Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would be all in for spending $5.7 billion on building a wall in the US...   between church and state.    That would do a helluva lot more to keep us safe than the Trump Maginot L

It's troubling that you support Milo being able to go where ever he wants but don't want hard working immigrants looking for a better life into our country. If these folks were trying to get into

Posted Images

CBS truncated Trump's announcement of a NATIONAL EMERGENCY for The Price is Right. YCMTSU.

https://deadline.com/2019/02/cbs-goes-with-the-price-is-right-over-conclusion-of-president-trumps-emergency-speech-1202558868/

Ann Coulter's wisdom about Trump's wall: "The only NATIONAL EMERGENCY is that our president is an idiot."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/430286-coulter-fires-back-at-trump-only-national-emergency-is-that-our-president-is

And Trump has gone to Mar-a-Lago for some golf...

Just like on 9/11...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Jeff's huevos pequeno are in the fire, slowly roasting, as he cheers on the bitch being burnt pretending it's not "conservatism"

FWIW, I'd agree with Jeff on this one - it's not "conservatism" that's burning. Conservatism in the USA died some time ago when they decided that they were willing to put up with the Republican Party's bullshit in exchange for the occasional token bone thrown in their direction.

Of course, as long as conservatives continue to accept their place as subservient to the GOP (rather than the other way around), any chance they might get even that token bone thrown their way is also toast. And before anyone starts saying that's exactly what they wanted, take note of how many "conservatives" still find it impossible to offer anything more than token criticism of Trump (& the GOP's support for him). They're a sure vote and, as such, they can be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

 

Adam Schiff-

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNNSotu/status/1097141233464602626

“If we give away, if we surrender the power of the purse … there will be little check and no balance left. It’ll not be a separation of powers anymore, just a separation of parties”

We tried that for a couple of years. 

What happens when a democRAT President tries to end America by declaring an emergency to force us to give up our freedom and have health coverage? Or an education? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 4:27 PM, Raz'r said:

Chessie seems to be a decent fellow. Myopic as hell, but decent.

 

Lust for power maybe? That their principles were never really principles? Same bitch that you had with hillary.

Myopic?  Not really - just don't feel the need to pile on to the right bashing.  As to the same bitch I had w/Hillary?  You're absolutely correct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Myopic?  Not really - just don't feel the need to pile on to the right bashing.  As to the same bitch I had w/Hillary?  You're absolutely correct. 

A writer from the National Review was on NPR this morning. You know, THAT National Review - I suppose Hermetic finds it left-leaning. Anyway

Interviewer asked "but, aren't the Trump admin policies, you know, not really all that conservative?"

The writer/reporter was very candid, it's "love me, love my president". He's talked to many people who were and still are Trump supporters even though his policies have harmed them. He said what I've said for a while, Trump is able to get voters to vote against their own interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

A writer from the National Review was on NPR this morning. You know, THAT National Review - I suppose Hermetic finds it left-leaning. Anyway

Interviewer asked "but, aren't the Trump admin policies, you know, not really all that conservative?"

The writer/reporter was very candid, it's "love me, love my president". He's talked to many people who were and still are Trump supporters even though his policies have harmed them. He said what I've said for a while, Trump is able to get voters to vote against their own interests.

A real bunch of maroons or morans if you prefer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

A writer from the National Review was on NPR this morning. You know, THAT National Review - I suppose Hermetic finds it left-leaning. Anyway

Interviewer asked "but, aren't the Trump admin policies, you know, not really all that conservative?"

The writer/reporter was very candid, it's "love me, love my president". He's talked to many people who were and still are Trump supporters even though his policies have harmed them. He said what I've said for a while, Trump is able to get voters to vote against their own interests.

It's not just Trump - that's the specialty of the Republicans. They've been doing it at least since Reagan and trickle down.

They are outstanding at it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

A writer from the National Review was on NPR this morning. You know, THAT National Review - I suppose Hermetic finds it left-leaning. Anyway

Interviewer asked "but, aren't the Trump admin policies, you know, not really all that conservative?"

The writer/reporter was very candid, it's "love me, love my president". He's talked to many people who were and still are Trump supporters even though his policies have harmed them. He said what I've said for a while, Trump is able to get voters to vote against their own interests.

Yes indeed - I listened to that on the drive in this AM - it was Jonah Goldberg, IIRC?  I thought he was spot-on in that assessment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yes indeed - I listened to that on the drive in this AM - it was Jonah Goldberg, IIRC?  I thought he was spot-on in that assessment.  

it might have been.

