Post New

He openly admires the very worst politicians around the globe (as long as they don't come from 'shithole countries'). He's made it clear he wants to be an autocrat.

After an anti-corruption crusader unexpectedly won last year’s presidential election in Guatemala, democracy teetered on the edge in the Central American country. Amid law enforcement raids on election offices and threats of violence, the Biden administration worked feverishly to lay the groundwork for a peaceful transfer of power.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

But not Richard Grenell, a former diplomat and intelligence official in Donald Trump’s administration, who arrived in Guatemala in January, days before the new president was to be sworn in — and threw his support behind a right-wing campaign to undermine the election.

Trump calls Grenell his 'envoy', though neither is in office.

Many MAGAs openly admit they want Trump to be a dictator. But how about the smart conservatives on this board? How do you justify voting for this demagogue? Despite the fear mongering about socialism and communism, we are far closer to right wing authoritarianism with Trump's inexplicable popularity.

Trump is not being coy in the least about his fascist leanings...

Grenell met with a hard-line group that sued to block the inauguration. The group thanked him for his “visit and trust.” He defended Guatemalan officials who had seized ballot boxes in an effort to overturn a vote declared “free and fair” by the United States and international observers, and he attacked the U.S. State Department’s sanctions against hundreds of anti-democratic actors.

“I think Trump and Grenell would upend American leadership of the free world, from Truman on the left to Reagan on the right, and replace it with something much darker,” said Daniel Fried, who spent four decades in top State Department posts, including as an assistant secretary of state and a director of the National Security Council. “It’s transactional. Democratic values are irrelevant, and it’s isolationist.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/28...

ges: But how about the smart conservatives on this board?

Say what, now?

Not a single republican here had one word of criticism for Trump having 26 boxes of C.I.A., the National Security Agency and F.B.I. documents spanning a variety of topics of national security interest removed from an unlocked toilet and a ballroom stage at Mar-a-Lago -- including 11 sets of material marked as classified, some with the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information -- after claiming he had returned them all.

In an unlocked toilet. On an unprotected, open stage.

A jury found him liable for sexual assault and republicans here said nothing.

He was found guilty of fraud and they denied his guilt.

Now he can legally launder money from foreign governments and they say: "How SWEET it is."

Sorry, these folks are cultists, not conservatives.

Sorry, these folks are cultists, not conservatives.

I suspect the conservatives on this board have some rationale for supporting Trump, but they have not articulated it very well. It is all just some kind of grievance?

I suspect the conservatives on this board have some rationale for supporting Trump, but they have not articulated it very well. It is all just some kind of grievance?

It seems to me that it's a combination of misinformation (i.e. they believe Biden isn't doing something that he should -whether or not he actually can-, or is doing something he shouldn't (which often isn't correctly reported)), and the belief that the worst Republican imaginable is still better than the best Democrat that could be conceived. As if either label is monolithic.

I remember a prominent poster at TMF. She was of the opinion that no Democrat could be worse than the best Republican (not speaking for her, but she as much as said that multiple times over the years). As near as I could tell, she just checked "D" on her ballot without doing any research. I'm sure many people vote that way, either "D" or "R". For them, it's 30 seconds marking the ballot. I'd love it if they removed the "R" and "D" from the ballots. Then people would have to pay a bit more attention (though it might not make that much difference).

I'm sure many people vote that way, either "D" or "R". For them, it's 30 seconds marking the ballot. I'd love it if they removed the "R" and "D" from the ballots. Then people would have to pay a bit more attention (though it might not make that much difference).

Oh, no - we shouldn't do that. For nearly all voters, paying virtually no attention is the rational thing to do for federal races. The voting pool is so incredibly large that there's virtually no chance that your single vote will have an impact on the outcome, and the "D" and "R" heuristic captures nearly all of the information a vote needs to decide their vote. Most voters are rationally ignorant when it comes to candidates.

There are some voters (like most of us on this board) that derive enjoyment from following political matters. Most voters don't, and there's little benefit to trying to get them to do more. They almost certainly won't, and for the few that do you'll be inflicting more cost on them than it's worth.

rationally ignorant
-----------------------

I like this. It fits! :)

I dunno. I fully support the right of every citizen to vote, even if they vote for someone so vile and anti-democratic as Trump. But I think it important that the populace at least superficially know what is going on. An "informed populace" is key to democracy, and is likely why the Founders initially limited who among the populace could vote.

I don't really enjoy politics. But it is a civic obligation, IMO, to vote, and to know the consequences of that vote. So when Dope or you and BHM mention somebody in (for example) Illinois...I probably don't know them because I don't care enough about politics to follow the governor of Illinois (or Iowa, or wherever). DeSantis is an exception because he seems to make national news. But I don't really care about his feud with Disney, other than finding it somewhat amusing that he was probably hurting himself doing it.

I pay more attention to Arizona and federal matters, because that's where my vote goes. I have no vote in Florida. In a perfect world, everything would run smoothly, people would be taken care of who need it, people would be free, equal rights would apply to everyone (ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc), and then I wouldn't have to vote. I wouldn't even have to think about it because people are treated properly, and free to do as they like as long as they don't harm others. But it isn't a perfect world, so I have to pay attention, and vote every two years.

Voting "D" automatically just isn't good enough. If I did that, and lived in the correct district, I would be voting for Menendez. But that would be abhorrent to me. Same with voting "R" automatically, and getting a vile reprobate like Trump.

There are some voters (like most of us on this board) that derive enjoyment from following political matters. Most voters don't, and there's little benefit to trying to get them to do more. They almost certainly won't, and for the few that do you'll be inflicting more cost on them than it's worth.

I guess it might SEEM that way to some, but speaking for myself only, I do NOT follow politics as a source of amusement or diversion from other things. I follow political matters because they address issues related to economics and civil / human rights that, in the absence of a functioning political system, would be addressed via tyranny, intimidation and violence. The political system we have may suck, but the alternatives waiting in the wings are far worse for all involved.

In my narrow minded, bigoted opinion, those who DON'T follow "politics" do so at their own (future) peril -- economically and socially. It frustrates me that we have created a culture that has figured out a way to spend $100 million dollars producing a movie with CGI that can earn $1 billion at the box office, yet we haven't figured out how to make the ACTUAL issues of importance to citizens more understandable (and yes, "entertaining") to citizens. I thought we might be getting close to this point after seeing those series that aired on Netflix in the past 5-10 years that reviewed decades-old criminal cases and proved how a suspect had been railroaded by criminal prosecutors, forensic scientists, etc. Those shows started making inroads with explaining to the public that our criminal justice system had much larger SYSTEMIC problems. The shows weren't really about the particular CASE but the PATTERN of failures that produced that case. Yet that "genre" of entertainment seems to have fizzled and disappeared.

The bizarre conspiracy theory explanations for how the country reached a particlar point with a particular problem often cannot hold a candle to the ACTUAL combination of events, legislation, people and randomness that drive what happens and explain what we see every day. Here's one economic example:

WHY ARE THERE FEW OR NO SMALL-SIZE PICKUPS LIKE THERE WERE IN THE 1980s?

The auto market used to be flooded with "mini pickups" like the Datsun B2000, Ford Ranger, Toyota (Hilux), Dodge D50, etc. You couldn't haul a full sheet of plywood in the bed, you couldn't tow anything but they had the pickup form factor which was useful for odd-sized hauling and got decent gas mileage, even by today's standards. In 2024? The smallest pickups (like the Ford Ranger) are the size of full-sized pickups from the 1980s and there are no "mini" pickups to be found. Why?

Because of flawed logic implemented in emissions and mileage regulations and perverse incentives followed by car makers. CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards were intended to raise MGP standards across each maker's actually sold fleet of cars. For example, a maker offering ten models with nine averaging 25 MPG and one averaging 10 MPG would be an "average" of 23.5 MPG. That's pretty good unless that maker's SALES were 70% based on the 10 MPG vehicle with 1,000,000 units sold. With that "sold" mix, that maker's "fleet MPG" would be (700,000x10 + 300,000x25)/1,000,000 = 14.5 MPG. HORRIBLE.

BUT... The CAFE regulations "accepted" that vehicles used as commercial trucks would never reach the fuel efficiency levels of passenger vehicles so exemptions for trucks were added to the regulations so "trucks" didn't count or were held to a much lower standard. As CAFE standards became more strict over time, the definition of "truck" wasn't driven by a fixed description of form factor or functionality but instead by the vehicle's "wheelbase area" -- essentially its wheelbase times its track width. Vehicles with an area over a certain value were considered "trucks" even if used predominately / exclusively as passenger vehicles. Vehicles NOT matching that exemption limit were subjected to higher and higher MPG targets that generated fines if the maker didn't achieve that year's CAFE MPG goal.

This is what drove the SUV segment to grow exponentially with the Jeep Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Chevy Suburban, etc. But this is also why the mini-trucks disappeared. The cheap, small pickup designs with simple but old engines were TOO SMALL to meet "truck size" requirements for exemption from emissions and mileage rules but the makers didn't want to spend money redesigning them so they dropped them and focused on continuing to make and sell larger trucks that met the exemption threshold.

I find that chain of legal, engineering, marketing and regulatory decisions FASCINATING, in the train wreck sense. With that perspective, Americans might realize we didn't "WANT" giant SUVs that get 12 MPH, sit nine feet high and make any pedestrian closer than 20 feet to the front of the vehicle invisible below the hood. We have been conditioned into wanting vehicles like that because they were the easiest and most profitable thing for failing vehicle makers to build rather than actually working to achieve the true goal of the original regulation.

