ChrisWeigant.com

GOP's Glorious Immigration Week Lurches Along

[ Posted Thursday, June 21st, 2018 – 16:18 PDT ]

Well, we're almost to the end of the glorious Republican Immigration Reform Week. That was the original plan, at any rate -- Paul Ryan's House was supposed to pass an immigration reform bill containing all four pillars of Trump's stated immigration goals, and then the bill would then be sent over to the Senate, where Democrats would block it. This was supposed to give political cover for House Republicans on the midterm campaign trail, allowing them to claim "We tried to fix the problem!" all the while knowing that the entire thing was nothing short of a pointless political stunt.

This entire exercise was never initially even supposed to happen, because Ryan knew full well the risks involved in Republicans doing anything on immigration in an election year. But his hand was forced by some Republicans who actually wanted to do something concrete that might have fixed at least one problem. These moderates wanted to pass a truly bipartisan immigration compromise that would meaningfully address the DACA crisis caused by Donald Trump (but without any money for Trump's wall, which would have been a dealbreaker for Democrats). This bill might have even passed the Senate, although it is anyone's guess whether Trump would have signed it or not. At the last minute, Ryan headed off this effort by promising votes on two immigration bills in the House -- a hardliner bill, and one that was ever-so-slightly-less hardline. That's what set up Immigration Reform Week, which was supposed to result in a political win for Republicans.

Obviously, things didn't turn out the way Ryan had planned. The first bill -- the really hardline bill -- just failed in a vote today. The vote on the second bill -- the one that was a tiny bit less extreme -- has been postponed until tomorrow. This doesn't exactly bode well for its chances of success. If Ryan can whip his caucus together to pass it, it will be a minor miracle at this point, but even if that unlikely event happens, it will be hard to call it any sort of political win for Republicans, since it has already been exposed as a cynical political ploy.

What Ryan and Trump didn't see coming, when concocting this strategy, was the intense public outrage over children being separated from their families and warehoused in cages. Absent that, perhaps this week would have gone a bit smoother for Ryan and the GOP. But all of Ryan's machinations quickly took a back seat to this bigger story, which forced Trump to back down yesterday (after swearing he had no power to do so, for days on end). All of this has now given fresh momentum to Democrats and has energized the public against yet another half-baked Trump policy idea.

Trump's executive order signaling his retreat was equally as half-baked. In the first place, he didn't need to issue an executive order, but apparently he likes the pageantry of signing a document for the cameras. All he really had to do would have been to have a quiet word with Jeff Sessions and Kirstjen Nielsen, and the policy could have easily been changed. In the second place, the hastily-drawn-up order has few details, which left a lot of federal agencies wondering exactly what they should do next. Thirdly, nobody knows how legal Trump's new move is, so there will inevitably be court cases which will drag on for months. All of this is guaranteed to keep the issue front and center for a long time to come, which (again) will help Democrats campaigning for the midterm elections.

Trump's female relatives, according to him, convinced him he needed to do something fast. However, they both are making it almost impossible to assign them any credit for doing so, because of their subsequent actions. Ivanka Trump sent out a tweet thanking her father for being so compassionate, which many have pointed out is kind of like thanking a kidnapper for releasing the abducted child. If Trump hadn't created the problem in the first place, then he never would have had to extricate himself from it, in other words.

But Melania Trump was the one who really took the cake -- the same cake Marie Antoinette suggested the poor eat, in fact. In what could have been a brilliant photo op move, Melania traveled down to the border to tour a child warehousing facility, to show some empathy for the traumatized children. This could have gone a long way towards softening the Trump family's image as coldhearted monsters. Alas, at the last minute, Melania decided she needed a coat to wear, so she threw on a trendy jacket with the following phrase scrawled on the back: "I REALLY DON'T CARE, DO U?" So rather than sending a message of empathy, she sent exactly the opposite message in about as blunt a fashion as she could manage. At least, by the time her plane touched down, someone had pointed out that it might not be the best idea to wear this particular jacket for her tour, and she left it behind on the plane. Still, the damage had already been done.

The Donald, meanwhile, has been issuing some tweets on his own. Right before the House was set to vote on the two immigration bills, Trump sent out a message that doing so was a completely pointless exercise, since it would be filibustered in the Senate by Democrats. Instead of whipping support for the bills (as any normal president would do for his own party's legislation), Trump was actively undermining GOP support in the House. Why should any member take a contentious vote that might harm them on the campaign trail when Trump won't even pretend to have their back?