Kinda the point I've tried to make that this presidency is many things. Conservative is not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

A writer from the National Review was on NPR this morning. You know, THAT National Review - I suppose Hermetic finds it left-leaning. Anyway

Interviewer asked "but, aren't the Trump admin policies, you know, not really all that conservative?"

The writer/reporter was very candid, it's "love me, love my president". He's talked to many people who were and still are Trump supporters even though his policies have harmed them. He said what I've said for a while, Trump is able to get voters to vote against their own interests.

I don't think that's correct, or fair. If you allow different political viewpoints, then you should also allow people to have a different view of "their own self-interest." Material well-being, or even legal status in terms of rights, is not on Trump voters radar. What they want is something they can't really define but generally feels like the good ol' days.

And they love the way he makes libby-rulls heads explode, and encourages them to beat up brown people (even if they don't have to balls to actually do so). That's worth losing your income and well-being, isn't it?

Remember, the definition of a "conservative" these days: a person who fuckin' hate-hate-HATES libby-rulls, Democrats, women, and brown people (in South Carolina add "Yankees") SO-O much that he lets Trump shit on his head, as long as there is one of these standing nearby who has to smell it.

They love it, and they love him for making it happen.

What, you think human beings should be rational? Ha ha, that makes -you- the stupid one!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting bit of analysis from the Daily Beast...https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-dumb-the-selfish-and-the-cynical-are-who-keeps-trumps-support-from-collapsing?ref=home

Quote

So the president’s approval numbers have nudged back up, I see. During the government shutdown, he dipped down into the mid-30s; 34 percent was the lowest one I saw. But now it looks like he’s back in the low 40s.

I understand the 30 or so percent of the country that loves the guy. As loathsome as I find the man, I can totally get why some people adore him. He’s their cultural avenger. Easy.

The people who applaud the lock-’em up stuff are easy to account for. The people who are harder to get are the other 10 or whatever percent who aren’t MAGA-heads but who approve of the job he’s doing.

These people are utterly unfathomable to me. The ones who love him by definition can’t see what a crook, shyster, and cheater he is, what a bunch of grifters that whole family is, that he’s never lived an honest day in his life, that he’s a complete racist, that the only thing he thinks about any woman is whether she’s a piece of ass or not a piece of ass, and that on top of all that he’s a moron. I understand those people.

But the non-lovers who approve of the job he’s doing mystify me. How can they not see what a crook, shyster, and cheater he is, what a bunch of grifters that whole family is, that he’s never lived an honest day in his life, that he’s a complete racist, that the only thing he thinks about any woman is whether she’s a piece of ass or not a piece of ass, and that on top of all that he’s a moron?

These people really confuse me. I would have thought that if you’re not blinded by admiration for the guy, you’d see what a mobster he is and what an organized crime syndicate his White House is. But some people who fit this description evidently don’t see it. Who are they? What in the world is up with them?

I’m just guessing here, but I think they come in three flavors, these people. The dumb, the selfish, and the cynical.

 

First, the dumb. They’re the least interesting. There’s not much to say about them. They’re just… dumb. Nothing in their daily lives has changed much one way or the other, and they don’t remember anything from one week to the next anyway, so the idea that they might for example hold the memory in their heads of the stories about how the guy created a foundation and a “university” that were both total scams, among about a thousand other revolting things, is basically hopeless. They’re hopeless. Trying to get them to connect dots is like trying to teach a dog to use a toilet.

 

Next, the selfish. These are the people who give him a thumbs-up on approval because the economy is going well. These are pretty apolitical people. I’d say that these people would give a thumbs up to any president as long as the economy is doing well—as long as they themselves are doing well—but I don’t think that’s quite true. Since they fundamentally don’t really care about society but only themselves, they tend toward conservative attitudes and presumptions (low taxes, government off their backs, etc.)

They probably reflexively believe that Republicans are better for the economy, which has been factually untrue (PDF) since World War II. They don’t know or it doesn’t sink in that the last two recessions happened under Republican presidents, and the last two Democratic presidents had to clean up their messes (with admittedly varying degrees of success, but they did it). They just want more money in their pockets, and mistakenly think the GOP will give them that.

There was a story on HuffPo recently about a woman in Long Island who voted for Donald Trump and was thrilled about getting $90 more per pay period. Yeeha! But now it’s tax time, and she’s getting socked with a $5,000 tax bill, five times what she’s accustomed to.