Flaws in the political system prevent that flaw from being corrected because the vehicle makers have enough influence over politicians to squelch any attempt at correcting that flawed regulatory incentive system. Instead, the present state is one where

* buyers might be perfectly happy with a mini pickup that gets 25 MPG
* a vehicle with that footprint is required to get 35 MPG under current standards
* car makers don't want to figure out how to meet that requirement so that mini pickup isn't available
* instead, the customer can only buy a large truck or SUV that gets 16 MPG
* instead, roughly 12.4 million large trucks are sold every year and used mainly as commuter vehicles
* and we could have had nearly 8.6 million of those getting 25 MPG which would be better for everyone

That is economic and environmental insanity.

An equally frustrating example involves the growth of giant healthcare corporations whose business models evolved in lock step with Medicare and schemes to exploit payment rules as efficiently as possible. For more on this "financialization" of healthcare, read this review of a recent book The Big Fail by Joe Nocera and Bethany McLean.

https://watchingtheherd.blogspot.com/2023/10/book-...

Of course, a key reason why a culture that can figure out how to net $1 billion from a movie that cost $100 million to make CANNOT figure out how to make stories like the above at least mildly interesting is that it is not in the economic interest of most companies in the entertainment business to do so. They are either owned by or dependent upon the firms profiting from the status quo. Sure, there are examples of shows like 60 Minutes or Last Week Tonight that attempt to occasionally air content that bites a large corporate hand but most shows like these have either disappeared or devolved into insipid murder-mystery hoodunits.


WTH

I suspect the conservatives on this board have some rationale for supporting Trump, but they have not articulated it very well. - ges

=================

OK, it has been brought up here before but here it is in cliff notes version, Border Security, Rampant Crime, Economy

We have been down this road before.... you cite statistics showing these problems do not exist. OK, many disagree, continue to ignore them. Maybe your inability to recognize this point of view can exist is why you don't perceive it when brought up here.

"Open Your Mind".....Quato, 1990

OK, it has been brought up here before but here it is in cliff notes version, Border Security, Rampant Crime, Economy

Border security, yes, a real issue.

Rampant crime, no. Statistics demonstrate that crime is down, and significantly.

Economy: Probably the best economy in a generation, but agree that people at the lowest end of the economic ladder have been hurt, Curiously, it’s the “tax cuts for the rich” and the “don’t let Obamacare into our state” that have hurt them the most, but you can’t get them to believe it.

Maybe your inability to recognize this point of view…”

I recognize the point of view. It is simply wrong on two out of three. The first will not be solved by “a wall” but by policy changes and an understanding of how we got where we are, but that sort of complicated answer doesn’t fit with the simplistic answers pounded to death by right wing TV shows and radio talk show hosts.

I made a comment once (or more than once) that it is kinda sad that some of the best in-depth presentations are done by comedians, like John Oliver. He manages to make his show fun, interesting, and informative, and is raking in the Emmys as a result. He recently tackled student debt, for example (it is much worse than I thought it was...not the debt, but how the system is rigged against the borrowers).

Yes, you can watch 60 Minutes or Frontline, and they are excellent. If you want a deep-dive, watch them. But they are also dry. You have to want to watch them. Last Week Tonight makes you want to watch it because it is fun, and you leave knowing more than you did before watching the program. Oliver bristles at the notion that he is a journalist, and actually devoted some time on his show to acknowledge the actual journalism that his staff relies on for their information. He is a comedian, but he (and his staff) do their homework.

Quibble: the problems DO exist, but either cannot be solved without legislation (i.e. not by edict), or are not as severe as you are being led to believe (i.e. the data do not support the contention), or both. Depending on the issue. But I do not think anyone on this board would say that what you mention is not important, nor that it does not need addressing.

We have been down this road before.... you cite statistics showing these problems do not exist. OK, many disagree, continue to ignore them. Maybe your inability to recognize this point of view can exist is why you don't perceive it when brought up here.

I think it's a function of the sources of news these folks subscribe to and consume. Perhaps if they picked places that didn't fabricate things out of whole cloth, splice tape together to mislead viewers or allow their editorial content to bleed into their regular news they'd be better informed.

PS. Add "The world wasn't on fire" and "people weren't hanging on to the landing gear of C-17s for dear life" to your list.

Rampant crime, no. Statistics demonstrate that crime is down, and significantly.

Sure. When we play with the stats and set our frame of reference to, oh, 30 years ago.

Damn! You just trashed another irony meter! Those things are expensive!

While there is some amount of what you describe on both sides, the right-wing is by far more problematic in this area. Just as an example, I recall a study (maybe 10 years ago?) where they compared groups that consumed different media, and no media. The FOX News viewers were less informed than the people that didn't watch any news at all. Which is just sad. Of course, at least some of those who don't watch any news at all instead read newspapers (my mother would have been in that category, reading the Arizona Republic every day...hardly a liberal publication). Which says that maybe we should all do that to be better informed.

And today, FOX is mild compared to some outlets. The folks at Newsmax or OANN probably regard FOX as commies.

bighairymike: OK, it has been brought up here before but here it is in cliff notes version, Border Security, Rampant Crime, Economy

We have been down this road before.... you cite statistics showing these problems do not exist.

No, we cite statistics that show you're misinformed.

Again: The new fourth-quarter numbers showed a 13% decline in murder in 2023 from 2022, a 6% decline in reported violent crime and a 4% decline in reported property crime. That’s based on data from around 13,000 law enforcement agencies, policing about 82% of the U.S. population, that provided the FBI with data through December.

When the final numbers are in, the decline in the murder rate will be the largest one-year decline that has ever been recorded.

Those are facts.

We've gone over border security: Trump killed a bipartisan immigration plan through Speaker Johnson that the National Border Patrol Council said: "The Border Act of 2024 will give U.S. Border Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not had in the past. This will allow us to remove single adults expeditiously and without a lengthy judicial review which historically has required the release of these individuals into the interior of the United States. This alone will drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our borders illegally and evade apprehension. While not perfect, the Border Act of 2024 is a step in the right direction and is far better than the current status quo. This is why the National Border Patrol Council endorses this bill and hopes for its quick passage.”

The people who work the border every day want this legislation passed. Trump and republicans killed it.

The economy is a mixed bag. We have the fastest, strongest recovery from the pandemic of any of the G7 countries. We have 15 million new jobs. Wage increases now outGDP growth smashed market expectations in Q4, rising 3.3% in seasonally adjusted annualized terms (Q3 2023: 4.9%). The Q4 reading was likely by far the strongest in the G7 and meant that the economy expanded 2.5% in annual terms over 2023 as a whole, above the prior decade's average of 2.3%.pace inflation. Inflation has declined from over 9% to about 3%. We have over a half-million new manufacturing jobs. On the flip side, gasoline prices are rising and have been stubbornly high after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But oil companies are posting record profits.

Likewise, grocery prices are stubbornly high as well, partially as a result of disruptions to the supply chain but more a result of simple greed. Most grocery categories are dominated by a handful of consumer packaged goods companies.

For example, he top 3 soft drinks companies, Coca-Cola, Pepsico and Keurig Dr. Pepper, control around 90% of the soda market. Overall, soda sales are up 56%, unit volumes are down 2% and prices are up 59%.

Kraft Heinz dominates the packaged cheese category at 65% market share. Category unit volumes are up just 6%, while prices are up 21%. In 2022-2023 Kraft Heinz profits skyrocketed from $225 million to $887 million, an increase of 448%.

Chocolate candy sales are up 34%, unit volumes are down 8% and prices are up 46%. The top 3 companies, including Hershey’s, Mondelez and Mars, control an 80% market share. Hershey’s saw a 62% increase in profits in 2021. Hershey’s 30 brands control at least 46% of the candy category.

Cereal dollar sales are up 17%, unit volumes are down 12% and prices are up 33%. The top 3 brands, General Mills, Kellogg’s, and Post Holdings own a 70% market share.

And on and on.

"Open Your Mind" indeed.

Sure. When we play with the stats and set our frame of reference to, oh, 30 years ago.

No - just any time other than the near-term low of five years ago.

Crime is up only from that specific period, where it had fallen to the lowest level in a half century. But compared to any time in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and early 2010's, crime is down.

While there is some amount of what you describe on both sides, the right-wing is by far more problematic in this area.

LOL. This gets said a lot, but the mainstream media has been lying and gaslighting you for years. All those things I said? They did them. NBC's history of making up shit goes all the way back to Dateline NBC and them blowing up trucks. Who could also forget them doctoring the Zimmerman 911 call to make it raaaacist? And many more.

Here's a study for you to ponder. You won't like the source:

https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/political-...

REPORT (PADS-003)
Update: How Informed are Americans about Race and Policing?
Third report in the Political Accuracy & Divisions Study (PADS)

“Defund the police” was the rallying cry of liberals in the Summer of 2020, motivating “mostly peaceful” protests that led to property damage in excess of two billion dollars across at least 20 US states (Johansmeyer, 2021). To better understand the motivation behind these protests, in 2020, we surveyed people about their estimates of the number of unarmed black men shot by police in 2019 and found a shocking degree of inaccuracy, particularly amongst progressives. In this report, we present an update on these data and ask: have people become more knowledgeable when it comes to the available data on fatal police shootings of unarmed black Americans?

People who follow the mainstream media thought that blacks were being gunned down in the street by the dozens. The reality of it is exactly the opposite. In other words, the sources you cite? They lie to you.

No - just any time other than the near-term low of five years ago. Crime is up only from that specific period, where it had fallen to the lowest level in a half century. But compared to any time in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and early 2010's, crime is down.

Yes. Crime is up from 5 years ago. That's my point, thanks for helping out!

Let's understand why. Take a look at this law:

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pd...

This was passed into law and signed by Jay Inslee in 2021 in the state of Washington.

