Emmer is not anti-Jews.* If anything, he is too pro-Zionism.
But he is laughable characterizing those three men as "far-left." As laughable as his predecessor in MN CD6. Better behaved, but in this instance as laughable.
Wholly unrealistic, is what he is.
A bad judge of people.
Remember, before circumstances shifted, his favored crypto witness was Jewish. A witness he praised for guardrails against fraud.
_______________
*The term "antisemite" is avoided. It offends. Arabic is a Semitic language and the Palestinians are Semitic people. Hence Israeli oppression of conquered Palestinian Arabs, the Israeli nation's apartheid is quintessentially antisemitic. Better usage = anti-Arab, or anti-Jew. That clears ambiguity. Moreover, Ashkenazi Jews are not entirely Semitic but genetically a Semitic and European mix. Yiddish is not a Semitic language. Hebrew is.
This is a read and decide, including slant of headlines, choice of photos, and all other ways to disadvantage a candidate. The other side of things; the reality is he's that bad.
Someone in an email exchange earned a hat tip by pointing out there may be a first, possibly, a Floridian as President. My wondering had DeSantis in mind. However, Trump lives at that Mar-a-Lago doc-dump site now; not Trump Tower.
................................................
Biden, however, is not from Florida, and as incumbent, has a firm chance to put Delaware again into the White House.
Joe is as fine for another four years as he was going into 2021. He's handled the job well. He will be nominated. He will win. He will serve the full four years.
Would I have liked better? Sure. Bernie. But compromise is how I voted in November, lesser evil, and sometimes you get not what you'd expect; but better.
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.)
is meeting with donors in New York next week to discuss a possible
long-shot primary challenge to President Joe Biden in 2024, Politico and NBC News reported Friday.
Phillips,
a moderate Democratic member of House leadership, is “highly unlikely
to mount a primary challenge unless Biden’s health worsens or his
political standing drops precipitously,” according to Politico’s Jonathan Martin.
The 54-year-old Minnesota congressman has been outspoken about the need for younger leadership in the Democratic Party. Last year, he said the
80-year-old incumbent shouldn’t run for reelection even though he
considered him “a man of integrity, competency” who has “done an
outstanding job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.”
Biden would be 82 at the start of his second term should he win reelection. A USA TODAY/Suffolk University
poll conducted last month found that 37% of Democratic and independent
voters say the president’s age makes them less likely to vote for him.
“If he were 15-20 years younger it would be a no-brainer to nominate him,” Phillips told Politico
in an interview earlier this year. “But considering his age it’s absurd
we’re not promoting competition but trying to extinguish it.”
Multiple outlets carry the story.
For it to be a real story Phillips would have to name donors he'd meet with, and then after returning - we see what he says.
It reminds me of those red wall fixtures, "In case of fire break glass."
If some of the GOP House laptop stuff, and the Grassley released FBI memo end up somehow sticking to Biden, it might be party-wise to have someone in reserve who nobody has heard of and who has no skeletons rattling in a closet.
Not RFK Jr., not Ms. Wlliamson, not Ms. Harris.
Harris would be the obvious "successor" should something run amiss, but Phillips would offer another option. One some might welcome.
It seems an overreach, and to grow legs there'd have to be a donor besides Bloomberg, who nobody likes. That said, Biden remains as bright as ever, his linguistic excursions date back to his first Senate term, and he'd have no trouble making it to 2028. This age stuff is overblown. Phillips is correct that new blood would liven things; he has seen Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn; and there is room for improvement given that threesome.
In fact, the party needs to reach to a lower age than Phillips. AOC comes to mind in that measure. Between those two there is a wide political gulf, and we know all about that. At least Phillips was not among that pack of on-cue quitters from 2020, who all were stalking horses to waylay Bernie or Liz, and to quit on cue when Clyburn said, "South Carolina, Biden is the one."
It was the sort of thing one remembers, and Minnesota could use new blood representing the State in the Senate. Some non-dumpling. A progressive.