Why? Because she lives in a high-tax state, and the Republicans and Trump fashioned the law to punish blue states by limiting deductions on state and local taxes. But more than that, they wrote the law in a way that led to many employers withholding less from people’s paychecks. So now this woman is steamed. Hey, whatever it takes, I guess.

It’s been said a million times that if or when we hit a recession, which more and more people see coming, Trump’s numbers will suffer. An obvious truism of presidential politics. But if I’m right, his numbers won’t fall as much as some people think, because the selfish are just one third of the 10 percent.

Which brings us to the deeply cynical. These are the people who think all the politicians are terrible, and Trump is different from the lot of them only by degree, not kind. They accept that he’s corrupt, but they think that all politicians are corrupt. They acknowledge that he lies sometimes, but they doubt he lies much more than anybody else lies. And they hate the establishment, which of course makes them kind of admire Trump.

I suspect that the deeply cynical—all three groups, really—are in for some big surprises ahead. I think Robert Mueller will tell us, assuming that the new attorney general doesn’t succeed in burying the report, that the president of the United States is essentially a pawn of a foreign government (Russia), and a whole lot of other stuff. I think House committee investigations will tell us how much money he and those ghoulish kids have been making since taking office, and maybe what he promised Putin with no one else in the room, and a dozen other things.

Will they see then, this baffling 10 percent of our fellow citizenry? I have no idea. I mean, my God, what does it take? This has been a real lesson in how constant the struggle is to get some people to acknowledge what’s in front of their noses, as Orwell said in his famous essay. The essay concludes on the morose note that “political opinions… will not have to be tested against solid reality.”

I hope and actually think that time will prove old George wrong, or at least wrong enough, on the matter of Trump. Reality day is coming.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

"And they hate the establishment, which of course makes them kind of admire Trump."

While not having voted for Trump, this is his one and only redeeming quality, IMO (Well, maybe redeeming is too strong a word):

His ability to scare the shit out of the PTB.

So count me as "cynical" to a certain degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

US states led by California sue Trump administration in showdown over border wall funds

This should prove whether or not the GOP wants to back Trump all the way or whether they'd be happy to let the next Democratic President kill it off so they don't have to own the white elephant vanity project of Donald's for the next few decades.

Watch to see how long this gets drawn out. As an "emergency", it could/should be dealt with soon by SCOTUS. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the proposals by Dennis Hastert's Prairie Parkway had it splitting my farm. I was going to fight the hell out of it because it would destroy my land value and ability to farm.

Give me fair value and all of taxes the I ever paid on the land and you have a deal. I'd just be a Walmart greeter for the rest of my life in Florida for the people watching entertainment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

One of the proposals by Dennis Hastert's Prairie Parkway had it splitting my farm. I was going to fight the hell out of it because it would destroy my land value and ability to farm.

Give me fair value and all of taxes the I ever paid on the land and you have a deal. I'd just be a Walmart greeter for the rest of my life in Florida for the people watching entertainment.

Make sure it’s north Florida. The Palatka Walmart should sell tickets to get in. Friday evenings when it is not football season provide a glimpse of the adolescent redneck mating ritual so amusing that the only way it could be better is to have David Attenborough narrating on the intercom.

I live in deep red Trump country, with farms dependent on migrant labor, staunch support for the wall from all the locals, and trailer dwellers who will swear that if we just lower taxes enough, the will finally become the tycoons they were meant to be. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

One of the proposals by Dennis Hastert's Prairie Parkway had it splitting my farm. I was going to fight the hell out of it because it would destroy my land value and ability to farm.

Give me fair value and all of taxes the I ever paid on the land and you have a deal.

Why the back taxes? You got various benefits from those taxes while paying them and those can't be repaid, so why should you be repaid?

Fair value is consistent with the fifth amendment but the back taxes aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Why the back taxes? You got various benefits from those taxes while paying them and those can't be repaid, so why should you be repaid?

Fair value is consistent with the fifth amendment but the back taxes aren't.

No, I don't get shit. I get mail and maybe a couple of plows on the road per year that I could do myself. That's what I get. No police, no fire. They can't get there fast enough to have any value.

So, I get a .5 mile tar and chip road for tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Snow plow? Yeah, I've broken the law and done it myself. This guy works fine.

11792506634_88d5f54bc0_b.jpg

 

12188255896_eeaccb7764_b.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

No, I don't get shit. I get mail and maybe a couple of plows on the road per year that I could do myself. That's what I get. No police, no fire. They can't get there fast enough to have any value.