Brief Summary of Substitute Bill
• Prohibits peace officers from using chokeholds and neck restraints.
Prohibits peace officers from using police dogs to arrest or apprehend
persons.
•
Prohibits law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using tear gas and
certain types of military equipment.
•
Requires law enforcement agencies to adopt policies and procedures to
ensure that uniformed peace officers are reasonably identifiable.
•
Establishes restrictions on vehicular pursuits and firing upon moving
vehicles.
•
Prohibits a peace officer from seeking, and a court from issuing, a search
or arrest warrant granting an express exception to the "knock and
announce" rule.

Do bills like this affect crime? <--- I'll save you some time. This is a question I already know the answer to and will make the rest of the thread about getting you to say, "yes". :)

BTW this very thread rather unintentionally proves what sources or not are worth something.

There is no "Fascist tilt" to Trump. We know this because...he's already been President.

Was the FBI kicking down the door of his political enemies? Nope.
Why weren't Stzok and Page fired, and their lives ruined? What about Lt. Col. Vindman? Why wasn't he manning a radar tower in Alaska?

What about the press? How come they didn't all find themselves on the wrong end of IRS audits or searches of their hard drives?

Nope. Not a fascist. A fascist would have called out troops to enforce COVID restrictions.

WTH, I've also noticed the lack of small pickups. I drive what is considered a mid-sized, and it is the same size as a full sized truck from the 80's. I've owned 1 "full sized" truck, back in the early 2000's, and didn't care for it. Did not need that much truck, and sold it after a couple of years. Any bed limitations with my current truck are resolved either with my utility trailer, or with a bed extender that goes in trailer hitch receiver. So I have not missed a full sized truck at all. And I use it as a truck, it's got plenty of power and towing capacity, and I venture out on forest roads quite often. The Ford Maverick is considered a small truck, I've seen them and they're pretty sharp. But they are too light duty for what I want.

The Big Fail looks like a good read, just got a reserve on it at the library, thanks for the recommendation and the writeup on your great site.

Dope1: LOL. This gets said a lot, but the mainstream media has been lying and gaslighting you for years. All those things I said? They did them. NBC's history of making up shit goes all the way back to Dateline NBC and them blowing up trucks. Who could also forget them doctoring the Zimmerman 911 call to make it raaaacist? And many more.

Right. You've got what, a handful of examples from decades of air time, one going back three decades? Fox "News" lies every single day. They paid $750 million dollars for defamatory lying. They're still lying about the 2020 election.

Give me a break.

Dope1: “Defund the police” was the rallying cry of liberals in the Summer of 2020, motivating “mostly peaceful” protests that led to property damage in excess of two billion dollars across at least 20 US states

We've gone over this as well and you continue to ignore the fact that several of those riots like the one in Minneapolis, were started by guys like the "Umbrella Man," who began damaging the Autozone – which was eventually set on fire and destroyed – to turn what had been largely peaceful protests violent.

There are several examples of white nationalists intentionally sparking violence at various protests.

Like Ivan Harrison Hunter, a self-proclaimed member of the “boogaloo bois,” who fired 13 rounds from a semi-automatic assault-style rifle at a Minneapolis police station.

As far as "defunding the police" is concerned, that's now republicans and Dementia Don's plan: strip the FBI and CIA of all funding and kill those agencies.

No "LOL", because it isn't funny.

I say to you: prove it.

We have discredited Gateway Pundit, and many other right-wing sources exhaustively numerous times. You assert that MSM is lying to us, so it shouldn't be hard to prove it. Feel free to pull a story, and confirm from first sources (like court filings...we did that for you about a year ago) that:

1) they are lying to us (as opposed to making a mistake)
2) they are not owning it, and admitting it
3) if you can, show a consistent pattern

I am aware of ONE time that happened in MSM. Except it didn't. A Washington Post reporter invented a story. The Post published it. It was found to be a lie. But -surprise surprise- they didn't cover it up. They fired the reporter, printed a retraction, and owned it. And that was over 40 years ago. That may have happened in MSM a few other times. But one lying reporter is not a pattern with MSM, and if they own the mistake, it can be forgiven.

Your sources usually double-down on the lie (like "Trump really won in 2020"), instead of saying "oops". And I sort of understand it, given the reaction when Fox News called the 2020 election for Biden...Fox viewers were livid at Fox for telling them the truth.

Anyway...we've hauled a bunch of rocks for you with your sources, demonstrating they are consistently wrong. Just one example from MSM that fits the criteria, if you please. Otherwise, you -frankly- are talking out of your ass. Unsubstantiated accusations are meaningless.

BTW, I have no problem with Skeptic Magazine. I haven't read it in a while, but skepticism is a good thing. I am a trained skeptic (i.e. science teaches skepticism). On a quick glance, none of the surveys said that MSM is lying to us.

I say to you: prove it.

I gave you several examples. Dateline NBC. Dan Rathergate. RussiaRussiaRussia. Not covering Hunter Biden's laptop.

And you raced right past the study I posted. I told you that you wouldn't like it.

You assert that MSM is lying to us, so it shouldn't be hard to prove it. Feel free to pull a story, and confirm from first sources (like court filings...we did that for you about a year ago) that:

Oh, trying to narrow things down? Won't work. The MSM is full of it, always has been. You're just comfortable with the slant they provide.

Anyway...we've hauled a bunch of rocks for you with your sources, demonstrating they are consistently wrong. Just one example from MSM that fits the criteria, if you please. Otherwise, you -frankly- are talking out of your ass. Unsubstantiated accusations are meaningless.

Sorry, I've given you examples and now you're getting defensive. Not my fault that you're being gaslit on a daily basis.

Let's prove that.

Is the US southern border secure? Yes or no.

And here's another question:

Is the Florida law really about "Don't say gay?"

WHY ARE THERE FEW OR NO SMALL-SIZE PICKUPS LIKE THERE WERE IN THE 1980s?

Fascinating. Thanks WTH.

Every year when I do my taxes I'm reminded of how ridiculous our tax system is with all it's special cases designed for those with the money to bribe Congress.

OK, it has been brought up here before but here it is in cliff notes version, Border Security, Rampant Crime, Economy

LOL.

Wrong on all three.

OK, the border is a problem, but your orange Jesus effed up the best chance we had to actually address the problems because he wanted to keep people like you riled up and motivated to vote for him. Sheesh.

As far as "defunding the police" is concerned, that's now republicans and Dementia Don's plan: strip the FBI and CIA of all funding and kill those agencies.

Yes, imagine a mob boss being in charge of the FBI. Donnie knows they are his enemy because he is a corrupt criminal. Therefore he will try to kill the agency or totally corrupt it, too.

OK, the border is a problem, but your orange Jesus effed up the best chance we had to actually address the problems because he wanted - ges

----------------

And your guy immediately tore down Trumps EO's and then went on to ignore the problem for three plus year until election year rolled around. OK, worse than ignoring, the Biden admin denied and actively preached the border is secure.

I was hopeful for the Border Security Bill to be hammered into something acceptable, but short of that, given the status quo, I think the chances of achieving meaningful border security are far better under Trump than it would be under Biden. If Biden wins, it is back to lip service and insincere concern for four more years. His first three years showed us what is really in his heart despite what his lips say.

bighairymike: I think the chances of achieving meaningful border security are far better under Trump than it would be under Biden. If Biden wins, it is back to lip service and insincere concern for four more years. His first three years showed us what is really in his heart despite what his lips say.

And that's delusional.

In another thread, albaby1 explained in detail that border encounters skyrocketed in Trump's second year yet he had zero interest in addressing immigration or border security. And that it was only the pandemic that drove down the numbers of border encounters. I mean, c'mon, who wanted to cross into a country that so drastically botched the pandemic response that thousands of Americans were dying daily, where there were no hospital beds available anywhere, and where the dead bodies were being stored in freezer trucks because hospital morgues were overrun by the Covid-19 dead?

And what, you're going to fault Biden because during his first year in office he was trying to get a deadly pandemic under control after TFG failed to do so? And then he had to get the economy back on track -- get people working again, get manufacturing back from overseas -- after Dementia Don killed jobs and small businesses nationwide. Oh, and then there was the invasion of Ukraine.

So what if it's year three? But actually, the bipartisan effort actually began in year two of the Biden presidency.

The team negotiated for four months to produce the bill. And it took less than four days for its support among Republicans to collapse at the direction of Dementia Don and Moses Johnson, both of whom prefer immigration to be their main attack on Biden during the presidential campaign.

As far as the chances of achieving meaningful border security being far better under Trump, umm, sure: he'll have that worked out in two weeks just like he did a new plan to replace Obamacare and a new Infrastructure deal.

Two weeks, honest.

Pinkie swear.

I think the chances of achieving meaningful border security are far better under Trump than it would be under Biden.

Wrong again.

There was a good bill in Congress. The Border Patrol endorsed it. Trump said...no, no, no. I want to keep people like BHM all stirred up and angry because that will help me get reelected. So, the Republicans killed it.

You think you'll get a better chance? Very, very unlikely. So you let Trump kill the best chance we had for improved border security. MAGAs are hopelessly deluded.

And your guy immediately tore down Trumps EO's and then went on to ignore the problem for three plus year until election year rolled around. OK, worse than ignoring, the Biden admin denied and actively preached the border is secure.

A message that was duly picked up by the media these folks all consume...and then parroted here.

I was hopeful for the Border Security Bill to be hammered into something acceptable, but short of that, given the status quo, I think the chances of achieving meaningful border security are far better under Trump than it would be under Biden. If Biden wins, it is back to lip service and insincere concern for four more years. His first three years showed us what is really in his heart despite what his lips say.

GOP control of Congress plus a Trump 2nd term gets us House Bill 20, which we've covered here. That's what real border security legislation looks like, not like the "compromise" where the democrats pretend to care about the issue.