Trump, of course, is obsessed with somehow pinning all the bad press he's been getting on the Democrats. So far, this hasn't exactly been going well for him, as even members of his own party considered the stance downright ridiculous. It's hard to argue the big, bad Democrats are the ones responsible when you can't even pass a bill in a Republican House, after all (where there is no filibuster, and Democrats have precisely zero power to influence legislation). But that hasn't stopped Trump from trying. His new line of attack is that Democrats are somehow "refusing to come to the table," which is also downright ridiculous, seeing as how they have been systematically excluded from the table throughout the entire process. The two Ryan bills, please remember, were pushed forward to head off an attempt by Republicans to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. This bipartisan bill would have passed, showing that Democrats are indeed willing to come to the table, but will not support so-called "compromises" when they were excluded from the entire process from the get-go.

Democrats did attempt to work with Republicans earlier this year on an immigration solution to the DACA problem Trump had created. They made significant progress, and even had the workings of a deal that Trump seemed to support. But then Trump's hardliner advisors got to him, and in the space of a few hours he decided to blow up the compromise bill by making outlandish last-minute demands. This left not only Democrats, but his own Republicans frustrated at Trump's lack of consistency.

So where does all this leave us? Trump will have to struggle with all the ins and outs of translating his new executive order into actual policy at the border. This struggle will include lawsuits, inevitably, which will prolong the issue politically. The media has the story between its teeth and shows no signs of letting go any time soon. Rather than having a positive story to counteract the enormous amount of bad press they're getting, Republicans might just fail to pass either one of their own immigration bills in the House. This will just add to the public perception of their complete incompetence, right before the midterm election season really gets underway. All of Ryan's worries about how risky it would be to tackle immigration right now have been proven to be true. The entire fiasco has handed Democrats a gigantic issue for the midterms, one seemingly perfectly designed to appeal to precisely the voters they were planning on courting anyway -- suburban women who used to reliably vote Republican. Trump has proven himself to not only be hard-hearted, callous, and cruel, but now his wife will be seen in the same light, since she proudly indicated that she REALLY DON'T CARE about immigrant children.

The glorious Republican Immigration Week continues to lurch along towards a spectacular finish. To put this another way: "It's Thursday. Do you know where your children are?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “GOP's Glorious Immigration Week Lurches Along”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    Seriously, four years ago if somebody had written a book about this it would have been seen as complete fantasy.

    What is stunning is that there are people who actually support this clown.

    And the funniest part is that their driving reason is that they want to stick it to the elites.

    Ignorance is going to be the downfall of this republic.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    Great column, BTW. You've been on a roll CW.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, at the rate we're going we may yet get to test that shooting someone in the middle of fifth avenue hypothesis...

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Yeah, it's been quite a week. Trump seems dazed by the fact the public is showing revulsion at US government implemented child abuse...and the fact that he can't pin the blame on Democrats or Canadians. This is distracting the master salesman from his ever growing legal jeopardies. N. Korea seems a distant memory.

    People old enough to remember TV variety shows can recall the act where a guy runs around balancing dozens of spinning plates on sticks while the orchestra plays The Saber Dance. Trump reminds me of that guy, but without the agility. Plates are starting to wobble and fall. The courts are going to have to clean this mess up. That should be fun.

    What was up with Melania's coat? Was she dissing the confiscated kids or hubby? I'm betting it's hubby. Secret Service agents have probably quietly secured all frying pans and rolling pins in the WH kitchens.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    Trump has proven himself to not only be hard-hearted, callous, and cruel, but now his wife will be seen in the same light, since she proudly indicated that she REALLY DON'T CARE about immigrant children.

    I cannot see an upside to this coat stunt for Blotus or Flotus. The deplorables may like it, of course, but it will drive more Independents away and Dems are long since goooooone. In particular, those "smartphone women" (h/t TS) like the woman featured here (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/democratic-women-campaigning.html) will recoil and get even busier.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    [4]TS: the idea that FLOTUS was sticking it to Blotus with the coat - I can't quite get the logic...

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula -6. It's a bit loopy, but hear me out. Let's assume Trump did not initiate sending Melania on this mission. She pulled strings to go, against DJT's instincts, but he relented. Perhaps he never knew she was going until he saw her boarding the plane on TV. What does Trump see? I really don't care (implied:what you think). Do you (implied :care about anybody but yourself?). If things are as frosty as they seem berween these two, Trump gets the message, Melania gets plausible deniability. She kicks his nuts and gets away with it. Doesn't that scenario seem about as plausible as an irrational political gaffe that her assistants would surely point out? Trump World is Bizzaro world where yes is no, maybe is absolutely....and Trump cheats on his wife.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    You may be spot on about Melania wearing that coat with a message on her trip to the border ... and, speaking of family separations ... hmmmm ...