So, I get a .5 mile tar and chip road for tens of thousands of dollars per year.

Snow plow? Yeah, I've broken the law and done it myself. This guy works fine.

11792506634_88d5f54bc0_b.jpg

 

12188255896_eeaccb7764_b.jpg

So if I come up there and trespass, no one to call?

No records maintained at someone's expense showing you have rights on that property and I don't?

No court system to enforce your rights?

Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trespass? No.

Property rights and courts? Yes. I'll give you schools too even though I don't have kids.

On the property thing, they keep jacking the taxes. I have to fight them every year on that with small successes every now and again.

And the property rights are a matter of record. They're stored and it can't cost much to keep the plats on a computer or in a file cabinet. None of that adds up to what I pay in property taxes that could send 2 kids to Harvard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, austin1972 said:

One of the proposals by Dennis Hastert's Prairie Parkway had it splitting my farm. I was going to fight the hell out of it because it would destroy my land value and ability to farm.

Give me fair value and all of taxes the I ever paid on the land and you have a deal. I'd just be a Walmart greeter for the rest of my life in Florida for the people watching entertainment.

Well, think of it this way: how much in taxes would your farm bring in if it were paved over with condos and minivans? All the cubicle-critters need places to live, and they vote, and pay taxes almost as outrageous as yours.

Where their food is going to come from is a problem that has always solved itself, so the politicians don't worry about that.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, austin1972 said:

Trespass? No.

Property rights and courts? Yes. I'll give you schools too even though I don't have kids.

On the property thing, they keep jacking the taxes. I have to fight them every year on that with small successes every now and again.

And the property rights are a matter of record. They're stored and it can't cost much to keep the plats on a computer or in a file cabinet. None of that adds up to what I pay in property taxes that could send 2 kids to Harvard.

 

It's not the storing of those records that is valuable. It's enforcing what they say. That's why you still own it instead of whatever nearby gang has more tools than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, think of it this way: how much in taxes would your farm bring in if it were paved over with condos and minivans?

Careful. If the answer is "more than the current use" then making that happen would be a public use. Austin's blighted farm could end up under a community development corporation's ownership. It happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, think of it this way: how much in taxes would your farm bring in if it were paved over with condos and minivans?

Careful. If the answer is "more than the current use" then making that happen would be a public use. Austin's blighted farm could end up under a community development corporation's ownership. It happens.

Yep, sure does. In case it wasn't clear from my earlier post, IMHO it is usually a bad thing and I certainly don't wish it on a fellow SA'er

-DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Make sure it’s north Florida. The Palatka Walmart should sell tickets to get in. Friday evenings when it is not football season provide a glimpse of the adolescent redneck mating ritual so amusing that the only way it could be better is to have David Attenborough narrating on the intercom.

Fuck, I just lost a mouthful of coffee reading that one. I'd pay good money for that episode of "Living Planet":lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/02/26/the-republicans-stoop-to-new-lows-in-congress/

Excerpt -

On Monday, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who serves as the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules, went on National Public Radio and said he’s concerned about “the haste with which the majority is pushing this disapproval resolution through. We’ve had no time to review the bill and no committee has held a hearing or marked it up.”

Here’s the language of the resolution, as provided by Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Yes, it fits in a tweet.

LOL House R’s saying they don’t have time to read resolution of disapproval. Here it is:

McwUAXF8_bigger.jpg
 
 

Resolved (Senate and House) in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Womp womp.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/lamar-alexander-trump-national-emergency-1196748?fbclid=IwAR0R_lUw3EfDP86mPhxhArjeM6OYCA-TwKUifeBBO5oSb_FVYGiRgnKd0jE

Key GOP senator offers ultimatum to Trump on border emergency

Sen. Lamar Alexander urged the president to withdraw his national emergency declaration or face a Republican revolt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we discovered yet what it was that caused border barriers to go from effective to ineffective and to become racist, immoral monuments to white supremacy around the time Trump was elected?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Have we discovered yet what it was that caused border barriers to go from effective to ineffective and to become racist, immoral monuments to white supremacy around the time Trump was elected?

Trump’s  racism campaign.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Have we discovered yet what it was that caused border barriers to go from effective to ineffective and to become racist, immoral monuments to white supremacy around the time Trump was elected?

I believe it occurred just as the GOP lost the House majority.  Prior to that, they didn't see the problem as needing this action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillDBastard said:

Not a problem?