GOP control of Congress plus a Trump 2nd term gets us House Bill 20, which we've covered here. That's what real border security legislation looks like, not like the "compromise" where the democrats pretend to care about the issue.

No it doesn't. There's no way the Republicans will have 60 votes in the Senate, which is what you would need to overcome a filibuster.

Trump would be constrained by the same laws that limited him in his first term, and which limit Biden. The opportunity to change those laws has passed - for the first time in a generation or more, you had Democrats willing to support an immigration enforcement directed bill, without having even something for the DREAMERs in it. The GOP decided to pass. If Trump gets back in office, nothing remotely close to that bill is going to be on the table (and HR 2 isn't even in the same room with the table).

The GOP had their chance to score a major change for border security, and chose not to take it. Trump isn't going to save that.

No it doesn't. There's no way the Republicans will have 60 votes in the Senate, which is what you would need to overcome a filibuster.

Probably right. It's not like you can count on democrat votes to secure the border; when they say it's a problem it's them doing performance art.

But if they want to keep bleeding support, have at it!


The opportunity to change those laws has passed - for the first time in a generation or more, you had Democrats willing to support an immigration enforcement directed bill, without having even something for the DREAMERs in it. The GOP decided to pass. If Trump gets back in office, nothing remotely close to that bill is going to be on the table (and HR 2 isn't even in the same room with the table).

We've covered that law, and it was trash. Passing no bill at all is better than passing bad bills.

Dope1: We've covered that law, and it was trash.

The National Border Patrol Council: The Border Act of 2024 will give U.S. Border Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not had in the past. This will allow us to remove single adults expeditiously and without a lengthy judicial review which historically has required the release of these individuals into the interior of the United States. This alone will drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our borders illegally and evade apprehension.

Gee, who to trust for a rational decision here? A keyboard Trump Cultist warrior or the men and women who actually patrol the border?

A real puzzler.

Probably right. It's not like you can count on democrat votes to secure the border; when they say it's a problem it's them doing performance art.

It's not just performance art. The Democrats don't agree with the most draconian measures for securing the border, but they do (or did) support strengthening border controls in several ways that the GOP agrees with. Generally, they also support programs that support immigrants that are already here (notably the DREAMERs), and so generally favor a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes both border security measures and normalization of the legal status of the DREAMERs. This was the GOP's first (and probably last) chance to get a bill that was pretty much all security, no DREAMER normalization. And they passed.

We've covered that law, and it was trash. Passing no bill at all is better than passing bad bills.

No it wasn't, and no it isn't. HR 2 is the measure that was "performance art" - it's a messaging bill, one that is only 100% what the base of one party wants. Those kinds of bills only get through the chamber you control because it cannot pass. If you actually have to negotiate with the center-leaning portion of your own party (forget the other party), you can't get that bill passed. They're willing to vote for it in a messaging bill because they don't ever have to face the impacts if it passes - it's so one-sided it will never get through the Senate. But because of that, the drafters haven't done any of the work in negotiating with GOP members who are from districts where the most draconian version of a border security bill will cause them problems.

The compromise bill wasn't trash. It simply was the most border-security-focused bill that could pass the Senate. Like, in a generation. The immigration hawks in the GOP like to pretend to you guys in the base that something like HR 2 can one day pass if only you negotiate hard enough, but that's simply false. So you keep credulously believing that one day you'll get that bill that's 100% of what you want, and instead pass up anything short of that - so instead, the country keeps living under immigration laws that don't work for modern immigration problems.

It's not just performance art. The Democrats don't agree with the most draconian measures for securing the border, but they do (or did) support strengthening border controls in several ways that the GOP agrees with.

Such as? They don't want a wall and they don't want actual law enforcement on the border. The democrats want more agents to process people into the country faster.

Generally, they also support programs that support immigrants that are already here (notably the DREAMERs), and so generally favor a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes both border security measures and normalization of the legal status of the DREAMERs.

We covered this. That bill had very little in the way of actual security and was mostly about processing people in faster.

No it wasn't, and no it isn't. HR 2 is the measure that was "performance art" - it's a messaging bill, one that is only 100% what the base of one party wants. Those kinds of bills only get through the chamber you control because it cannot pass. If you actually have to negotiate with the center-leaning portion of your own party (forget the other party), you can't get that bill passed.

HB 2 passed with all but 2 Republicans voting yes. What GOP senator is going to vote no?

The compromise bill wasn't trash. It simply was the most border-security-focused bill that could pass the Senate. Like, in a generation.

You're describing a very, very low bar. One that's not really a bar but more like a piece of tape on the ground.

So you keep credulously believing that one day you'll get that bill that's 100% of what you want, and instead pass up anything short of that - so instead, the country keeps living under immigration laws that don't work for modern immigration problems.

The government under Biden has been actively shipping migrants around and more or less ignoring the fact that we have a border at all. This is an issue that's been brewing for 40 years. There have been massive strides made in the last 2 in educating the public as to the real story.

Such as? They don't want a wall and they don't want actual law enforcement on the border. The democrats want more agents to process people into the country faster.

There's no way to have a wall that allows you to avoid these problems. We've talked about this - most the border is the river, and the closest point at which you could build a permanent structure is hundreds of feet from the border. Which means a wall can't prevent people from physically entering the country.

We have, and Democrats want, actual law enforcement on the border. If you cross the border unlawfully, you can and will be detained. That's law enforcement. And just like actual law enforcement, people who are detained by border law enforcement are entitled to judicial process before a punishment is imposed. You can't throw them out of the country before they're processed.

So that's why you need more agents - to process people out of the country faster. Since we take so long to process people after they're detained, we have to let them into the country. We have nowhere to keep them locked up for years, and no way to pay for them to be locked up for years.

HB 2 passed with all but 2 Republicans voting yes. What GOP senator is going to vote no?

Again, you're missing the key feature of messaging bills. HR 2 passed the House because Schumer wouldn't put it on the floor. If the GOP had control of the Senate, then HR 2 wouldn't have passed the House. Because it's got stuff in it that more than 2 House Republicans don't want to actually become law - but they'll vote for it when whipped, because it can't become law.

Oh, but since you asked, Collins, Murkowski, and Romney would have voted no just on political philosophy. GOP Senators from states with large numbers of migrant farmworkers (looking at you Thom Tillis) wouldn't have voted for that bill in its current form, either (the ag impacts are why Massie voted against it in the House).

The government under Biden has been actively shipping migrants around and more or less ignoring the fact that we have a border at all. This is an issue that's been brewing for 40 years. There have been massive strides made in the last 2 in educating the public as to the real story.

You keep saying stuff like that, and we keep pointing out to you that the situation on the ground is caused by the laws on the books - not by the Executive. You can't stop migrants from physically crossing the border, once they've crossed the border they're entitled to be processed, we don't have the budgeted resources to either process them quickly or detain them all when we don't, so you cannot avoid having them enter the country.

You can't solve the problem without Congressional action, and you can't get Congressional action unless you reach a compromise between the parties. So if you won't accept a bill that both parties can support, you can't solve the problem. Electing Trump doesn't change that.

The GOP had their chance to score a major change for border security, and chose not to take it. Trump isn't going to save that. - albaby

-------------

We will just have to wait and see. A president seriously dedicated to a policy will find a way, even in spite of an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling as Biden did with his Student loan giveaway. Even in Trump's first term he found a way to build hundreds of mules of Border Wall despite a tsunami of opposition by liberals in congress, including some RINO's, and with the enthusiastic support of the MSM.

A committed president does not make one attempt, get rebuffed, and then give up since he now thinks he has an excuse to avoid doing something he didn't want in the first place.

Your examples did not satisfy the criteria. Rathergate? That was exposed at the time (if you're referring to being beaten-up in a public toilet?). And it was ONE GUY. Just like the Post was ONE reporter (don't remember if it was male or female). RussiaRussiaRussia resulted in jail time for several folks. You probably don't want to use that example to prove your point (because it doesn't).

They make mistakes. Sometimes individuals lie. But to say the MSM systematically lies is not a statement I can accept without proof. Gateway Pundit systemically lies, as an example. So does Breitbart. We've shown that over and over and over again just on this board. You may as well say "there is a god"...unless you can prove it, I won't accept it.

I'm not defensive. I'm just tired of the drone "MSM lies" without proof. My comfort is irrelevant. I want facts. That's it. That's the end of my interest in media. If they don't provide me with useful facts, they are useless.

Is the US southern border secure? No. And I don't know anyone that says it is. The NYT doesn't say it is (I actually read those articles, so I know what they say). And, for the record, the northern border isn't secure either. In fact, it's far less secure. It is completely unguarded, there is very little fencing, and it's really easy to walk (either way) across (though, from what little I've read about the northern border, the Mounties patrol it better than we do, and snag the occasional errant American).

Dope1: The democrats want more agents to process people into the country faster.

That's just a flat out lie.

The bipartisan bill gave asylum officers the authority to screen applicants within 90 days of their arrival in the country using a tougher standard for entry into the U.S. and, for those who passed, a decision on their cases within another 90 days. Cases would be decided in just six months instead of six years, as is common in a court system backlogged with cases today. It would have done so by hiring more than 4,300 asylum officers who would take on the work now reserved for immigration judges.

Dope1: That bill had very little in the way of actual security and was mostly about processing people in faster.

Duh. Processing people faster returns them to their country of origin faster; see above (six months instead of six years). Plus, again, the bill included stricter standards for meeting asylum standards.

Dope1: The government under Biden has been actively shipping migrants around and more or less ignoring the fact that we have a border at all.

Trump Cult nonsense.

We've covered that law, and it was trash. Passing no bill at all is better than passing bad bills. - Dope

-------------

Heh. That bill was so very good that it self destructed in three years, leaving 5,000 a day enshrined into law.

