Advertisement

Searching for a Substantive Response to Trump’s Hateful Speech

Searching for a Substantive Response to Trump’s Hateful Speech

Free bunuss 50$ to Invest at::
Refer Vultr.com and earn $10 per paid signup!
1 .$10 earned for every new unique paid user you refer.
2. Referred users must be active for 30+ days and use at least $10 in payments to be counted as verified sales.
3. Payouts are finalized and issued on the business day following the 1st and 15th of each month.
4. Your referral link below uniquely identifies your account. Use this code when linking to Vultr.com and start earning today
Follow link:
Tell A Friend about Vultr and Earn up to $25 for referring clients!
November Special $$ Please note! This code will be available for a limited time!
đźš« If you have any problem with copyright issues, please CONTACT US DIRECTLY before doing anything, or question please write to me in email. Thank you verry much!
 Remember when the spectacle of a President lying and dissembling felt shocking? It did two years ago, when Donald Trump performed his vulgar, cruel version of a soaring Inaugural Address. On Tuesday night, when he used his first Oval Office address to expand on the main themes of that speech—“American carnage” and the dangers at the border—it felt like a non-event. At least he didn’t declare a state of emergency—yet. All he did was lie and spew hatred. In their joint response, the House and Senate Democratic leaders spoke Trump’s language, too. Both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stressed that they broadly agree with the President on the need for border security. The disagreement, they claimed, concerned only the best way to accomplish it. Pelosi proposed new technology, more personnel, and the vague measure of “more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.” Pelosi organized her rebuttal as a list of five “facts”: an antidote to Trump’s “misinformation and even malice,” she said. But only her description of the government shutdown itself was, in point of fact, factual; the rest was misleading at best. She said that bipartisan legislation rejected by Trump would fund the government and “smart, effective border-security solutions,” and claimed that “we all agree we need to secure our borders.” But there is no need for new border-security solutions, because there is not, in fact, a pressing problem of border security. “The women and children at the border are not a security threat; they are a humanitarian challenge,” Pelosi said, but this apparently empathetic statement omits the important fact that most of the women and children—and the men—at the southern border are trying to seek asylum, a right that is guaranteed to them by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are not, in other words, begging for charity; they are asking for their due from a system designed to protect them. One might say that by failing to challenge the basic premise of Trump’s speech, and by failing to characterize asylum seekers accurately, Pelosi lied, too

immigration,donald trump,border crisis,nancy pelosi,chuck schumer,alexandria ocasio cortez,

Post a Comment

0 Comments