Did you know that so far this year, the first 60 days, 31,000 people have entered the US illegally? Do you think 520 people per day entering the US illegally does not constitute a problem?

See this is what happens when you smoke too much reefer!

And you know this how? And if you do know this and were able to count them why did you let them in? And how would a wall made a lick of difference? See, you should share what you are smoking with the class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Did you know that so far this year, the first 60 days, 31,000 people have entered the US illegally?

Really - 31,000 exactly?

Nice round number.

Got any actual FACTS to back that up?

Or are they too lefty for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Not a problem?

Did you know that so far this year, the first 60 days, 31,000 people have entered the US illegally? Do you think 520 people per day entering the US illegally does not constitute a problem?

See this is what happens when you smoke too much reefer!

Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more homework you do the more you will realize that the wall is an imaginary crisis and that Trump is a serial liar who uses anything to his advantage.  Just line up all of Trump's statements and claims and try to make sense of them.  And then there is the 700+ miles of existing barriers and the billions we are already spending that Trump ignores because it doesn't fire up the fearful.

as Eva Dent

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

And you know this how? And if you do know this and were able to count them why did you let them in? And how would a wall made a lick of difference? See, you should share what you are smoking with the class.

Once upon a time, many, many years ago I flew into the airport in Copenhagen.  Got my baggage and headed to the part of the airport to catch a domestic flight.  Came to two doorways.  One had a sign overhead along the lines of “items to declare.” The other doorway had a “nothing to declare” sign. Walked through that one (no security guards, police, customs people, etc.) and found myself outside the terminal building.

Maybe that’s how it was determined that 31000 illegals have entered the country this year.  Two doors.  One marked “ legal immigrants” the other “illegals.” The illegal door has an automatic motion activated counter of some sort.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillDBastard said:

See the problem is you folks are framing this as all things Trump. We have an immigration problem on many fronts, one being a porous southern, easily breachable border. We need to address that and in a number of areas a physical barrier is the most effective approach.

No, we did have a problem and thanks to 700 miles of barriers and tens of billions of $$ every year it has been slowed to a fraction.  There is no such thing as a non breachable border unless you have multiple barriers across a wide zone and sniper towers every couple hundred yards and land mines.

A solution that would entail upwards of $100 Billion and ten years of construction is hardly a national emergency.

If you stop trumpeting (pun intended) Trump's baseless claims I promise to stop poking holes in them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Really - 31,000 exactly?

Nice round number.

Got any actual FACTS to back that up?

Or are they too lefty for you?

Well, there we go. It appears to be an opinion, not a fact. "Facts" like these keep the base energized.

In other news, fourteen million Canadians walked from the Canadian border to the Mexican border in two days. Nobody saw them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old One America News. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/an-inside-look-at-one-america-news-the-insurgent-tv-network-taking-pro-trump-to-new-heights/2017/07/05/7475f0a4-4fa2-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.28c39037a682

Quote

One America News is an obscure TV channel struggling to emerge from the cellar of the cable ratings, but it is nonetheless one of President Trump’s favorite media outlets. It’s not hard to see why: On One America newscasts, the Trump administration is a juggernaut of progress, a shining success with a daily drumbeat of achievements.

One America — a tiny father-and-sons operation that often delivers four times as many stories per hour as its competitors — promises “straight news, no opinion,” promoting itself as the antidote to the Big Three cable news networks’ focus on punditry and the one big story of the moment.

But since its inception in 2013, and especially since Trump began his march to the White House, One America’s owner, Robert Herring Sr., a millionaire who made his money printing circuit boards, has directed his channel to push Trump’s candidacy, scuttle stories about police shootings, encourage antiabortion stories, minimize coverage of Russian aggression, and steer away from the new president’s troubles, according to more than a dozen current and former producers, writers and anchors, as well as internal emails from Herring and his top news executives.

OAN, based in San Diego, made its first splash in the opening weeks of the Trump campaign, when the channel became the first to carry Trump’s campaign speeches live and in full — a decision followed quickly by the owner’s directive that other candidates’ rallies not be given the same treatment, according to internal emails.

Since then, OAN has become a reliably sympathetic voice of the administration’s goals and actions. Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has a deal to appear regularly on the channel. The network’s White House reporter, Trey Yingst, has become an administration favorite who was called on at the daily news briefings 27 times in Trump’s first 100 days in office. On Friday, OAN won a seat in the White House briefing room, albeit in the back row and shared with the BBC.