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: At least, by the time her plane touched down, someone had pointed out that it might not be the best idea to wear this particular jacket for her tour, and she left it behind on the plane. Still, the damage had already been done.

    She cancelled a visit to one of those facilities that BLOTUS referred to as "the nicest" because of flooding issues. Then fast forward to when she returned to Joint Base Andrews after all the events of the day.

    She deboarded the plane in nice, warm and sunny weather so therefore thankfully there was no need to wear that long-sleeved "statement" jacket... just kidding... it was 80+ degrees outside and she wore it again.

    I really don't care. Do you? If only she hadn't specifically chosen to wear it again in balmy weather upon her return.

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    3

    well, at the rate we're going we may yet get to test that shooting someone in the middle of fifth avenue hypothesis...

    Who did you have in mind for that bullet, sir?

    I can actually think of someone he could shoot and lose tens of millions of voters.

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    [7] TS: Okay - maybe...but in exchange she sets herself up to look pretty awful to everyone else, although lauded by deplorables.

    But of course, none of us knows and we can't believe anything we're told so this one will go down the rabbit hole unresolved, I suspect.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,
    Madam,i didn't have anyone specific in mind, but I'm sure we could also come up with someone whose untimely demise would gain him votes.

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To be fair, when stating his hypothesis Donald didn't specify who he would shoot.

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "It's Thursday. Do you know where your children are?"

    As per comment 27 and 33 from "Trump Blinks" I know where my "child" isn't. Again.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick- I wasn't aware Melania had worn "The Coat" again on the homeward leg. Maybe she is channeling Marie Antoinette? Again, where the hell were her handlers? If somebody on her staff is fired or resigns, that might clear things up a bit....but then again, somebody is always resigning or getting the boot...so signal to noise ratio is low. The Coat deserves a spot in the. Smithsonian.

    Paula- maybe is chritable. The Coat could have some wonderful adventures if it is tossed down the rabbit hole.

  16. [16] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    JL 3, K 10
    "well, at the rate we're going we may yet get to test that shooting someone in the middle of fifth avenue hypothesis...

    Who did you have in mind for that bullet, sir?"

    Obviously the answer is James Comey. I mean, might as well test Giuliani's hypothesis at the same time, right?

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet (3)-
    https://youtu.be/ZZFSGMBr4SE

    Not only was this video up before Trump made the statement, it also kind of applies to immigration.

    It's kind of like fake life imitating fake art.

  18. [18] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    TS (15)

    Occam's razor with the Trump crowd. She wore the coat because she was paid to wear the coat.

  19. [19] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    It's a sad commentary on the level of Weigantia discourse that you people can't have a rational conversation about the underlying cause of the whole immigrant children problem, but you can get deep into every conceivable nuance of Melania's jacket inscription!

  20. [20] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    CRS (19)
    "the underlying cause of the whole immigrant children problem" is known. It's Donald Trump.

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm (2)-
    Speaking of rolls, does anyone know the difference between a curtain and a roll of toilet paper?

  22. [22] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    lharv [20]

    Remember, if they were not coming, there would be no crisis, right?

    So, you seem to be implying that it's Trump's presidentcy that is attracting thousands of immigrants to the U.S.???

    You're pretty much the 'Lone Ranger' on that one. Everybody else here thinks Trump would be scaring people AWAY from emigrating to the U.S.!!!

  23. [23] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    CRS (22) Who's "they?" Hordes of children? The quote above was "the underlying cause of the whole immigrant children problem" emphasis children. Controlling the border problem was never a "children" problem before Trump. He deliberately abused children as a vile power play. That is the underlying cause of the whole immigrant children problem. Also, treating asylum seekers as criminals and throwing them in with illegal border crossers is the new Trump policy, again using child abuse as its main weapon.

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    In other news: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/22/trump-millennial-supporters-washington-dc-218833

    Headline: Young Trumpies Hit D.C. … And D.C. hits them right back.

    Trumpnazis are sad because no one will date them. For some odd reason they don't want to date each other apparently. Probably they look at fellow-trumpnazis and see the Stephen-Miller-dead-eyes in those faces and recoil. (They just don't see their own dead eyes when they look in the mirror because they are pod-people.) It hurts them that when prospective dates find out they voted for Blotus they either get rejected instantly, or lectured/berated and then rejected.

    They also feel generally unwelcome in D.C.

    Votes have consequences.