But Phillips was not a part of that mischief. If real donors show real interest, good. As an understudy in the wings. In case . . .
Phillips already knows Jake Sullivan, and would not pick idiots as Trump did.
In case of fire, break glass!
Beyond that, Phillips could give Klobuchar a good run to young up the Senate a bit. Not a progressive, but an option. From a background different than career politician.
____________UPDATE___________
Politico, same author as linked to above on Politico reporting of Phillips going to talk to donors.
A longer item than needed to say what it says. Negative toward Harris, who would clearly be a better President than Trump. Some in the party have trepidation.
This item is a prelude to Phillips going to well to test the waters.
Again, Biden is fine. Mashing up the language from time to time is who Biden is. Not new, not Biden aging, but who he has always been. Link. Watch the entire thing.You are dealing with a lucid but aged man, not a bullshitter. A man who chose competent staff and relies upon them; not running through a host of appointed/fired folks, hiring-firing, as his predecessor in office did with impunity (as in keeping creep Stephen Miller, firing Miller's less sycophantic betters).
Put another way: Well, son of a bitch, he's fine!
Crabgrass readers are strongly urged to visit this item authored by Steve Timmer which makes the same point - don't count calendar age when looking at dumpy Trump and trim Biden. There is effective age, and chrono age. Trump is more likely to have the big cardio incident in the next several years than Biden. End of story.
"Big guy" is an interesting term. Big guy, big money, yes/no, did the FBI care to know - or, indeed, affirmatively hide itself from finding out? NewYorkPost presents an interesting juxtaposition of the rule of law being elastic. Felony vs. misdemeanor; amount at issue.
First lady Dr. Jill Biden’s ex-husband slammed the so-called “Biden
crime family” in a new interview — and claimed the powerful brood is
targeting former President Donald Trump the same way they bullied him
during his divorce almost 50 years ago.
“Frankie Biden of the Biden crime family comes up to me and he goes,
‘Give her the house or you’re going to have serious problems,’” Bill
Stevenson told Newsmax’s Greg Kelly Wednesday
night of the moment President Biden’s brother Frank allegedly
approached him when he and Jill divorced in the mid-1970s.
“I looked at Frankie and I said, ‘Are you threatening me?’ and
needless to say, about two months later, my brother and I were indicted
for that tax charge for $8,200.”
Stevenson — who married the future first lady in 1970, when she was
still a college student — claims that Joe Biden, who was then a young
senator in Delaware, sicced the charges on him.
[...]
Kelly then noted that Stevenson and his brother were reportedly charged
with two felonies for less than $10,000 in unpaid taxes, while his
ex-wife’s stepson, Hunter Biden, has so far only been slapped with two
misdemeanors for a staggering $2.2 million unpaid tax bill.
The Frankie said such and such is loose. The variation in charges is hard evidence.
Evidence of what? You decide. And then, a botched deal over the two misdemeanor charges. The law moves in mysterious ways.
Warren sent the SEC a letter suggesting it investigate Musk, more than Twitter. She fabricates a thread of might be - could be speculation that Musk is somehow wrongly focused on Tesla with a conflicting interest per his owning Twitter now, as a private and not publicly traded company, while further speculating that Tesla's board is at fault.
Nine pages with the only non speculative thing being that some key Tesla employees "voluntarily" assisted Musk in Twitter dealings. She suggests there may have been coercion and not clear vanilla voluntariness at play. No evidence offered, speculation entirely.
Warren seems to belittle if not fully ignore one explanation.That key Tesla employees may have felt a loyalty to Musk and a sense of gratitude toward him as the man who made Tesla a multi-billion dollar success paying them quite good salaries to where an incentive to help expedite the Twitter situation would fit volunteering to keep Musk's main focus upon Tesla, in their own best interest, as well as a cheerful willingness to help after all Musk had done building Tesla to what it is.