The National Border Patrol Council: The Border Act of 2024 will give U.S. Border Patrol agents authorities codified, in law, that we have not had in the past. This will allow us to remove single adults expeditiously and without a lengthy judicial review which historically has required the release of these individuals into the interior of the United States. This alone will drop illegal border crossings nationwide and will allow our agents to get back to detecting and apprehending those who want to cross our borders illegally and evade apprehension.

Gee, who to trust for a rational decision here? A keyboard Trump Cultist warrior or the men and women who actually patrol the border?

A real puzzler.

------------

Whatever potential good that was in it, it can only be realized if a president is determined to achieve border security and aggressively implements it. That person is NOT Joe Biden.

Is the Florida law really about "Don't say gay?"

A) Florida. Don't care. Not my state.

B) Because it was a huge controversy, I know that it's about not discussing gender identity (and related topics) in school under a certain age (14??). And I'm not even really paying attention because I have no influence on what FL does. If it hits federal courts (or SCOTUS), I'll pay more attention. I have my own opinions about gender identity and related topics, but it's not relevant to FL.

I also am aware that the Disney/DeSantis thing was settled. I don't know what the settlement was, but I know it was settled. And DeSantis just signed a law about squatters, but I actually learned the details here. I just saw headlines in the media, and skipped the article because...Florida. Don't have any influence there.

A president seriously dedicated to a policy will find a way....

You know, there's a name for that belief. The Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency. The idea that there are no actual constraints, legal or political, on the President. That the only thing that matters to whether they do something they want is their will.

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5732208/the-green-la...

But that's not how our government works. Most of the power on domestic issues lies with Congress, not the President. They hold the statutory pen, and they control the purse. For things like immigration, which have been the subject of decades of political debate, the laws that govern the issue are pretty elaborate. Congress has already spoken on most of the hard questions, which makes it nearly impossible for the President to significantly change policy. Where there is leeway in the statutes, resource constraints prevent the President from making major changes. You need money to build walls or hire more border patrol agents or immigration judges or build and staff detention centers....which means you need Congress to give you that money.

So, no. A president seriously dedicated to a policy isn't likely to find a way. They'll just run into the law and the realities of budgeting.

There have been massive strides made in the last 2 in educating the public as to the real story. - Dope

------------------------

A reminder to thank Greg Abbott for his vision to share the border state experience with the rest of the country.

Is the US southern border secure? No. And I don't know anyone that says it is - 1pg

------------

Ask Mayorkas...

I'm also tired of the "Dems don't care about the border". That's complete BS. They do. They just envision different solutions than you do. For one, they want more judges and courts to adjudicate cases more quickly. But many on the right just want to put up an impenetrable barrier (hah!) to prevent them from entering in the first place, even though that isn't possible along large parts of the border (e.g. in the middle of a river), and violates the law regarding asylum-seekers. And now nothing will be done because of Trump and Johnson. Trump had the trifecta in 2016, and did nothing except issue edicts that were illegal (and therefore shot down by the courts). Even if he wins this year (unlikely), he still won't be able to do anything without first changing the law. Which, as albaby said, is impossible without compromising with the Dems. If Biden wins, the same would be true...no change without compromising with Reps. Otherwise, it's the status quo probably until after I'm dead and buried.

Sure...you could probably find a few extreme lefties that say "no problem", just as I could find a few extreme righties that say "gun them all down". Neither is representative of either party, and it's unfair to characterize them as such.

>>Is the Florida law really about "Don't say gay?"<<

A) Florida. Don't care. Not my state. - 1pg

--------------

I get that, but if you are interested in why the skepticism about biased MSM reporting, their reporting about the "Don't say Gay" bill provides a straight forward example.

For one, they want more judges and courts to adjudicate cases more quickly. But many on the right just want to put up an impenetrable barrier (hah!) to prevent them from entering in the first place, even though that isn't possible along large parts of the border (e.g. in the middle of a river), and violates the law regarding asylum-seekers - 1pg

---------------

A better solution would be to do both.

BTW, I am so very tired of being reminded you can't build a wall in a river or it's not needed on a high bluff. Mainly walls are needed in high population areas where a border runner can quickly disappear into a city population. The wall segments simply channel the migrants into POE's or into more open areas where they can be processed or apprehended. Patrols and drones can handle the rural areas just fine. But the libs dismiss the entire concept with the superficial "you can't build a wall in a river."

BTW, I am so very tired of being reminded you can't build a wall in a river or it's not needed on a high bluff. Mainly walls are needed in high population areas where a border runner can quickly disappear into a city population. The wall segments simply channel the migrants into POE's or into more open areas where they can be processed or apprehended. Patrols and drones can handle the rural areas just fine. But the libs dismiss the entire concept with the superficial "you can't build a wall in a river."

Because we already have pretty robust physical barriers in high population areas. For obvious reasons. Where the "Build the Wall" crowd is proposing to build the wall are in those rural areas away from the population centers. And that's where the asylees are crossing, because that's where they can get into U.S. territory before encountering a fence.

The border problems that are driving the issue right now aren't from border runners quickly disappearing into a population - they're from people who are apprehended by the Border Patrol and/or ICE, and that we can't do anything with because we have a multi-year backlog in processing them. Which is why we keep saying that you can't solve that problem with a wall. Because those people aren't trying to slip into the U.S. undetected, and they're mostly crossing in rural areas in Texas.

We don't need more wall, because the problems are arising from the population and in the areas that a wall can't address.

Why? He agrees with most of us. He says we have a "broken system", and that it was broken long before the present (or even several past) administration. A quick google confirmed that. Also, the House failed to impeach him. So, yeah...I think you don't have a leg to stand upon with that retort.

Here's a direct quote: “It certainly is a crisis and we don’t bear responsibility for a broken system, and we’re dealing a tremendous amount within that broken system,” he said. “But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it.”

Which is pretty much what albaby and yourself discussed at length in January.

OK. Well, what little I have read says what I said in my post (part "B"). "Don't Say Gay" is catchy, but the articles I have read (NYT...horrors!) say words to the effect of "the bill known as 'don't say gay'...", but then digs deeper into the provisions and the support/opposition to those provisions. You can't just skim the headlines and expect to understand the details.

All media (legit or not) often encapsulates an issue with something catchy. Like "Star Wars" (SDI). "Don't Say Gay". "Don't Ask Don't Tell". If you don't read past that, you get the wrong impression. Which is why I don't like it when they do that. It's not like you're trying to simplify complex scientific concepts so a lay-person can understand. It's policy, and is usually straightforward to understand if you just read it.

Mainly walls are needed in high population areas...

They have them there already. San Diego. Nogales. El Paso. The problem really is the rural areas, which are some of the most remote in our nation, and are difficult to patrol or surveil (especially without funding). Someone intent on getting in will just go outside the urban areas, and even if patrolled by drone, once they cross you have to give them due process. We need more resources to do that efficiently, and remove those who need removing.

By the way, I've driven along part of the border. Very remote outside of Yuma. There was wall/fencing clearly visible from the highway, and we weren't anywhere near a city (many miles). People will find a way (over, under, through, around). So, while physical barriers strategically placed may have some benefit, streamlining processing of migrants (and especially asylum-seekers) will do a lot more. I think most of the really useful physical barriers existed even before Trump.

We wouldn't have to release them into the country pending hearings if we had more resources. If the POEs were better-staffed, we'd process people faster so they wouldn't feel the need to go over/under/through/around, which would reduce the traffic of those who do, making them easier to detect and detain (i.e. if everyone is going to a POE, someone that isn't stands out like a sore thumb).

We don't need more wall, because the problems are arising from the population and in the areas that a wall can't address. - albaby

-------------------

I say we need some more wall especially in high population areas. I say more mpot knowing exactly how much or exactly where. Why, because I am not sure but will let experts decide.

You on the other hand seem very certain that not one additional mile is warranted. I don't see how anyone make that claim.

onepoorguy: The problem really is the rural areas...

No, that's not the problem.

The number of people sneaking into the country is a fraction of the number of people showing up legally at ports of entry and simply making a claim for asylum. They system cannot absorb all of those people. As albaby1 explained repeatedly, the system we have now is outmoded, designed to deal with young males from Mexico crossing the border illegally to work in America. Today, we have asylum seekers from all over Central America coming to legal ports of entry to request asylum. They are not, for the most part, attempting to sneak into the country. And we don't have an adequate number of border personnel or judges to process the asylum seekers and send them home if they are not eligible.

The border bill Trump killed gave border officials powers to quickly deny entry, added thousands of new border officials and judges, and gave the president the power to shut down the border at predetermined asylum seeker levels.

Trump killed border security.

Why? He agrees with most of us. He says we have a "broken system", and that it was broken long before the present (or even several past) administration. A quick google confirmed that. Also, the House failed to impeach him. So, yeah...I think you don't have a leg to stand upon with that retort.

Here's a direct quote: “It certainly is a crisis and we don’t bear responsibility for a broken system, and we’re dealing a tremendous amount within that broken system,” he said. “But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it.” - 1pg

---------------

For the first three years, the Biden Admin denied the problem. Sure in the last year, they all switched due to political embarrassment. But if you look back to earlier, there were congressional testimony with Mayorkas on the hot seat on several occasions saying with a straight face "the border is secure". BTW, I don't feel Mayorkas should be impeached, he was merely doing his best to carry out the policies of the Big Guy, as any staffer should.

We wouldn't have to release them into the country pending hearings if we had more resources. If the POEs were better-staffed, we'd process people faster so they wouldn't feel the need to go over/under/through/around, which would reduce the traffic of those who do, making them easier to detect and detain (i.e. if everyone is going to a POE, someone that isn't stands out like a sore thumb).

