU think Trump would imply these women don't belong?

Jeff- do you REALLY think Trump means their home districts when he tells women of color to go back from where they came from?

To tie this into a previous thread, a perfect example of how Republicans enable Trump is their absolute silence on these clearly racist and offensive tweets. I totally get that there's a tendency no to hit against your team in Washington, but at a certain point there should be behavior that's recognized as beyond the pale. Should be. That type of behavior has come and gone do many times for Trump that it would be impossible now for them to suddenly wake up.

I'm reminded of a quote from Macbeth:
"... I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er:"

Reminder that Macbeth was not a good guy in that play.

My understanding is that dems voted against because they wanted stiffer penalties.

If I can intervene as a 3rd voice...

I THINK Jeff's point (feel free to correct me here) is that Republicans are behaving no differently from a legislative standpoint than they would if it had been Jen Bush or Chris Christie or (God forbid) Ted Cruz in the Oval Office. If their legislative priorities haven't really changed (tax cuts and voter suppression ... is there really anything else?!), then they shouldn't be seen as "enabling" Trump.

I think Danforth et al's point is that Republicans don't hold Trump accountable to pretty much anything in terms of behavior, his businesses, tax returns, public statements, policy, etc., even if these types of behaviors would be career-ending for any other politician. This "enables" Trump to not only continue being Trumpian but to actually escalate his behaviors for lack of political consequences. Occasionally we get someone like Ryan or Romney who DO say something, but it's ALWAYS in the least consequential way possible.

Same thing happened to me this morning, and I'm on a smart phone. Seems fine now. Looking forward to an "official" explanation. :-) Most of the tech stuff is over my head when Rcade and others get into it, but I find it interesting nonetheless.