Excerpting key paragraphs from p.5 within the nine speculative pages (numbers being to letter footnotes):
Nasdaq rules require that a “majority of the board of directors must be comprised of Independent Directors,”25 meaning they must not be people who have a relationship which, “in the opinion of the Company's board of directors, would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.”26 This important requirement exists so that shareholders can “have confidence that individuals serving as Independent Directors do not have a relationship with the listed Company that would impair their independence.”27 According to Nasdaq guidance, this obligation also gives the Tesla Board the “responsibility to make an affirmative determination that no such relationships exist.”28
The composition of Tesla’s eight-person Board29 raises concerns about whether it is in violation of the majority independent director requirement. As the founder and CEO of Tesla, Mr. Musk exercises significant control over the day-to-day management of the company, describing himself as a “nano-manager” who “can’t find people to delegate to,” most recently instituting a policy requiring that all Tesla hires be personally approved by him.30 As discussed above, Mr. Musk has regularly used Tesla resources for his other ventures, including SpaceX and Twitter, and may even be a controlling shareholder of Tesla.31 Tesla’s own 10-K filings admit the company is “highly dependent” on Mr. Musk and that he “spends significant time with Tesla and is highly active in [its] management.”32 Mr. Musk has stated he “handpick[ed]” Tesla’s Chair Robyn Denholm and bragged that he “can just call for a shareholder vote and get anything done that [he] want[s].”33 Given Mr. Musk’s control over Tesla, any close relationship between a Board member and Mr. Musk might constitute a “relationship with the listed Company that would impair [the member’s] independence.”34
So, Nasdaq says independence is in the judgment of a Board, and surely the Tesla lawyers and Board would have duly filed a required affirmation vote that the Board is/was/intends to continue to be independent.
Warren might not like those loose rules, but she cites them and they cut against her major contention of SEC misconduct. Then, Musk saying he can get a shareholder vote for anything, again it is the rule - shareholders are at law presumed to vote in their own best perceived economic interest, majority rules; and Musk held/holds the largest Tesla share vote as does Bezos at Amazon. Again Musk stated a fact. Warren might wish the law different, but it is as it stands. And calling it "bragging" to be truthful, CEO's are supposed to be truthful.
Elon Musk's X Corp. is serving a subpoena on Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.), days after Warren urged the Securities and Exchange
Commission to launch an investigation into Musk's dual role running
Tesla and Twitter.
Musk's subpoena demands documents
and communications related to Warren's letter to the SEC, as well as
Warren's communications with the SEC and Federal Trade Commission. Musk
is seeking documents going back to October 27, 2022, the day he
completed his $44 billion purchase of Twitter.
Warren's July 17 letter
urged the SEC to investigate Tesla "regarding the actions of its Board
of Directors in managing the apparent conflicts of its Chief Executive
Officer, Elon Musk." She wrote that Musk's actions while running Twitter
and Tesla simultaneously "have raised concerns about conflicts of
interest, misappropriation of corporate assets, and other negative
impacts to Tesla shareholders. Despite recent and repeated calls from
investors to address these actions, the Board appears to have failed to
uphold its legal duty to ensure that Mr. Musk act in the best interest
of Tesla."
Although Twitter recently hired Linda Yaccarino as CEO, Warren said
Musk appears likely to continue overseeing core functions of Twitter's
business.
Today, Twitter successor company X Corp. notified a federal court
that it "intends to serve a subpoena... on Senator Elizabeth Warren on
July 20, 2023, or as soon thereafter as service may be effectuated."
Musk trying to block FTC probe
The subpoena was filed with US District Court for the Northern District of California as part of a case in which Musk is trying to terminate
a privacy settlement that Twitter and the FTC agreed on last year
before Musk bought the company. Musk is also trying to avoid an FTC
deposition and wants the court to "rein in" the FTC's ongoing
investigation into Twitter's privacy and data practices.
The subpoena of Warren demands "all documents relating to the SEC
letter, including any drafts," and all communications relating to the
letter sent or received by Warren since October 27.