------------------

I could get behind that idea if there were sufficient detention facilities to contain 100% of them at the border until they are either deported or granted asylum. And if during that period of detention, we learn through solid DNA records that you have been here before and deported, and now you are back, you leave detention for some real prison time before being deported again.

The border bill Trump killed gave border officials powers to quickly deny entry, added thousands of new border officials and judges, and gave the president the power to shut down the border at predetermined asylum seeker levels.

--------------------

And despite all that, tens of thousands of unvetted or barely vetted foreigners would continue be let loose in in the country with no ability to find them if we do later decide to deport them. That bill is more-or-less immigration reform with a slight, very subtle scent of border security.

Dope1: The democrats want more agents to process people into the country faster.

That's just a flat out lie.

Man, If I had a dollar for every time the right wing club on this website lied, got refuted, and then repeated the lie I could pay a porn star $130,000 to paint my house...legally.

Man, If I had a dollar for every time the right wing club on this website lied, got refuted, and then repeated the lie I could pay a porn star $130,000 to paint my house...legally.

OK, to be fair, some of them are just repeating lies that they were told were the truth. By their "not-mainstream" media. But, yes, when corrected (and shown the evidence/data), they should stop repeating it because they become liars (since they now know the truth).

Anyone can be wrong. We all have been at some point, I'm sure. But when shown the data, there is no further excuse, IMO.

And DeSantis just signed a law about squatters,

The DeSantis bill was about homeless people in general. If I understand correctly, it would allow Florida to criminalize unauthorized camping on public or private property, such that they could arrest the homeless people living under an overpass, along the railroad easements, etc.

Of course there's some verbiage that they must provide an alternative... round 'em up and stick them out in the boonies in a barbed wire compound with a portapotty and portashower?

Te devil's in the details as to whether the Feds allow the law.

Didn't AZ pass a law a couple years ago, only to have the Fed rule it unconstitutional?

"The walls" built during Trump's term are relatively easily chopped, tunneled, scaled. Trumpenwall was cut some 3000 times by 2022. I'm sure Ryobi, DeWalt, Milwaukee power tool vendors love the additional sales.

Hard ladders and rope ladders are also common. And then there are the plane and boat immigrants.

If the purpose you describe is to funnel the flow for apprehension, processing, just designate areas, we already have that.

Most immigrants would be thrilled to have such an orderly opportunity. Of course, we'd need the additional staffing such as that in the bill Trump just had his cult shoot down.

I don't recall that. There is a bill in the legislature now that is cracking down on encampments. Had to look it up...HB2718.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/1R/bills/HB271....

Short answer, it gives the city the power to remove the encampments if alternatives exist, and also spells out some rights of the homeless. I didn't read the entire bill (just the first few lines). There is also a similar senate bill, SB1593.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/summary/S.1...

Kinda funny. One of the local stories I found while checking up on this said "criminalizes homelessness". But at least the SB does no such thing. It mandates arresting people committing crimes, but that seems rather redundant since we already do that (and have done since before statehood). The SB doesn't spell out any rights, as near as I can tell.

My mistake.... I read about Martin v. Boise in as AZ online newspaper that discussed a major homeless encampment in Phoenix. The advocates for the homeless argued that M v B protected the 'zona campers.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-cou...

"Martin v. Boise was a 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in response to a 2009 lawsuit by six homeless plaintiffs against the city of Boise, Idaho regarding the city's anti-camping ordinance. The ruling held that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population. It did not necessarily mean a city cannot enforce any restrictions on camping on public property. The decision was based on the Eighth Amendment to the U.S Constitution."

I have a hunch that, just as Abbot bussed migrants outta Texas, the good red Christian states bus homeless people to more tolerant blue states. I do know for a fact that the Hawaiian state gov has given free plane tickets to the mainland to homeless people. Aloha and Arriverderci. Next stop Phoenix.

Trump isn't going to save that.

And Trump doesn't care one whit.

He's a totally opportunistic narcissist. He will get what he wants: reelection and escape from his criminality as well as a wonderful chance for expansive grifting.

If he can keep the border as an issue and blame problems on the Dems...hey that's a win for him.

Why can't MAGAs see that he cares about nothing but himself.

You on the other hand seem very certain that not one additional mile is warranted. I don't see how anyone make that claim.

Oh, I don’t reject the possibility that there might be a mile or two of fence here and there that might be better served by a wall. Just that the problems we face at the border aren’t ones that will be solved in any material way by doing that.

We’re already doing an excellent job of moving crossers to places where they can be detected and detained. Partially because of the fences and walls that have long been there, and partially because the crossers these days aren’t trying to evade detection very much. Our problem is that we don’t have adequate systems in place to handle them once we catch them. We don’t have enough detention facilities or immigration judges.

Building more walls doesn’t address that problem. Because most of the border can’t be blocked by a wall - ever - you can’t ever physically prevent people who are willing to cross and be caught. So you have to solve the problem of what to do with them after you catch them. That’s the main failure point of the system right now - not a failure to have enough wall.

We've covered that law, and it was trash. Passing no bill at all is better than passing bad bills.

You're a smart person. Stop drinking the Trump/MAGA koolaid!

But that's not how our government works

Let us hope that remains true.

Anyone can be wrong. We all have been at some point, I'm sure. But when shown the data, there is no further excuse, IMO.

Very cultish behavior. And we've all heard how incredibly hard it is to get people out of cults.

There's no way to have a wall that allows you to avoid these problems. We've talked about this - most the border is the river, and the closest point at which you could build a permanent structure is hundreds of feet from the border. Which means a wall can't prevent people from physically entering the country.

Sorry, but you're just...wrong. There's a reason why Biden keeps suing to stop Texas from putting up barriers and enforcing the law. It's because it's working.

https://www.newsweek.com/greg-abbott-celebrates-te....

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said Tuesday that Operation Lone Star, his campaign to block irregular migration, "is working" after U.S. Customs and Border Protection published figures showing a sharp decrease in illegal crossings into the Lone Star State.

Abbott shared an article from a conservative-leaning publication that cited CBP data released on March 22 showing that in the first five months of the 2024 fiscal year (October to February), the number of encounters between migrants suspected of crossing into the U.S. illegally and law enforcement fell by 28 percent in Texas. Over the same period, it increased by 35 percent and 52 percent, respectively, in California and Arizona. Both states have a Democratic governor.

Love the attempt at spin by Newsweak here to try to poison the source. The fact remains. You guys keep saying "We've proven X" when you...haven't.

We have, and Democrats want, actual law enforcement on the border. If you cross the border unlawfully, you can and will be detained. That's law enforcement. And just like actual law enforcement, people who are detained by border law enforcement are entitled to judicial process before a punishment is imposed. You can't throw them out of the country before they're processed.

democrats do not want law enforcement on the border. Know how I know that? Stuff like this

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-justice-departm...

The Biden administration on Monday filed a lawsuit against Texas over floating barriers that state officials have deployed in the middle of the Rio Grande, seeking to force the state to remove the buoys that federal officials argue have endangered migrants and Border Patrol agents alike.

(This by the way invalidates your argument about no way to build barriers near the Rio Grande).

You'll no doubt respond with an argument that throws up its hands and says, "Well we can't block the river..." Because Reasons but since we own half of it...yes we can.


Again, you're missing the key feature of messaging bills. HR 2 passed the House because Schumer wouldn't put it on the floor. If the GOP had control of the Senate, then HR 2 wouldn't have passed the House. Because it's got stuff in it that more than 2 House Republicans don't want to actually become law - but they'll vote for it when whipped, because it can't become law.

Huh? More than 2? Only 1 of the two objected to the bill because it restricted migrants. Massie's reason what that he didn't want e-verify used against US Citizens.

If a watered-down bill appeared from the Senate you'd see GOP'er s votes against it...likely because it would be crafted to get Murkowski and Romney's votes and therefore would be a weak bill. Not because it was too strong.

You keep saying stuff like that

I keep saying stuff like that Because Biden keeps doing it. This board is amazing for being in abject denial of actual facts.

Biden wants migrants so bad, he's arranging flights to go get them from their home countries:

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-03...

You or somebody else is going to say Aha! Dope didn't even read his own source! That Trumpy lie was debunked!! Hahahahahaha! Except you actually have to read this stuff. When you do:

THE FACTS: An article published on Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies examined a major example of how Biden has exercised his parole authority for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.

Each month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection discloses how many people from these four countries were allowed to enter the country. On Jan. 26, the agency reported 327,000 were vetted and authorized for travel. There were more than 67,000 Cubans, 126,000 Haitians, 53,000 Nicaraguans and 81,000 Venezuelans.

And no, I don't care to debate what Trump said. What's relevant here is that Biden is allowing via his parole policy for more and more folks to fly here via his amnesty program.

This isn't even what I referring to. Biden's been transporting migrants all over the country:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/borde...

The Department of Homeland Security plans to transport migrants awaiting immigration proceedings from U.S. cities along the southern border farther into the interior of the country, beginning with Los Angeles in the coming weeks, according to internal documents obtained by NBC News.

The plan would alleviate overcrowding along the border, where record numbers of border crossers have overwhelmed the capacity of shelters in some cities, at times leading Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, to release migrants on the street to fend for themselves.

The real reason is to avoid the optics of loads of folks along the border, but whatever.

You can't stop migrants from physically crossing the border, once they've crossed the border they're entitled to be processed

Greg Abbot says hi. Sorry, but you're just wrong here.

Your examples did not satisfy the criteria

LOL. The media lies to you through omission and through repeating obviously bogus "facts". I don't need to kick a field goal through your 6 inch wide goal posts.

