59 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
D4N's avatar

Chris; It would appear that this may be the last time I might appeal to you in writing because tomorrow, Sunday 10.27.24, you close tabs to those who can't or won't pay to comment. I am of the former camp; I am unable to pay to comment - financial hardship is all I'm willing to state publicly. An alternative ( short term) seems to be provided for one to download the substack app, which is not an option for me as I access substack via PC. Anyway:

I think you could do the country a solid favor by breaking down why tfg and minions have chosen and insist that immigration is worthy or not to be a valid primary campaign issue. Merely dismissing it by offering the fact that tfg and minions in congress blew the opportunity to address it most recently, doesn't seem like enough to rationally allay the bellows fanning those flames. I feel that folks with the credentials (legal) and rare abilities to explain the legalese to we of the lay public, would be of the highest public service. Nor is it sufficient to meekly offer that it's too complicated (although it does seem to be). Is it that immigration crosses over into multiple areas of law or, has it been overly complicated because in the past, American business's and the Chamber of Commerce crowd provided the lion's share of leadership, lobby, and money in the past efforts to modernize immigration - albeit for their own ends. I say, drag it all out in the light of day's cleansing sunshine. Data exists; current and historical. It needs revealed and broken down in plain english. For instance, there are these:

https://www.propublica.org/article/business-lobby-immigration-reform-trump

https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/statement-signing-immigration-reform-and-control-act-1986

And some historical and recent threats that the Chamber of Commerce crowd 'suggest' that they fear > https://www.nytimes.com/article/bud-light-boycott.html

and the right wing's painful yet effective boycotts like the Bud-Lite and Natalie Maine (Dixie Chicks)

> https://www.today.com/popculture/dixie-chicks-controversy-changed-their-careers-17-years-ago-t175454

I frankly don't care if these facts imply that only the gop can affectively threaten and impose the power of boycotts, and that dems can not or will not. I want politics to make some sense again Chris.

Thanks for all your efforts in the past; they were noticed and deeply appreciated.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

The only posts that limit commenting to paid subscribers are posts that have paid-only content. (That is a limit of Substack’s functionality, not my choice.) The vast majority of the posts have comments open to all — and will continue to do so.

Expand full comment
D4N's avatar
Oct 28Edited

Please forgive that I may have *misunderstood that particular aspect Chris. I feel like my main overall message is a valid consideration. Thx Chris; You rock !

Expand full comment