Next, the subpoena asks for all communications between Warren or
Warren's office with the FTC "between October 27, 2022 and the present
relating to X Corp. or Elon Musk, and all documents relating to any such
communications." The subpoena makes an identical request for all such
communications with the SEC.
We contacted Warren's office about the subpoena today and will update this article if we get a response.
X Corp. last week claimed the FTC's investigation into Twitter is
"tainted by bias" and that "the FTC's desire to depose Mr. Musk derives
from the same bad faith and improper conduct that has characterized its
investigation to date." The argument is similar to past claims by Tesla that the SEC "harass[ed]" Musk.
Warren’s call for SEC investigation
Musk will have some new headaches if the SEC heeds Warren's call for
an investigation. Warren's letter said the "composition of Tesla's
eight-person Board raises concerns about whether it is in violation" of a
rule requiring that a "majority of the board of directors must be
comprised of Independent Directors."
"Members of the Board with known ties to Mr. Musk or Tesla include
Mr. Musk himself; Mr. Musk's brother, Kimball Musk; Ira Ehrenpreis, a
'longtime friend' of Mr. Musk who helped design his record-breaking
compensation package and explored limiting the disclosure of its details
to investors; James Murdoch, Mr. Musk's friend of almost 20 years who
vacations with him; and J.B. Straubel, a former Tesla executive whose
election to the Board in May of this year was opposed by both proxy
advisory firm Glass Lewis and an investor group over concerns about
Straubel's role as a 'company insider,'" Warren wrote.
Warren alleged that these "close relationships may explain the
Board's persistent inability or unwillingness to address the concerns
posed by Mr. Musk's actions." According to Warren, that includes the
"possible misappropriation of Tesla resources by Mr. Musk's funneling of
'more than 50
of his trusted Tesla employees' to work on his Twitter takeover,
including Tesla's Chief Information Officer and other senior staff."
Warren previously raised similar concerns in a December 2022 letter to Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm.
Warren surely is free to write any letter she wants, she did, and the public shall judge. She should not be allowed to escape a lawful subpoena in a pending federal action. She's not above the law. It will be damned interesting what she may disclose, presuming she holds nothing back but complies in good faith.
No quote, watch the video, Musk has House support; it being part of how the entire thing is wrongly politicized with Musk deserving praise for fighting back every way he can against a clear likely coordinated power play against him.
He gives honest answers, and noteworthy, this part - not where Warren has or likely would focus - at the end of the interview:
GM also announced that it will double its investment into developing electric cars, and Elon Musk is celebrating.
Lesley Stahl: Why do you want the competition?
Elon Musk:
The whole point of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of electric
vehicles. And sustainable transport and trying to help the environment.
We think it's the most serious problem that humanity faces. I'm not sure
if you know it, but we open sourced our patents, so anyone who wants to
use our patents can use 'em for free.
Lesley Stahl: Your patents are open-sourced?
Elon Musk:
Yeah. If somebody comes and makes a better electric car than Tesla and
it's so much better than ours that we can't sell our cars, and we go
bankrupt, I still think that's a good thing for the world.
Lesley Stahl: And you'll sleep at night.
Elon Musk: Yeah, because somebody's making some pretty great cars. Um, yeah.
This is not a man with a rapacious (i.e. normal) capitalist attitude. We open source, we make the best, and if not we are history but the public would have a better electric auto if some other firm makes it.
This is Ayn Rand's John Galt's attitude. Personified in an actual person, not a fiction.
Why the stinking attack against that kind of person, where his politics are different from Warren and other Democrats? But his mind is right. It is counterproductive. Actions are available as a cudgel, but wrong.
Readers are urged as Crabgrass hopes to do - keep atop of this story, to see how the subpoena gets court attention and how Warren handles her response; and ultimately to see the machinations which might be revealed behind Warren's writing to Gensler, the head of the SEC, as she did, for whatever purposes.
Warren does not like Musk's Republican-leaning politics and this letter reeks of politicization as a motive for its drafting; for its wanting to instigate trouble for Musk via the SEC. Hence the subpoena response will be very important.