There's more in the article, but I'll let people read for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Actually it has been around quite a bit longer than Trump's political ambitions. Pretty straight forward, the news side of the network. Sooooo WaPo commentary, well hell man, why not just get Don Lemon's take on one of their competitors.

Now that we have put that to the side, speak to the numbers rather than some messenger attack. If you take the graph from CBP as per the BBC and correlate that to the OAN Immigration Counter, you will see that the OAN graphic is a bit more...… conservative an estimate than the CBP. I would also suggest you check the sources for the basis for that graphic. That is to say instead of seeing what WaPo says about a competitor, check the source documents to judge the veracity of the numbers.

Your choice really.... talk shite or talk about verifiable numbers.

Let's talk about numbers. Your little video above claims almost 26 million illegals living in the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/illegal-immigrants-population-study.html

Quote

As of 2016, the most recent data available, the number of people living in the United States without documents decreased to 10.7 million from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. The sharp decline came largely during the Obama administration and in the wake of the Great Recession. Deportations also sharply rose during that time.

That's quite the difference. I know which numbers I trust. I am assuming the rest of the numbers in the video are also made up.

And to claim that OAN is a more trustworthy source than the Washingon Post is ludicrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

 

 

Dictionary result for gullible

/ˈɡələb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: gullible
  1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
    "an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
    synonyms: credulous, over-trusting, over-trustful, trustful, easily deceived/led, easily taken in, exploitable, dupable, deceivable, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, unguarded, unsceptical, ingenuous, naive, innocent, simple, inexperienced, unworldly, green, as green as grass, childlike, ignorant;
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

WaPo is well know for its bias, for starters.

26 million, what makes you think that is off? Is it Yale, MIT of DHS that is off putting for you? Aside from The Gray Lady which could fukup a wet dream. Perhaps the CBP statistics or ICE numbers as presented by The BBC that you find troublesome?

What makes you think 26 million is correct? I already gave a reputable source for a far lower number. As far as the others mentioned in just the clickbait pic from the video, from Wikipedia:

Quote

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a non-profit tax exempt organization in the United States that self-identifies as an organization seeking to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.[7] The group publishes position papers, organizes events, and runs campaigns in order to influence US immigration policies. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group with close ties to white supremacist groups.[8]

FAIR was founded in 1979 by the ophthalmologist John Tanton, former historian of labor movements and director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Otis L. Graham, Jr. and Sidney Swensrud, a former chairman of Gulf Oil and former governing board member of Planned Parenthood.[9][10][11]

The founding chairman, John Tanton, became leader of several anti-immigration groups[12] and held white supremacist beliefs while he led the organization.[13]

Quote

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-profit organization and think tank[3] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[4]

Founded in 1985 as a spin-off from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),[5] the center's self-described mission is to provide immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.[6] CIS is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations that John Tanton helped found.[5][7][8]

Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Snopes, media outlets such as Washington Post, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations. The organization has been cited by President Donald Trump on Twitter, and used by members of his administration.[9][10][11]

The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group in 2016, citing CIS' circulation at the time of white nationalist and anti-Semitic writers, as well as its alleged ties to the American nativist movement.[12] In 2019, CIS announced it was suing the SPLC over the designation, alleging that the label was false.[13][14]

Fer fucksake, these are sites linked to torch-carrying Nazi wannabees.

You want me to believe those numbers, you do the research. I can't be bothered proving you wrong because you have shown you won't pay attention. You really have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

So CBP, DHS, Yale and MIT, there statistical analysis, the numbers they provided that the OAN  graphic is based on, you are saying they are incorrect and your basis for that is Randy Rainbow?

You believe and support a liar - someone who can't even keep his story straight in one speech. The wall is a con being run by Trump to motivate the racists and the fearful. Nothing more or less, good little soldiers like Ted Cruz are happy to help out. 

Now perhaps you can refresh us with your comments on being a centrist again.

edit: AND WHY IS THERE A FUCKING AD TO DONATE TO TRUMP EVERY TIME I OPEN A YOUTUBE VIDEO. SHIT, WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS AND WHY. FUCKING MORANS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

So CBP, DHS, Yale and MIT, there statistical analysis, the numbers they provided that the OAN  graphic is based on, you are saying they are incorrect and your basis for that is Randy Rainbow?

What numbers come from where? What's the raw data and where does it come from? There is no indication of anything except a bunch of changing numbers.