How many media outlets immediately dismissed the Hunter Laptop story as RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION? Lots.

ussiaRussiaRussia resulted in jail time for several folks

They nailed people for FARA violations. That's hardly the stuff of treason and collusion. If this is your criteria, then most of the Biden family should be in leg irons right now.

Is the US southern border secure? No. And I don't know anyone that says it is.

Really? You want to go with this, do you?

https://www.cn
n.com/2021/03/17/politics/mayorkas-faces-lawmakers-amid-border-crisis/index.html

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told lawmakers Wednesday that the US-Mexico border is secure and repeated that it is “not open,” as the administration faces an ongoing influx of migrants.

Say, was this claim repeated by anyone?

https://nypost.com/2022/09/15/white-house-doubles-...

The Biden administration doubled down Thursday on Veep Kamala Harris’ claim that the US border with Mexico is “secure” despite a surge of illegal crossings and overwhelmed migrant processing centers.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre backed up Harris — who was skewered for insisting earlier this week that “the border is secure” despite a broken immigration system that “needs to be fixed” — at a press briefing.

Heh. ean-Pierre said. “We agree that the border is secure, but there is still more work to be done.”

Still don't know anyone who says the border is secure?

Ask yourself. Why don't you know that? These are obvious, laughable lies from the administration and you don't know anything about them. Why?

Are you trying to tell me that there are migrant caravans rolling over the northern border? That'd be a neat trick considering the terrain: It's pretty much rugged wilderness from just east of Lynden, WA all the way into 1 gap in Oroville, then wilderness again way into Montana.

Kinda rugged country. I highly recommend a visit:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&c...()%3amax_bytes(150000)%3astrip_icc()%2fan-amazing-view-across-lush-alpine-meadows--lakes--streams-and-the-glaciated-high-peaks-of-the-north-cascades-wilderness--107216089-5c2e5fb746e0fb000130f4fa.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.c08aec3a95fc7d58c7a7bd4072206cc1%3frik%3dKKHE0LCJ%252fpQ4dA%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=2697&expw=3690&q=north+cascades+national+park&simid=608032280193276402&FORM=IRPRST&ck=32A2B6968AB3A05A726A87C49A5FD6EA&selectedIndex=0&itb=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

B) Because it was a huge controversy, I know that it's about not discussing gender identity (and related topics) in school under a certain age (14??). And I'm not even really paying attention because I have no influence on what FL does. If it hits federal courts (or SCOTUS), I'll pay more attention. I have my own opinions about gender identity and related topics, but it's not relevant to FL.


The media reported the bill was about somehow placing a gag order on teachers ("Don't say gay"). To this day you have posters on this board claiming DeSantis is banning books.

Where'd they get that? Did they make it up, or did the media spin it that way?

OK. Well, what little I have read says what I said in my post (part "B"). "Don't Say Gay" is catchy, but the articles I have read (NYT...horrors!) say words to the effect of "the bill known as 'don't say gay'...", but then digs deeper into the provisions and the support/opposition to those provisions. You can't just skim the headlines and expect to understand the details.

LOL! This is exactly what the media does and you know it. Most people DON'T read past the catchy part. This is intentionally misleading.

I get that, but if you are interested in why the skepticism about biased MSM reporting, their reporting about the "Don't say Gay" bill provides a straight forward example

I took it easy on him. One doesn't need to look hard before finding a crock of crap from the media.

Just last week: "Bloodbath". I rest my case.

Dopester: There's a reason why Biden keeps suing to stop Texas from putting up barriers and enforcing the law. It's because it's working.

We have neighbors that you shouldn't treat like they don't exist, Dope. We have treaties that govern this that Abbot is violating.

SNIP Mexico, departing from its longstanding diplomatic posture of expressing behind-the-scenes concern but engaging in public forbearance on matters of boundary related treaty interpretation, publicly denounced the buoys as violations of the 1944 and 1970 treaties and humanitarian law (Roberto Salmon, email to Stephen Mumme, Nov. 29, 2023; Bach 2023; Higham 2023). It raised the matter directly with the U.S. Secretary of State and dispatched a team to determine if the 1,000-foot string of buoys intruded on the Mexican side of the river. It did.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) then sued Texas. While noting the potential treaty abuses, DOJ pinned its case on alleged violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, a statute that placed permitting of works in navigable rivers under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Knutson, 2023; USEPA 2023). Texas countered that the Rio Grande, at least in its Eagle Pass-Piedras Negras reach, was not a navigable river:

On Sept. 6, 2023, a federal judge of the U.S. Western District in Austin, Texas, ordered the buoys’ removal, siding with DOJ (Miroff 2023; Rose 2023).
Texas immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which promptly granted a stay of action. However, a three-judge panel ruled against that appeal on Dec. 1, 2023, noting that the Western District court properly considered “the threat to navigation and federal government operations on the Rio Grande as well as the potential threat to human life the floating barrier created” (Beitsch 2023; Wiessner, 2023; Zhang 2023).
Texas appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit’s plenary body and asserted that failing its appeal it would take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court (Gonzalez 2023; Wallace 2023). The 5th Circuit, on January 17, agreed to grant Texas an En Banc (plenary) hearing (Wallace 2024; Weissner 2024). The case will be heard in May 2024.SNIP

Dopester: There's a reason why Biden keeps suing to stop Texas from putting up barriers and enforcing the law. It's because it's working.

We have neighbors that you shouldn't treat like they don't exist - Lapsody

-------------------

That neighbor is extorting Biden and is not shy about it. End the Embargo on Cuba; provide $20B aid to Mexico and Central America; and grant 10M Visas to Mexicans already living in the US. There may have been a few more demands on his list I am leaving out...

When asked, "What happens if they don't do the things you said need to be done, then what?" To which Obrador smugly replied, "then the flow of migrants will continue". Here it is in Obrador's own words at 0.37

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexicos-president-says-...

Some neighbor! We will let unlimited trespassers cross our land to get to yours unless....

Trump was asked about this, and said it was disrespectful and he had worked with Obrador and was certain Obrador would not dare to say such a thing to him. I think Trump is right about that.

That neighbor is extorting Biden and is not shy about it. End the Embargo on Cuba; provide $20B aid to Mexico and Central America; and grant 10M Visas to Mexicans already living in the US. There may have been a few more demands on his list I am leaving out...

When asked, "What happens if they don't do the things you said need to be done, then what?" To which Obrador smugly replied, "then the flow of migrants will continue". Here it is in Obrador's own words at 0.37

Exactly. AMLO is using the political pressure caused by Biden's open border to extort the US. Some neighbor he is.

I want to sell the libs on this board cars. With their negotiating skills they'd all pay MSRP plus a 30% upcharge every time. On a Kia.

bighairymke: I think Trump is right about that.

Well, you're in the cult... so you think a lot of crazy sh!t.

You believed Trump when he said he'd build a wall across the entire southern border and Mexico would pay for it.

Never happened.

On his final days in office he visited the southern border and falsely claimed he’d promised — and delivered — 450 miles of border wall. He promised the entire southern border and actually delivered 47 miles of new wall.

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto told Trump directly: “NO. Mexico will NEVER pay for a wall. Not now, not ever.”

When the Trump administration said it would designate drug cartels based in Mexico as terrorist groups, Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said: “Since 1914, there hasn’t been a foreign intervention in Mexico and we cannot permit that.”

So go ahead and “think” whatever you want to but it's complete nonsense.

Mike, you should have read the 2d article I gave you to read about Mexico. Obrador is a leftie along the lines of Hugo Chavez. Biden held a Summit for the Americas and didn't invite Cuba, Venezuela, and another country whose name escapes me at the moment. Obrador got upset about that and didn't go to the summit loudly. He and Biden had talks afterwords. Obrador tried to eliminate the term limits for the Presidency in Mexico - following Hugo Chavez plan to remain in power. He has a hand picked successor and she should do well, but he's been louder this year because he's stepping down - his bid for continued power has been rebuffed.

He's sliding out the door Mike, the election is June 2.

We probably already do 20 billion in aid, so he's just asking for what we are already doing. I personally think we should reconsider some of the sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba. Obrador is along the lines of Bolivarian leftie socialists IIRC. So Cuba and Venezuela are in his camp. No fan of capitalism he

So Obrador wants 10 million visas for Latin American Hispanics who've worked in the US for 7 years? Well, Reagan did something like that as I recall. More of an amnesty.

When Biden shut the border crossings Obrador immediately stepped up pulling migrants off trains, and stopping people coming across the Guatemalan border. Remember the Trump Admin negotiating the new NAFTA treaty? After all the noise Trump made almost nothing happened. In fact Obrador probably thought Mexican courts having jurisdiction over the employees was a win.

Obrador is making loud noises for Latin America and stumping a bit for his chosen successor.

Exactly. AMLO is using the political pressure caused by Biden's open border to extort the US. Some neighbor he is.
----------------------
Cause Fox News, NY post, etc., told you both to think that.

He may not be an ideal neighbor, but we still have to work with him. So "remain in Mexico" won't fly unless he cooperates, for example.

We really need to rely on ourselves. Provide more resources to handle the flow, adjudicate more rapidly, and perhaps even build detention centers while they await processing rather than release them with a court date. Most do attend their court dates, but I also get your concern. So give BP and the immigration courts more resources to do a better job.

I take it back on Venezuela. Looks like we lifted sanctions with a road map to fair elections, Maduro reneged and some of the opposition is missing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/29...

Obrador is making loud noises for Latin America and stumping a bit for his chosen successor. - Lapsody

-----------------

Good point. After all, Obrador, like most politicians, is always stumping.

Most people DON'T read past the catchy part. This is intentionally misleading.

In which case BOTH sides of the spectrum, and even centrist, can't get away from that. You can't have a headline that runs on for two sentences. They are usually about 5 or 6 words, and need to convey the topic. And the words chosen in those headlines often betray the bias of the writer, even if the story is accurate otherwise.