The item is clear and short, so readers are urged to check it. What is clear in the argument: Capitalist slavers like all capitalists wanted to maximize profit attained, each cargo, and skilled captives fetched a better price on the auction block than field workers. As with any sea trader, max cargo value was important to the profit taking flesh traders. Slavery was capitalism at its ugliest, but it was not unregulated capitalism - it had rules and norms. For example, Virginia law stood that had Jefferson freed Sally Hemings she'd have had to leave the Commonwealth, in exile. That legal act seems intended to discourage freeing slaves but then employing them for a wage, or making any other accommodation beyond decent ongoing treatment while still owning title. Plain ugly but carefully thought-out institutionally crafted shit, no matter how DeSantis and crowd would spin it. Capitalism then/now, regulations different now, wage slavery and employment at will being concerns now among those who'd unionize Amazon and Starbucks.] Back to the Georgia Guidestones monument:
As a result the entire thing was removed and scrapped. It's teachings lost, so to speak, except for Internet preservation.
Might we have benefited from knowing if a specific pillar was targeted?
Unlikely, because were that the case MSM would have provided us that detail.
Ignorance over who funded it, who deemed it fit to attack, we know less than we know about the loss of the Trade Center (differing in that something was rebuilt on the Trade Center site, available real estate of the size in NYC being different from rural Georgia open country). One small hint from the image, a language running from right to left was not blown to rubble.
It is as mysterious as the working between the ears of the Florida curriculum setting guru group deciding it proper to teach that slavery benefited slaves (and presumably as a corollary slave descendants wrongly are ungrateful pigs - inexplicably so, and their lack of wisdom and gratitude shows personality deficits education should aim to minimize if not eradicate). What they did, an unintended consequence, was to give Kamala Harris a speech opportunity she could not pass up.
Her words were clear. She sees no basis for gratitude, having been educated elsewhere than in Florida. (Walt Disney, if alive, likely would agree with Harris.)
Others seem to show no gratitude for those job skills, cultivated as they were.
A troubling thought is that Florida might not be unique.
DeSantis is not unique. Florida likely is not either.
UPDATE: As a bet, in this spelled out curriculum - Frederich Douglas is as likely taught as Allen Ginsberg's HOWL. Not wanting consensus challenges, (that being normal as an aim of educating the young), we teach none. We are the educators of the bright, uniform future of Florida. As such, teacher, you are fired from your classroom job if you digress. Any questions?
FURTHER:
Ron DeSantis, Sally Hemings - and Plessy v. Ferguson
Taking things in reverse order. Plessy:
Planitiff Plessy sued Judge Ferguson, well after the Civil War and passage of the 14th Amendment; per Wikipedia:
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmarkU.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal".[4][5]
Notably the court ruled the existence of laws based upon race was not
inherently racial discrimination. The decision legitimized the many
state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in
the American South ("Jim Crow laws") after the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877. Such legally enforced segregation in the south would last into the 1960s.
The underlying case began in 1892 when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately boarded a whites-only train car in New Orleans. By boarding the whites-only car, Plessy violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act
of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" railroad accommodations
for white and non-white passengers. Plessy was charged under the Act,
and at his trial his lawyers argued that judge John Howard Ferguson should dismiss the charges on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. Ferguson denied the request, and the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Ferguson's ruling on appeal. Plessy then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision against Plessy, ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the
legal equality of whites and blacks it did not and could not require the
elimination of all "distinctions based upon color". The Court rejected
Plessy's lawyers' arguments that the Louisiana law inherently implied
that black people were inferior, and gave great deference to American
state legislatures' inherent power to make laws regulating health,
safety, and morals—the "police power" [...]
That was the "separate but equal" decision which awaited Brown v. Board of Education for reversal; 1954, (Thurgood Marshall having argued that case.)