And yes, I think Randy Rainbow is a better source of data than OAN. At least his bullshit is right up front.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

WaPo is well know for its bias, for starters. Only to lunatic fringe right wingers.

26 million, what makes you think that is off? Is it Yale, MIT of DHS that is off putting for you? Is that the MIT that Hopeless Jack attended?

The real numbers have been well known and publicized for a long time. They are about 1/2 or less of the bullshit you posted.

All rational people know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

See the problem is you folks are framing this as all things Trump. We have an immigration problem on many fronts, one being a porous southern, easily breachable border. We need to address that and in a number of areas a physical barrier is the most effective approach.

Meh

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

No, the real numbers are what I posted. They were arrived at by an amalgamation of independent sources. Yale and MIT are no doubt lying and who could ever trust DHS or ICE or CBP...… I mean it is no wonder solid citizens and politicians alike are calling for an end to ICE, CBP and DHS!

If you do not think WaPo and NYT have a slant or agenda, you are more delusional than one could ever imagine. They count on people like you, to further that agenda.

You lie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Feel free to look those up and post them. If you refute the numbers then post what you trust to be the correct numbers. Prove them wrong rather than just stomping your feet.

I am sure the BBC just made up the graph and attributed it to CBP. Right? 

Wow, just wow.

Like I said, I'm not doing your research. I already posted an alternative number for illegal aliens and you ignored it in favour of your right-wing lies. I'm done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

So mine are right-wing lies and yours are accurate. Curious lack of objectivity.

Let's review. The sources I used are CBP, DHS, and ICE as interpolated by Yale and MIT and yours are NYT and WaPo hit pieces against a presidency they feel is invalid.

Nice job Ish, nice job.

The sources you used? So far you have posted a video that claims it used information from all those sources plus a couple of others that are known to be right-wing sources of misleading information and famous for producing "research" that is ultra-partisan. Like I said, show me the raw numbers and we'll see exactly how they were massaged to produce the desired result. I have already debunked one of the four numbers in the video, showing it is almost three times what independent sources have determined. How do they arrive at a cost per illegal? Totally opaque.

kool-aid-barrel-cherry-mix.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

If you do not think WaPo and NYT have a slant or agenda, you are more delusional than one could ever imagine.

No, they have a definite agenda.

Illustrating what a lunatic fringe right winger you are.

Just for fun - list a handful of news sources that you consider accurate and moderate.

One newspaper and one television news will be enough but more would be more fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

So mine are right-wing lies and yours are accurate. Curious lack of objectivity.

 

Pretty much sums it up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 1:35 PM, BillDBastard said:

Sniper Towers? What the hell have you been reading D'R?

31k having crossed this year illegally equates to 186k this year..... but those are the ones "known" to have crossed.

Last year 400k were actually apprehended. Tellme, what do you think the percentage of success to be? 10%? 50%? 75%?

No crisis? what number would constitute a crises to you folks? What is a "reasonable" amount of illegal crossing by people breaching our borders?

 

Chart: Apprehensions on the US-Mexico border were at their lowest in 2017 since 2000

In 2016, there were a total of 739,478 overstays, compared to 563,204 illegal border crossings.

Is 1.3 million people entering illegally acceptable to you?

There is a always going to be a leaky border, and yes, I would prefer that to a totalitarian monstrosity of a wall and armed LEOs feeling entitled to stop & frisk anyone within 200miles of the border. I don’t want a police state just so you can sleep tight at night.

Worrrying about this problem just ain’t  my bag, baby. You can get all freaked out about it, but as long as our employers like Trump aren’t hiring illegals in droves, it won’t be a problem we can’t handle.

America has always thrived with immigration, both legal and illegal. Until it was weaponized, it wasn’t a problem. Now, you are fired up and willing to see us as your enemy over the issue.

You are sheeple, fed fear & loathing by FOX & friends, and it’s produced a worldview that is scared and angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW I don't watch news on TV as there is a lot more opinion than facts.  Thanks to the internet/web thingy all sorts of data is available and doesn't require hours/day to get it, comes included with fact checking at no extra charge.

This includes lots of info on Trump's Big Beautiful Wall.  Bonus is what other walls consist of (or did in the case of East/West Germany/Berlin) and Israel/Palestine. Sniper towers required, multiple barriers and for the southern border likely a minimum of $100 billion just for the structure.  Gigantic Fail.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Fine with me.

In the mornings I watch Mornings with Maria which is on FBN.... that's after watching local CBS affiliate for weather, traffic and news of local interest.