There is also selection bias about which stories to include. Despite their somewhat boastful proclamation "all the news that is fit to print", no one can print everything. All parts of the spectrum have to make those choices, also.

I should probably just pull the trigger and get Ground News. They measure all that, in addition to providing news, so you know the biases and blindspots of the content you are consuming. Maybe after we get back from our next trip. I won't pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of right-wing folks could benefit from that sort of presentation of the news. I probably could, also, given that I easily could have "blindspots". Anyone could. One reason I read this board is to reduce the blindspots.

You can't have a headline that runs on for two sentences. They are usually about 5 or 6 words, and need to convey the topic. And the words chosen in those headlines often betray the bias of the writer, even if the story is accurate otherwise.

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/17692457928...

Hmm, let's examine this. I know you dislike Twitter but I post this because it has 3 screen shots of media headlines, all variations of "Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election".

1. Does that convey any context?
2. Does this seem like down-the-middle, responsible journalism to you?

Well, I looked it up. It was in Ohio, and that's what he said. The precise quote was:

“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”

The headlines seem reasonably accurate based on that direct quote. The entire quote would be a cumbersome headline. Looking at my sources, and reading beyond the headlines, it was -mostly- in the context of the auto industry, though apparently the "that will be the least of it" addition implies a larger scope than just autos. But we can't really know what he meant by that because he didn't elaborate (at least not that I could find in a few minutes of googling).

How would you have phrased the headline?

From what I gather, the Biden campaign did hype it up completely out of context, which really wasn't cool. Makes them look no better than OANN. They should be above that sort of deceit. Especially when it will be easily caught by the media. So a ding against the campaign, but they aren't new outlets.

The headlines seem reasonably accurate based on that direct quote.

Uh, huh. You realize he was talking about...the auto industry and that the "bloodbath" referred to the loss of jobs, right?

Looking at my sources, and reading beyond the headlines, it was -mostly- in the context of the auto industry, though apparently the "that will be the least of it" addition implies a larger scope than just autos. But we can't really know what he meant by that because he didn't elaborate (at least not that I could find in a few minutes of googling).

Uh, huh. NBC and other deliberately phrased their headlines to make it seem like a nationwide January 6th would be in the offing if he loses. That's beyond dishonest and more into the territory of Insane.

A better way to phrase it: "Trump says there will be a bloodbath of jobs in the auto industry if Biden wins"

...but that wouldn't fit the narrative.

"A better way to phrase it: "Trump says there will be a bloodbath of jobs in the auto industry if Biden wins"

By god, that'd make a great poster if that's what he had said.

But he di'in't, Bunky. He di'in't.

Another thing he didn't do is advise his flock that DJT was a loser like him, bound to do poorly.

What he did do is post a disgusting picture of the President who beat him in the 2020 election, attack judges and their families, and preside over another in his long history of cons and grifts, fleecing his baaaahing flock.

Trump Media stock tanks as new filing reveals heavy losses, 'greater risks' on Trump's involvement
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (DJT)
View quote details
NasdaqGM - Nasdaq Real Time Price (USD)
48.66-13.30(-21.47%)
At close:4:00PM EDT
46.50-2.16 (-4.44%)
After hours: 7:59PM EDT

And here's this week's version of "Bloodbath".
Trump was talking about Laken Riley's murderer and criminals like him as being "animals" - which they are.

CNN then goes and does...CNN:

https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status/177561781...

"Trump was specifically talking about the person who murdered Laken Riley in Georgia. I think if someone murders another human being, they deserve to be called animals."

Wolf Blitzer tried to spin it as comments that should be condemned, because of course he did.

Dope1: Trump was talking about Laken Riley's murderer and criminals like him as being "animals"...

Here's the problem: there are approximately 38 murders per day in the United States but Trump never ever mentions a murder that was committed by anyone other than a migrant. In fact, he goes out of his way to ignore other murders or tell people just to "get over" the murder of school children in mass shootings.

Kind of like you refusing to condemn Trump for having 197 classified documents at Mar-a-Lago: 98 at SECRET; 30 at TOP SECRET; the remainder at Confidential. Some additionally had Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Special Access Program (SAP) markings. Those documents were returned. But during the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago after Trump claimed to have returned all subpoenaed documents, a further 102 documents were recovered from Trump’s office and a storage room. These included 17 documents at TOP SECRET; 54 at SECRET; 31 at CONFIDENTIAL. Of these, Trump’s office held 6 at TOP SECRET; 18 at SECRET; and 3 at CONFIDENTIAL.

Or maybe I missed your dozens of messages condemning Trump and demanding he be imprisoned. You know, like you did with Clinton and the three incorrectly marked classified documents sent to her in email chains.

A few years ago the New York Times decided they wanted to take down Real Clear Politics for some reasons - probably because they weren't toeing the line. Or something. RCP decided to finally respond:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/04...

Ten days after the 2020 election, Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of RealClearPolitics, received an email from a New York Times reporter who covers the media. The reporter, Jeremy W. Peters, advised Bevan that his newspaper was working on a story about RCP and asked for responses to various questions and accusations. Four days later, Peters’ critique was published under the headline “A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It.”

Yep. Can't have some part of the media straying from the flock. So what did the down-the-middle NYT say?

The sleight-of-hand was right there in the headline. The New York Times simply declared that RCP “made a sharp right turn,” and suggested it will document how this happened.

The Times’ story asserted that during the period of counting absentee and late-arriving mail-in ballots, RCP took three days longer than other news organizations to call Pennsylvania for Joe Biden. It noted disapprovingly that we aggregated stories from other news outlets quoting Trump supporters who questioned the election results. It suggested that the RCP Poll Averages were manipulated to be favorable to Donald Trump. Peters focused on RCP staff layoffs in September 2017, and claimed we’d hired partisan Republicans to replace them.

Sounds about right. Once it looked like Biden was winning the partisan media had to swing into action and start the ELECTION DENIER theme.

From the Times:
Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents, through a mix of its own content and articles from across conservative media.

Remember, for the partisan left wing press, there IS NO other point of view other than their own. But what did RCP actually publish?

Overall, RCP ran 374 news stories or opinion pieces on our front page between Nov. 4 (the morning after the 2020 election) and Nov. 17, the day the New York Times went after RealClearPolitics. Sixteen of them were from the New York Times itself, including two columns from Maureen Dowd and one from Paul Krugman. The rest were a mix of news and opinion, from outlets ranging from those on the liberal side (The New Yorker, The Nation, Slate, etc.) to the conservative outlets (Washington Examiner, The Federalist, the Daily Caller, etc.) and everything in between, including CBS News, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, The Hill, and many more. Our assurance to readers has always been to present all angles and perspectives of political events, a promise we have kept.

The simple fact is that the amount of liberal material published in RCP every week dwarfs the annual conservative content in the New York Times.

Anyways, the Times did what left-leaning media outfits do, it had a narrative it wanted out there and it wrote a piece in support of it.

In his email informing Bevan of the story he was writing, Peters said he was looking into RCP’s election analyses on the grounds that they “tended to skew toward or favor Trump.” He said he was focusing on the RCP Polling Averages, “which your competitors have questioned for including Rasmussen, Trafalgar and others.”

This complaint doesn’t withstand scrutiny either. First, to the degree the RCP Poll Averages favored one candidate over the other, they favored the Democrat Joe Biden more than the Republican Donald Trump. Second, in the seven closest states in the 2020 election – those decided by three percentage points or less – the RCP Poll Averages were demonstrably more accurate than the New York Times’ own poll, and it wasn’t even close.

As you can see from the chart below, in five of the seven battleground states in 2020, the Times was off by more than four points in Biden’s favor.

Read the whole thing. The Times is one of the worst media outfits on the planet and they shouldn't be expected to be anything other than a reliable generator of left wing narratives.

Here's some BS gaslighting in real time:

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/17770266148...

So Mayor Pete says he can walk his dog to the Capitol now and that he couldn't do it before?
Sure he can. Dude has a security detail, after all.

Ignoring courts is what fascists do.

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/17774044355...

"But that didn't stop us" -- Joe Biden on ignoring the Supreme Court and keeping on with his illegal student loan debt forgiveness.

Ooo, and now we can add media outlet of choice...NPR...to our list of untrustworthy, biased and slanted liberal media outfits:

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-am...

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.

Attacks on critical thinking and the accompanying war on objective truth have been priority 1 for the left for literally decades. There were certain Fools who used to lose their minds when I would point that out.

Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. At NPR, we hitched our wagon to Trump’s most visible antagonist, Representative Adam Schiff.
Schiff, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, became NPR’s guiding hand, its ever-present muse. By my count, NPR hosts interviewed Schiff 25 times about Trump and Russia. During many of those conversations, Schiff alluded to purported evidence of collusion. The Schiff talking points became the drumbeat of NPR news reports.
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming.

A massive number of people still think to this day that Schiff has actual evidence (he doesn't and never did).

In October 2020, the New York Post published the explosive report about the laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer shop containing emails about his sordid business dealings. With the election only weeks away, NPR turned a blind eye. Here’s how NPR’s managing editor for news at the time explained the thinking: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”
But it wasn’t a pure distraction, or a product of Russian disinformation, as dozens of former and current intelligence officials suggested. The laptop did belong to Hunter Biden. Its contents revealed his connection to the corrupt world of multimillion-dollar influence peddling and its possible implications for his father.
The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched.

The mainstream media mostly lies via omission: stories that are damaging to democrats are either shitcanned outright or presented to their credulous viewers as "Republicans seize" or "Republicans pounce" on issue X. The sleight of hand allows the story to be twisted away from the damaging issue and become instead the Republican reaction to it.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.