That petitioner was a citizen of the" United States and a resident of the State of Louisiana, of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven eighths Caucasian and one eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to every recognition, right, privilege and immunity secured to the citizens of the United States of the white race by its Constitution and laws; that on June 7, 1892, he engaged and paid for a first class passage on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans to Covington, in the same State, and thereupon entered a passenger train, and took possession of a vacant seat in a coach where passengers of the white race were accommodated; [...]
Note that Plessy was 7/8 "Caucasian" but "colored" per Louisiana law at the time.
Per Wikipedia: Sally Hemings, Thomas Jefferson's spouse, was mixed race; by the Plessy terminology she was 3/4 "Caucasian," but she was Jefferson's slave because her mother was a slave, (Virginia law at the time being status, slave or free, was determined by the mother's status), Sally's mother having been a slave.
Jefferson and Hemings remained unmarried, their offspring being slave. That wiki item notes field and house slaves were unequally treated; the Jefferson offspring being in house, learning trades, as the wiki item notes.
View that in terms of the widely reported new Florida education curriculum, with regard to the teaching of slavery history.
The Jefferson-Hemings situation presumably was the exception not the rule. Yet it fits the contention that some nominal "slaves," such as Jefferson's mixed race offspring, (7/8 "Caucasian" as the 1896 Plaintiff in Plessy), did okay under slavery being the pre-Civil War rule then governing Virginia and a large part of the nation.
So, there is an iota of truth to the Florida business; while at the time slave auction blocks proliferated, Fugitive Slave Act defects existed, and women could be bred much as racehorses today, put to stud, to gain vigorous offspring for the woman's owner. Note that the Florida curriculum has not been reported as emphasizing that part of the story, nor the whipping post. Nor are plantation field management personnel powers to carry pistol and whip to manage field operations. Readers are urged to track down Frederich Douglas writings describing that and other aspects of slavery apart from Florida folk saying "some learned job skills." "Some" meaning some like Thomas Jefferson's offspring, white owners fathering children with slaves, being the Jefferson example.
DO YOU THINK FOR ONE MINUTE ANY FLORIDA TEACHER, UNDER THE NEW TEACHING BURDEN, CHOOSING TO TEACH ACTUAL EXCEPTION/RULE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT SLAVERY WAS, MIGHT NOT BE HARASSED OUT OF A JOB DUE TO UNFAIRNESS OF SUPERVISORY PERSONS USING AN UNFAIR MANDATE TO CULL OUT THOSE NOT "GOOD TEAM PLAYERS"?
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is intensifying his efforts to
de-emphasize racism in his state’s public school curriculum by arguing
that some Black people benefited from being enslaved and defending his
state’s new African American history standards that civil rights leaders
and scholars say misrepresents centuries of U.S. reality.
“They’re
probably going to show that some of the folks that eventually parlayed,
you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life,” DeSantis
said on Friday in response to reporters’ questions while standing in
front of a nearly all-White crowd of supporters.
DeSantis, a GOP
presidential candidate who is lagging in polls against the front-runner,
former President Donald Trump, and is trying to reset his campaign,
quickly drew criticism from educators and even some in his party. He has
built his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on
attacking what he calls the radical liberal policies of President Biden
and the Democratic Party, but the latest remarks could alienate Black
voters just as the GOP tries to court them.
Former U.S.
representative Will Hurd of Texas, who announced last month that he was
joining the race for the GOP nomination, blasted the idea that enslaved
people were able to use slavery as some kind of training program.
“Slavery
wasn’t a jobs program that taught beneficial skills,” Hurd, the son of a
Black father and a White mother, tweeted. “It was literally
dehumanizing and subjugated people as property because they lacked any
rights or freedoms.”
DeSantis, however, is continuing to defend
Florida’s new curriculum, which covers a broad range of topics and
includes the assertion for middle school instruction that “slaves
developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their
personal benefit.”
Aside from owner-slave mixed offspring Jefferson offspring situations, where the record is unclear as to how frequent such situations were; and considering field worker management as Frederich Douglas graphically exposed; it sure looks as if the Florida intent is to lie - and inexcusably so - about the plain awfulness of some being allowed to hold title to human beings to buy and sell and selectively breed them as if livestock. Florida is out of step, and Ron perishes with his cohorts; where clearly, as Hurd put it, slavery was never a jobs training program. It was cotton fields where hard labor under threat of death or beatings had Blacks laboring long days under a hot son to gain wealth for White owners. It was plain unmitigated sin.
And Ron equivocates over that fact.
Is there any wonder that Vivek Ramaswamy is overtaking Ron in early polling?
Vivek has a brain and is a highly skilled speaker. Ron - he's governor of Florida and will continue to be so after this no-risk try to fly attempt to put his sorry ass into the highest executive office chair the nation offers.
Goodbye, Ron.
FURTHER: Watch a movie. Understand propaganda better. Understand this Florida mischief is legislating misleading propaganda.
We, as an overall nation, are better than that.
FURTHER: Lest it be unclear. The Florida education board members authoring the new curriculum of slavery teaching were each appointed to do so, to set statewide curriculum, by Ron DeSantis. He names his people. Presumably they are grateful and do as expected, by Ron.
There is surely a degree of responsibility attaching to knowing people and choosing from among them for government jobs in Florida.
Ron's appointees. Ron's new rules.
How it is.
FURTHER: If unfamiliar with it, the Quentin Tarrintino film DJANGO UNCHAINED is about a slave learning a skill set, enabling his ability to ultimately locate and rejoin his wife, who had been separately sold. Such a thing, understandably would be complex, plus as a film there must be a story line, a plot from start to finish.
UPDATE: He's a bullshitter. He is for family and apple pie. He out talks Tucker. Tucker letting it happen.
Go figure.
FURTHER: SeattleTimes carries a WaPo item about Social Security and Medicare policy suggestions of DeSantis, Pence and Haley; saying also Trump stands differently:
From the earliest days of his 2016 run, Trump has vowed not to touch
either Social Security or Medicare – a break from GOP orthodoxy that has
shifted the party’s views – and has more recently hammered DeSantis for
wanting to cut the program.
“When people say that we’re going to
somehow cut seniors, that is totally not true,” DeSantis said on Fox
News. “Talking about making changes for people in their 30s and their
40s so the program’s viable – that’s a much different thing, and
something I think there’s going to need to be discussion on.”
On
Monday, Pence told Fox Business: “I’m glad to see another candidate in
this primary has been willing to step up and talk about that.”
The
positions the three Trump rivals are taking suggest that even the
fiscally conservative candidates in the GOP presidential primary are
reluctant to endorse cutting Social Security for seniors, highlighting
just how much the party has shifted on the issue.
Trump stands reluctant to suggest any tampering with either program. Without apparently being pressed to define how long term funding will be managed, were he elected.
Of interest, Vivek Ramaswamy appears to have largely escaped having to articulate any policy views of retrenching the two programs. As if given a free pass by MSM operatives. Regarding Ramaswamy, Wapo simply states:
“Shutting
down” the administrative state? Easy, he says, because much of it was
created by rescindable executive orders. Returning the Federal Reserve
to the single mandate of preserving the dollar as store of value?
Statute be damned, the person he chooses to replace Chair Jerome H.
Powell will acknowledge no other mandate.
Making
Social Security and Medicare sustainable? Painless: Neither benefit
cuts nor revenue increases needed because sustained 5 percent economic
growth is attainable partly by “abandoning the climate cult, drilling
more, fracking more, burning coal unapologetically.” Abolishing the
Education Department? A piece of cake, and without congressional
involvement: Civil service rules protect individuals, so mass layoffs
are possible by executive fiat. And impoundment — the presidential power
to not spend appropriated money — should be revived.
Readers are encouraged to attempt to find if VR has stated any expansion of how he knows a five percent growth of the economy will happen if he's elected on such a smoke and mirrors magic fast spoken trust-me agenda.
