The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney said:
exhale, please!
I do not like the President’s twittering his statements daily. However, he has seen how the news is shredded with multiple interpretations . So, he thinks his tweets get his message out.
There are still ways to misinterpret tweets, so, I think there is danger there.
What HRC did was clandestine. Our President is using the internet to speak out.
Big difference.
Twitter has nothing to do with what that article was about.
What article? What did Hillary Clinton do?
Sometimes I actually do get LOST
mtierney said:
will sanctuary cities, such as Maplewood, be able to cope financially and provide for a percentage of the caravan? Housing, schooling, jobs, etc.? Without federal funds?
Forget about "sanctuary cities" and government funds. What do you think your Church should do regarding refugees fleeing violence and oppression?
I have to thank mtierney for allowing us to interact so closely with a Trumpist. It is endlessly fascinating and scary.
mtierney said:
exhale, please!
I do not like the President’s twittering his statements daily. However, he has seen how the news is shredded with multiple interpretations . So, he thinks his tweets get his message out.
There are still ways to misinterpret tweets, so, I think there is danger there.
What HRC did was clandestine. Our President is using the internet to speak out.
Big difference.
It's not about the President being on the Twitter. It's about the President having telephone conversations on an unprotected phone, which the Chinese and the Russians are able to listen in on.
So, is this a case of "Lock him up"?
drummerboy said:
I have to thank mtierney for allowing us to interact so closely with a Trumpist. It is endlessly fascinating and scary.
More scary, less fascinating.
After Obama defeated Romney in 2012 I do not recall Obama supporters even having a thought about Romney let alone bringing him up constantly.
What is this obsession with Hillary Clinton?
mtierney said:
I do not like the President’s twittering his statements daily. However, he has seen how the news is shredded with multiple interpretations . So, he thinks his tweets get his message out.
This may be his best tweet yet.
LOST said:
mtierney said:Forget about "sanctuary cities" and government funds. What do you think your Church should do regarding refugees fleeing violence and oppression?
will sanctuary cities, such as Maplewood, be able to cope financially and provide for a percentage of the caravan? Housing, schooling, jobs, etc.? Without federal funds?
My church, along with churches of many denominations, as well as numerous agencies through the country, will step up to the plate to provide for the thousands of people. Governments, however, cannot and should not let charities do what is government’s responsibility. We elect our government and we select our religious afflictions. Odd, that often maligned churches are assumed capable doing the governance needed.
Europe has seen and learned what open boarders can do to destabilize a country. We are a nation of immigrants (first generation here) and will always be a haven. Legal immigration is the answer. Forced absorption on demand by thousands of people will create havoc for cities and states and all will suffer. No way to run any government.
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
mtierney said:
LOST said:My church, along with churches of many denominations, as well as numerous agencies through the country, will step up to the plate to provide for the thousands of people. Governments, however, cannot and should not let charities do what is government’s responsibility. We elect our government and we select our religious afflictions. Odd, that often maligned churches are assumed capable doing the governance needed.
mtierney said:Forget about "sanctuary cities" and government funds. What do you think your Church should do regarding refugees fleeing violence and oppression?
will sanctuary cities, such as Maplewood, be able to cope financially and provide for a percentage of the caravan? Housing, schooling, jobs, etc.? Without federal funds?
Europe has seen and learned what open boarders can do to destabilize a country. We are a nation of immigrants (first generation here) and will always be a haven. Legal immigration is the answer. Forced absorption on demand by thousands of people will create havoc for cities and states and all will suffer. No way to run any government.
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
you do know that over the past several years, migration from Mexico has been net negative, don't you? In other words, more Mexican immigrants have returned to Mexico from the U.S. than have entered the U.S. The U.S. does NOT have an immigration crisis, either legal or illegal.
Not to say that there aren't some localized areas that are receiving more immigrants than they can handle. The federal government should be providing services in those towns and cities.
But we don't need a border wall, and we don't need to send troops to the border.
mtierney said:
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
An actual idea or start a plan on how to deal with immigration fairly and responsibly. As Barack Obama said "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."
mtierney said:
My church, along with churches of many denominations, as well as numerous agencies through the country, will step up to the plate to provide for the thousands of people. Governments, however, cannot and should not let charities do what is government’s responsibility. We elect our government and we select our religious afflictions.
That is not a traditional "Conservative" point of view. Conservatives have argued that it is not the Government's responsibility to take care of the basic needs of people, like food and shelter, but that same should be provided by the private sector including Religious institutions. It has always been Liberals who believe in the so-called "Welfare State".
Furthermore it has always been the position on both sides that immigrants should be self-supporting. Again as for actual refugees fleeing oppression and violence it is traditionally private and mostly Religious institutions who have taken care of them.
So when you ask
mtierney said:
will sanctuary cities, such as Maplewood, be able to cope financially and provide for a percentage of the caravan? Housing, schooling, jobs, etc.? Without federal funds?
I would answer that the people of Maplewood through civic organizations and religious institutions, without government funds, would step up and take care of our fair share of refugees.
So if anyone wants to help:
lord_pabulum said:
mtierney said:
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
An actual idea or start a plan on how to deal with immigration fairly and responsibly. As Barack Obama said "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."
I don't know of anyone who wants open borders, despite what Trump is saying. So Obama's statement is pretty much the position of the vast majority of Americans. But of course he said those words in 2005, when the word "pour" was more descriptive of reality than it is now, after several years of dramatic increase in the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In fact, there are estimated to be fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were just a few years ago.
One religious community's response:
https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/04/22/59879/why-is-this-passover-different-from-past-ones-thin/
Other religious teachings:
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2018/06/what-does-the-bible-say-about-refugees-and-foreigners/
Jeremiah 22:3
The Lord proclaims: Do what is just and right; rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor. Don’t exploit or mistreat the refugee, the orphan, and the widow. Don’t spill the blood of the innocent in this place. —(Common English Bible)
Hebrews 13:2
Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it! —(New Living Translation)
Isaiah 21:14
To the thirsty bring water; meet the fugitive with bread, O inhabitants of the land of Tema. —(English Standard Version)
mtierney said:
We elect our government and we select our religious afflictions.
Truer words were never spoken.
mtierney said:
exhale, please!
I do not like the President’s twittering his statements daily. However, he has seen how the news is shredded with multiple interpretations . So, he thinks his tweets get his message out.
There are still ways to misinterpret tweets, so, I think there is danger there.
What HRC did was clandestine. Our President is using the internet to speak out.
Big difference.
Thank you for your response.
As the others noted, the article was about Trump's use of his personal, unsecured iPhone to conduct the business of the Presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/trump-phone-security.html
Give it a read and let me know what you think in the context of the hoopla about HRC's email.
Republican John Kasich shared this thought this afternoon:
"We are Americans by the grace of God. It could have been us marching North to save our children. We need to stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight of others different than us."
Father James Martin shared this thought today, regarding sending troops to the border because of the migrants:
"I worked with refugees for two years in Africa. Let me tell you two things: 1) None want to leave their homes: they are forced to by war or poverty. 2) After their long exodus, they are sick, exhausted, malnourished and despairing. They need food and water, not guns and bullets."
Nice to
ml1 said:
lord_pabulum said:I don't know of anyone who wants open borders, despite what Trump is saying. So Obama's statement is pretty much the position of the vast majority of Americans. But of course he said those words in 2005, when the word "pour" was more descriptive of reality than it is now, after several years of dramatic increase in the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In fact, there are estimated to be fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were just a few years ago.
mtierney said:
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
An actual idea or start a plan on how to deal with immigration fairly and responsibly. As Barack Obama said "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."
We've read an inchoate plan from mtierney. The Republican plan is to enforce existing laws plus rescind DACA (but leave DREAM) and build a wall. Is there a Democratic plan besides the symbolic policies of the various "sanctuary cities"?
nohero said:
Father James Martin shared this thought today, regarding sending troops to the border because of the migrants:
"I worked with refugees for two years in Africa. Let me tell you two things: 1) None want to leave their homes: they are forced to by war or poverty. 2) After their long exodus, they are sick, exhausted, malnourished and despairing. They need food and water, not guns and bullets."
They also need medical care, (lots of it after months on the road)schooling in English, jobs,skill training, housing, transportation, children need to be in school. In proper receiving stations, they would immediately begin the process. We can do this and we should, but we have to it carefully, with planning and cooperation from sending countries.
My thoughts may be inchoate at this point — I am a little old lady after all — and I also ask where are the ideas from the left? Italy, Germany, France and Greece for example found out haste makes painful and dangerous waste.
I admire Fr. Martin. He is a good man.
bettyd said:
drummerboy said:More scary, less fascinating.
I have to thank mtierney for allowing us to interact so closely with a Trumpist. It is endlessly fascinating and scary.
point taken.
lord_pabulum said:We've read an inchoate plan from mtierney. The Republican plan is to enforce existing laws plus rescind DACA (but leave DREAM) and build a wall. Is there a Democratic plan besides the symbolic policies of the various "sanctuary cities"?
Existing laws allow people to come to the border and apply for sanctuary. The Republican plan is to allow that? (And Republicans have been in charge for nearly two years, so one would have expected the DACA/DREAM "plan" to have been enacted by now.)
lord_pabulum said:
Nice to
ml1 said:We've read an inchoate plan from mtierney. The Republican plan is to enforce existing laws plus rescind DACA (but leave DREAM) and build a wall. Is there a Democratic plan besides the symbolic policies of the various "sanctuary cities"?
lord_pabulum said:I don't know of anyone who wants open borders, despite what Trump is saying. So Obama's statement is pretty much the position of the vast majority of Americans. But of course he said those words in 2005, when the word "pour" was more descriptive of reality than it is now, after several years of dramatic increase in the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In fact, there are estimated to be fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were just a few years ago.
mtierney said:
Perhaps, instead of building a wall, Mexico and other Central American countries should construct strategic “Ellis island” reception areas. The US could help with the finances. Our Immigration officials could interview and process folks, etc.
An actual idea or start a plan on how to deal with immigration fairly and responsibly. As Barack Obama said "We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."
Why do we need a plan for something that is not a problem to begin with?
who would have thunk it!? From the Times, yet...
mtierney said:
who would have thunk it!? From the Times, yet...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/trump-health-care-infrastructure-midterms.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times&action=click&contentCollection=todayspaper®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
What a bunch of bull. Now he supposedly cares about pre-existing coverage? I didn't see nay concern when he was pushing to rescind Obamacare.
He cares about lowering prescription costs? If he did, why did he not tell congress he wanted the law changed that prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices with big pharma? He has no problem telling congress do to other things.
See how quickly he will forget about lowering health care costs or pre-existing after the midterms.
nohero said:
Republican John Kasich shared this thought this afternoon:
"We are Americans by the grace of God. It could have been us marching North to save our children. We need to stop putting up walls around ourselves and not understanding the plight of others different than us."
I have to applaud Gov. Kasich for this. If he were President I would almost certainly oppose most of his policies but I would not be worried, as I am now, that the Country was being destroyed.
exhale, please!
I do not like the President’s twittering his statements daily. However, he has seen how the news is shredded with multiple interpretations . So, he thinks his tweets get his message out.
There are still ways to misinterpret tweets, so, I think there is danger there.
What HRC did was clandestine. Our President is using the internet to speak out.
Big difference.