Please be responsible for your own actions and words, and avoid blaming others or making excuses for your behavior. If you make a mistake, apologize and take steps to correct it.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 7
Like never before.
Trump’s campaign of retribution:
At least 470 targets and countingReuters documented at least 470 targets of retribution under Trump’s leadership – from federal employees and prosecutors to universities and media outlets. The list illuminates the sweeping effort by the president and his administration to punish dissent and reshape the government.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...Smells like fascism.
In his second term, Donald Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance.
What began as a provocative rallying cry in March 2023 – “I am your retribution” – has hardened into a sweeping campaign of retaliation against perceived enemies, reshaping federal policy, staffing and law enforcement.
...
The Trump vengeance campaign fuses personal vendettas with a drive for cultural and political dominance, Reuters found. His administration has wielded executive power to punish perceived foes – firing prosecutors who investigated his bid to overturn the 2020 election, ordering punishments of media organizations seen as hostile, penalizing law firms tied to opponents, and sidelining civil servants who question his policies. Many of those actions face legal challenges.
At the same time, Trump and his appointees have used the government to enforce ideology: ousting military leaders deemed “woke,” slashing funds for cultural institutions held to be divisive, and freezing research grants to universities that embraced diversity initiatives.More at the link.
No. of Recommendations: 0
guess again,
At this point, Reuters probably publishes primarily A.I. generated propaganda.
You know, just like you and the other ProGlibs.
No. of Recommendations: 16
At this point, Reuters probably publishes primarily A.I. generated propaganda.
You know, just like you and the other ProGlibs.LOL. Ah, Marco, your mindless little rage posts are mostly content free.
OTOH, Reuters is as accurate and unbiased as it gets. You guzzle lies and propaganda.
Overall, we rate Reuters Least Biased based on objective reporting and Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information with minimal bias and a clean fact check record.
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH (0.0)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITYhttps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/To be a Trumper is to deny reality.
No. of Recommendations: 11
At this point, Reuters probably publishes primarily A.I. generated propaganda.
Reuters has approximately 2,500 reporters located in over 200 bureaus around the world. That is more than CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, or CNN, indeed it is likely more than several of those combined. The three letter networks don’t disclose that number, but it is in the “hundreds”. It’s not beyond imagining that Reuters has more than all of those others combined.
No. of Recommendations: 2
wild guess,
Yeah Reuters is probably as reliable as the BBC.
You sure hit me with a real "gotcha."
And, you queried A.I. again.
Same caveats apply as always apply to your A.I.-generated garbage--"accuracy not guaranteed."
No. of Recommendations: 2
Goofball,
Did you notice you didn't address the point raised, that what you and everyone now read from the MSM is largely if not entirely generated by A.I.?
Yeah, you noticed.
It's just more psyops from a ProGlib.
Now tell us why murderous Jihadis in our nation's capital is Drumpppffff's fault because....SNAP!
Or something.
No. of Recommendations: 25
Now tell us why murderous Jihadis in our nation's capital is Drumpppffff's fault because...
Well, his application to stay was approved by the Trump administration, a full three months after Trump was inaugurated, and they said at the time that it was “fully vetted.” So there is that.
But more to the point, you are looking at one single, solitary person. More than 300,000 afghans have immigrated to the US over the past couple decades, many because they were threatened after helping us in the war (which we lost anyway.) They were guaranteed passage here by their aid to our government in a time of need.
Let’s focus on that 300,000, because ONE Afghan person committed a horrific act. You know what’s funny? The chances of a white person being convicted for murder in this country … about 1 out of 300,000 white race persons will turn out to be murderer.
Funny coincidence. Also demonstrating nicely that you are a racist asshole.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Goofy:
Never met a non-white Jihadi MurderBot that he didn't like.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Let’s focus on that 300,000, because ONE Afghan person committed a horrific act. You know what’s funny? The chances of a white person being convicted for murder in this country … about 1 out of 300,000 white race persons will turn out to be murderer.
Such is the republican way: blow up one execrable act beyond all proportion to its rarity and milk the anger for support and votes for all its worth. So as it ever was. (The dems do this too although not as often.)
No. of Recommendations: 0
If it's good for the Liberal Goose, it's good for everyone else.
Enjoy.
And i hope Dems do it again too.
It's Latin America time.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Actually, check the arithmetic.
Your premise is 1/300,000 white persons commit murder.
You then assume, without any proof given, that the Jihadi MurderBot is the only one of the 300,000 Afghanis who has committed murder.
Are there actually any statistics you relied on for this, or is it more or less, a guess? Or just bad reasoning?
The other thing being missed is that the Jihadi MurderBot was evidently NOT properly "vetted" for immigration prior to being fast-tracked into the U.S., despite prior claims to the contrary.
All he was "vetted" for was as being suitable as a CIA cooperator while in Afghanistan. He was never vetted at all by the Biden administration for suitability to immigrate to the United States. This is a process aid to take approximately 18 months to properly vet these people before they are supposed to be permitted to immigrate. However, Biden decided to dispense with the normal process and dumped about 80,000 Afghan refugees into the U.S. after the 2021 withdrawal with no proper vetting as to their suitability to be allowed to immigrate into the U.S.
It can also be assumed that this is a specific "at risk" population to whom much more attention should be given before being let into the country than random "white people" who are already citizens. Of course, you ProGlibs repeatedly make fallacious arguments based on an inability to or unwillingness to distinguish between U.S. citizens and would-be immigrants or refugees.
Finally, if you mean what you say--you want to rely on numerical statistics as to which U.S. citizens we should be concerned about instead of Afghani refugees who haven't been properly vetted--then you must certainly want to focus the bulk of our law enforcement effort on young black male U.S. citizens residing in Democrat controlled urban areas.
They are by leaps and bounds the greatest risk population to shoot other Americans.
So if you want to be consistent, I would fully agree--let's forget about the random Afghani MurderBots and focus much more of our law enforcement efforts on young black male U.S. citizens in blue urban areas who have by far the highest violent crime rate as between--Afghani MurderBots; random "white people;" "young black male U.S. citizens who live in blue urban areas."
Thanks for the clarification.