I read the BBC US and Canada reports, then the BBC World reports. I read some of The Wall Street Journal for related business news. I also look at the CSM for trending news stories of interest along with The Washington Times and usually take a look at the NY Post for local news interests. I also read any number of other online papers, to get alternative perspectives.

End of day I again watch CBS affiliate for local news, PBS News Hour, BBC World News and OAN's Patrick Hussion…. who delivers a pretty straight evening news report. I also watch some PBS stuff including but not limited to Margret Hoover's Firing Line. 

 

Your turn.

BBC, CBC, CTV Vancouver Sun, Globe & Mail, BNN, A bit of CNN sometimes - especially when you have a good war going.

Oh, and Al Jazeera :o when the shit is flying in the ME.

By the way, the Washington Times and New York Post are generally regarded as 2nd or 3rd string papers - you should read better sources.

I have to confess I'm surprised you could draw on all those sources and still come off sounding like the Trump apologist you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the don uses the veto, the Supremes will be looking at a legislative branch vs. executive branch clash.  The constitution created this separation of powers.  I don't expect the Supreme Court not to honor it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
27 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Mitch the Turtle just confirmed that the Senate will likely vote to confirm the House resolution cancelling the Declaration of Emergency needed to build the wall.

Happens all the time. Emergencies are debatable things, right?

Finally.... 

Quite remarkable, given how Senator McConnell has, of late, demonstrated he has the backbone of an annelid.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Fine with me.

In the mornings I watch Mornings with Maria which is on FBN.... that's after watching local CBS affiliate for weather, traffic and news of local interest.

I read the BBC US and Canada reports, then the BBC World reports. I read some of The Wall Street Journal for related business news. I also look at the CSM for trending news stories of interest along with The Washington Times and usually take a look at the NY Post for local news interests. I also read any number of other online papers, to get alternative perspectives.

End of day I again watch CBS affiliate for local news, PBS News Hour, BBC World News and OAN's Patrick Hussion…. who delivers a pretty straight evening news report. I also watch some PBS stuff including but not limited to Margret Hoover's Firing Line. 

 

Your turn.

Jesus man. How about you just drink a Guinness and go to bed at a reasonable time? Lack of sleep is killing your brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

 

 

Remind me again why leftists such as yourself believe themselves to be intellectually superior and better educated?

 

I would think that would be Eva Dent already. But you can look up the studies if you must.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Ummmm, no. The left is not smarter than the right. You just believe in some noise that makes you feel superior…. which the left is not by any stretch.

You probably believe it when your Mom told you you were a very handsome young man too. Fookin idiot you are Mitch. You really truly are. Just a clueless twit. You exist in some left wing noise machine where every one is involved in this massive circle jerk. The really funny part is you are not really bright enough to see it.

Dunning Krueger indeed.

I know you can't read, but here you go:

https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Psychological-Science-2012-Hodson-0956797611421206.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

I find CNN to be just a bad joke now a days. The brand was slipping for decades and has become a shell of what it was decades ago.

ever since they screwed over Ted...................

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Wow, just wow. 

Every fucking president in your lifetime has firmly stated we have a problem with illegal immigration and a porous southern border. Every one. Every one of those presidents wanted to enhance the barriers along the southern border, everyone. Every president in your lifetime has declared we need to stop the flow of illegals into the US,  every last one.

So what changed?

 

Uh, the US has installed some 700 miles of barriers, increased border patrols? But you think every previous POTUS just sat around jerking off?  And feel free to provide any substantiation of your claim to "stop the flow of illegals".  Stopping is not feasible, controlling is and is reflected in the decreases of the past couple of decades.  For someone who didn't vote for and doesn't support Trump you sure buy into his fear mongering bullshit.  And here is a link to some of the recent developments

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/dec/11/fact-checking-trump-pelosi-and-schumers-public-whi/

I think I am done here as it seems that facts are meaningless to you.

edit: This quote is from the current DHS page:

Quote

DHS has deployed unprecedented levels of personnel, technology, and resources and made has made critical security improvements to secure and manage our borders.

Of course to superior intellects such as yourself it's a porous open border where poor Donnie is being thwarted at every turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

Remind me again why leftists such as yourself believe themselves to be intellectually superior and better educated?

Because, generally speaking, they are.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

More pictures, less blather. Four bullet points per page, with lots of pictures. Preferably pictures of old white people being abused by minorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites