For those still thinking about voting for Donald Trump in November, a few questions to consider:
1/ If Donald Trump offered you the opportunity to invest in his next private business, would you take it?
2/ If Donald Trump offered to deliver an envelope of your cash to the bank on your behalf, would you trust him?
3/ If Donald Trump offered to write a condolence card to a deceased family member, would you expect it to be thoughtful or empathetic?
4/ If Donald Trump wanted to join your book club, would you expect him to do the reading, or suggest any good reads?
5/ If Donald Trump offered to baby sit your daughters, would you let him?
6/ If Donald Trump applied to be a beat cop in your neighborhood, would you expect him to treat all citizens equally?
Now ask whether any of those questions make you as squeamish with any other recent President or Presidential candidate.
A man who you know you would not trust with even the most basic human courtesies and trusts should never have access to the wealth and power of the United States. Now go vote. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’ve been meaning to do this for a while, but today’s events make it more urgent: why Trump’s attacks on DEI are founded in racism (of course) but also unconstitutional. Thread:
1. On that second point, I want to take an intentionally “originalist” perspective here, because the plain text of the Constitution matters to the question.
2. Recall our history. In the aftermath of the Civil War, we passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (the “Reconstruction Amendments”. The first were passed before re-unification and southern states were required to ratify as a pre-condition to rejoining the Union
On this MLK day, take a moment to re-read his “mountaintop” speech, delivered the day before his assassination. It is full of humanity, and hope and a reminder that our work is most necessary when it is hardest to believe we will succeed. americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkiv…
1. Read this knowing that King was trying to expand his mission and message and getting pushback from his friends, some of whom were arguing his time had passed.
2. Read this in light of the other, less patriotic, less hopeful, less constructive things happening on this day.
Another day, another horrible, mistitled GOP bill passes on the floor that needs explanation. I wish I could tell you this is the last of the threads I'll have to do. Anyway, today's travesty was HR 30, the "Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act". Read on:
1. The bill on paper seems reasonable enough. If you are convicted or admit to having committed a sex offense, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse or violation of a protective order and are undocumented you will be deported. Text here: congress.gov/bill/119th-con…
2. And yet the bill has been opposed by over 200 religious and DV groups. It's important to understand why the people who ACTUALLY understand this issue and aren't just trying to score cheap political points are so vocal on this.
Sitting here watching the Chris Wright nomination hearings and getting ever more frustrated by the failure - intentional by him and some Senators, inadvertent by others - to differentiate between produced and useful energy. Thread:
1. Suppose that there was a hearing for agriculture secretary and a Senator said "what will you doing to ensure food access for American people" and the nominee said "American farmers produce more calories than any other country." We'd agree that's a dodge. And yet...
2. When Senators ask an Energy Sec'y nominee what they'll do to ensure access to affordable energy and the nominee talks about oil and gas production they are dodging the question. Our economy depends on delivered energy, just as our bellies depend on food on the plate.
It seems a discussion is in order of the Laken Riley Act that I happily voted against on the House floor today. It is a bill that served no purpose than to stir up anger. But let’s quickly review why:
1. First, undocumented people in the US who are convicted of felonies are already subject to deportation. If that is your concern you should be happy with existing law. As I am.
2. Second, the majority of undocumented folks in the US are visa overstays and farm workers, many are in mixed families and they have a VERY low propensity to commit crime. The stereotype is not representative of the population at hand. See this thread:
Some thoughts on Roberts' year end report. It is - par for the course for him - totally tone deaf. But we are all, to varying degrees complicit in spreading the fiction that the judicial branch isn't just as political as any other part of government. nytimes.com/2024/12/31/us/…
1. He is of course right to fear a country that chooses not to follow the rulings of the court. But any official in a democratically-elected government knows that they serve subject to the consent of the governed.
2. One need not condone mob violence to acknowledge that respect for public will and preservation of trust in democratic institutions keeps us from passing dumb laws. That awareness of public sentiment is - in the purest sense - political calculus.