  25. [25] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is good: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/how-trump-lost-his-grip-on-the-child-detention-narrative

    “The Images Are Out of His Control”: How Trump Lost His Grip on the Child-Detention Narrative

    Trump has done plenty of ugly things. In the past, he’s outrun the narrative—this time, he can’t get past the imagery.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I may have figured out why Melania wore the jacket.

    Her jacket had the punch line and Trump was wearing the straight jacket.

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    12

    Madam,i didn't have anyone specific in mind, but I'm sure we could also come up with someone whose untimely demise would gain him votes.

    Indubitably.

  28. [28] 
    Paula wrote:

    Russia update: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/britains-russia-collusion-scandal-looks-just-like-trumps.html

    The most important thing to understand about the Russia scandal is that it perfectly fits a clear pattern of behavior. What Vladimir Putin is accused of doing to help Donald Trump win the presidency is essentially identical to what he is either accused of or proven to have done to help many other right-wing candidates in many other countries. As the plot in the United States is slowly exposed, a remarkably similar one in the United Kingdom is quickly surfacing.

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    How can it be, in the wake of such disturbing child/parental abuse as that being inflicted on asylum seekers at the US border at the hands of the Trump administration, that this president is still in office?

  30. [30] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Stucki-

    It's a sad commentary on the level of Weigantia discourse that you people can't have a rational conversation about the underlying cause of the whole immigrant children problem...

    You have an odd definition of rational conversation considering you are the one trying to load the conversation with conditions...

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Trump White House may not be very fast on the uptake, but you know who is? The fashion industry.

    There are already "I Really Care Don't U?" Jackets available for sale. Overnight.

    Maybe should have elected Zoolander instead of Trump.

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    It appears that there are TWO things that Dems/Libs wish were against the law but which are actually not:

    1) Getting dirt on your political opponent from Ruskies.

    2) "Abusing asylum-seekers at the U.S. border".

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It appears that there are TWO things that Dems/Libs wish were against the law but which are actually not:

    1) Getting dirt on your political opponent from Ruskies.

    2) "Abusing asylum-seekers at the U.S. border"

    Proof? Your assertion is remarkably free of anything supporting it.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    13

    To be fair, when stating his hypothesis Donald didn't specify who he would shoot.

    Or did he? Using our years of training and what we know about the perpetrator, I'm convinced it could only be:

    -----> * Mrs. Peacock in the library with a revolver.

    Yes, Mrs. Peacock, the elite, debonair wealthy female covered in liberal blue. They never accepted Donald in the circles she runs because bankruptcies, nouveau riche, fake. How could it be any other? Naturally, it would occur in the library because no one would ever suspect Donald would go in there... there in the main branch of the New York Library on the avenue... 5th Avenue... in Midtown not far from Grand Central Station, and I should think the hand gesture that was made when he spoke of it would be a dead giveaway. ;)

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Space Force! SPACE FORCE! Space Force!

    You know that Trump was thinking,

    Gee, that should have totally distracted everyone from the abused kids. Maybe I should have named it “MEGA SPACE TRUMP FORCE!”
    Quick, someone make sure we copyright that and get some t-shirts made ASAP!

  36. [36] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Liz's post supports it - "Trump is still in office", right?

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    15

    The Coat deserves a spot in the Smithsonian.

    Excellent idea. They could locate it beside the chairs of Archie and Edith Bunker... but which side to place it on... the side of the docile "dingbat" or the irascible bigot?

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/rachelsodyssey/5591384980/in/photostream/lightbox/

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    Bleyd
    16

    Obviously the answer is James Comey. I mean, might as well test Giuliani's hypothesis at the same time, right?

    I don't think Donald would have the courage to pull the trigger, Bleyd, because it's a well-known fact that he's simply a fabricating blowhard who can't handle confrontation.

    Trump simply made the wrong hand gesture when he was describing it, and if he wanted to be factual, he would have stated: "I could shoot somebody with my middle finger on 5th Avenue and not lose any voters." :)

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Space Force. Just what we need, another service rivalry.

    "The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy."
    — Curtis LeMay, General, US Air Force

    The Air Force F-35 lands on a runway. The Navy F-35 lands on heaving carrier deck. The Marine F-35 lands vertically. The Air Force F-35 will travel to infinity and beyond. The Army gets no F-35s at all - and is not at all happy about it.

    Trump is an infantile leader. He needs a little sailor suit.

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    21

    Speaking of rolls, does anyone know the difference between a curtain and a roll of toilet paper?

    There are lots of differences, Don, but now we know who used the shower curtain. :)

  41. [41] 
    John M wrote:

    I will mention it this once about Melania and her wardrobe choices, because it is noteworthy enough and bears mentioning.

    1) She did indeed wear a jacket when it was totally unnecessary to do so in 85 degree weather. NO ONE ELSE were wearing jackets. This cannot be an oversight.

    2) Melania is NO DUMB FOOL. She is a FORMER FASHION MODEL who has walked the runway in Milan.

    Melania herself has worn outfits by: Ralph Lauren, Dior, Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, Chanel, Valentino, Dolce & Gabanna and Gucci. ALL since becoming First Lady and all appropriate to the circumstances, whether it be a state dinner with the French President, visiting Saudi Arabia, or meeting with the Pope.

    Her personal style is textbook chic of almost exclusively European designers, and that in itself sends a message.

    So this is no country bumpkin flailing around finding her way for the first time in the world of fashion. When it comes to her choice of her own clothes, I would not believe for one second that it is not her own calculated idea of what to wear that guides her. You can bet your bottom dollar that no one else is forcing her to wear something against her will.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    25

    Very good.

    Have you seen the cover of Time and Stephen Colbert's take on it? The sobbing little girl jumps up and gives BLOTUS a swift kick in his... starts with a "p"...

    Pants. :)

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    31

    There are already "I Really Care Don't U?" Jackets available for sale. Overnight.

    I will be shocked if I don't see t-shirts printed up in a similar manner coming soon to a protest near you... give it a week give or take a few days.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    35

    Gee, that should have totally distracted everyone from the abused kids. Maybe I should have named it “MEGA SPACE TRUMP FORCE!”

    Quick, someone make sure we copyright that and get some t-shirts made ASAP!

    Excellent idea... seriously! On the back it could read: "SPACE CADET!!!"

    And naturally it will glow in the dark. ;)

  45. [45] 
    John M wrote:

    On ANY SPACE FORCE:

    Trump's proposals – must operate within prohibitions laid out in the Outer Space Treaty, established in 1967.

    With respect to a Space Force, Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty expresses a principle of use of space for "peaceful purposes."

    Members of the Outer Space Treaty are forbidden from placing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies or stationed in outer space.

    Military bases, installations and fortifications, weapons testing and conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies are also forbidden.

  46. [46] 
    rjrap wrote:

    John
    45

    102 countries signed the Outer Space Treaty. What makes anybody think Trump won't pull the U.S. out of it.

    Think....
    TPP
    Climate agreement
    Iran deal
    G7
    Worldwide trade deals

  47. [47] 
    John M wrote:

    [46] rjrap

    "102 countries signed the Outer Space Treaty. What makes anybody think Trump won't pull the U.S. out of it."

    He can certainly try.

    But there are a few crucial differences.

    It's a lot easier to pull out of an agreement that is:

    A) not actually a treaty, like the Iran deal

    OR

    B) has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate, like the TPP and the Paris accords.

    The Outer Space Treaty falls into neither of those two categories.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    This blog is meant for commenters of goodwill and of thoughtful disposition.

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    And you are definitley at the top of that list, and we wouldn't ever have it otherwise!

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If that's really how you feel, CRS, then please try to be more like me.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    Good tweet:

    Statistically, men in Jared Kushner's immediate family are much more likely to commit felonies than undocumented immigrants.

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    ** Court Ruling **

    Manafort's motion to dismiss money laundering charge: Denied.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    John M
    47

    Exactly right, John M. It reminds me of the Orange Blowhole telling the crowd in Minnesota at his latest rally that he would be "re-opening" NASA. Somebody should tell the Moron-In-Chief that you can't reopen something that was never closed, and while they're at it they inform the idiot that the latest White House budget calls for significant cuts to investments in NASA.

    Earth 1 to BLOTUS: As is painfully obvious to anyone paying attention, you have no idea what you're prattling on and on about, while your grasp of history as well as current events are equally pathetic and again duly noted.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump's space force talk is just a smoke screen to obscure the beating he's taken over his famly fiend-ly policies. Dumb idea, idle chatter, not going anywhere. The generals will salute and evade, Congress has other things to not do.

  55. [55] 
    TheStig wrote:

    My gut feeling is that if you live in NYC (or Scotland) you are more likely to be robbed by The Trump Family than the immigrants he is rounding up.

  56. [56] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [50]

    When it come to "being like you", I operate on the "Gold - er, I mean the Brass Rule"

    "Do unto others as they do unto you!" Isn't that how you do it?

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the golden rule is do unto others as you WOULD have them do unto you - not how they actually are but how you wish them to be. demonstrate appropriate behavior for them to copy rather than you copying their inappropriate behavior. clear?

    JL

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    well said.

    Don't wait for someone else to do the right thing.

Comments for this article are closed.