Post New

Now seems to be the MAGA (aka Republican) Party.

For Europe and NATO, a Russian Invasion Is No Longer Unthinkable

Amid crumbling U.S. support for Ukraine and Donald Trump’s rising candidacy, European nations and NATO are making plans to take on Russia by themselves.

If Trump is elected, the rest of the free world will know they have lost their best ally in the never ending struggle for democracy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/us/politics/eur...®i_id=96954166&segment_id=156702&te=1&user_id=e6affdf52fe9bfcd78f41474fda15788

Now, with the rise of former President Donald J. Trump, who in the past has vowed to leave NATO and recently threatened never to come to the aid of his alliance allies, concerns are rising among European nations that Mr. Putin could invade a NATO nation over the coming decade and that they might have to face his forces without U.S. support.

What the HELL has happened to the 'Grand Old Party'!

Trump has made it quite clear: he sides with dictators and has made it plain that he wants to be one.

Amid crumbling U.S. support for Ukraine and Donald Trump’s rising candidacy, European nations and NATO are making plans to take on Russia by themselves.

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

One way to look at it is.....

The Europeans have been living in their parents (USA) basement for too long and now are taking on more of the responsibilities found in the real world.

And please stop looking at Border Security and Ukraine aid as an either/or. We can and should do both.

And please stop looking at Border Security and Ukraine aid as an either/or. We can and should do both.

It's increasingly looking like we'll end up doing neither.

Apparently the GOP was unwilling to support a solo Ukraine aid measure, requiring that they get progress on one of their policy objectives in exchange for moving Ukraine aid through. They were going to get some of their preferred policies on border security....but now that Trump has opposed that idea, it's unlikely to happen. Without the "carrot" of Ukraine aid, it's hard to see how any border security measure gets out of Congress; and without the border security, it's hard to see how the Ukraine aid package passes, either.

I'm hoping that all Trump wants is the credit - that he wants to make sure that any border tightening is perceived by his voters as entirely and completely because of him, rather than McConnell and Biden and all the folks that are actually working to make it happen. So maybe if they just call it the "Trump Did This and it Never Would Have Happened Except for Trump Act of 2024," it might still get done. But I think it's far too likely that the measure just ends up dying on the vine, and neither policy advances.

The Europeans have been living in their parents (USA) basement for too long and now are taking on more of the responsibilities found in the real world.

Some folks on this board have a very stilted understanding of the word "alliance". An "alliance" isn't a thing where one member of it pays all the money and provides all the effort while the other "members" hang out at the bar. Sadly, that's NATO right now: it's us, the Brits, and sometimes France when it suits their purpose. We can also count on smaller nations such as Poland to pull their weight and then some.

But how about Germany, the patron saint country of mega social services? Well, paying for that stuff comes at a price...of having zero military. And that's where they find themselves. It's so bad they're thinking of conscripting Germans to join the Bundeswehr. Maybe they thought all those middle eastern migrants would come on in and join u- oh, right. They don't give a rip about the Fatherland.

As far as border security goes, I love our libs here. At any time a clean bill that secures the southern border can be passed but the democrats won't do it.

....but now that Trump has opposed that idea, it's unlikely to happen.

Trump is in opposition to a bill that codifies north of 1 million illegal immigrants every year, as should most Americans be.
There's nothing stopping the democrats - who, let's not forget, owned Congress for Biden's first 2 years and did nothing - from working with the GOP and passing a border bill without the 5,000 person per day trigger provisions.

Dope1: Trump is in opposition to a bill that codifies north of 1 million illegal immigrants every year, as should most Americans be. There's nothing stopping the democrats - who, let's not forget, owned Congress for Biden's first 2 years and did nothing - from working with the GOP and passing a border bill without the 5,000 person per day trigger provisions.

Untwist those panties. To repeat myself: Lankford said that the "5,000 person per day" rumor is incorrect.

There has been a rumor that his bill would allow for 5,000 border incursions a day, which Lankford denied.

"It's been very misinterpreted, misunderstood, or just twisted on purpose," Lankford said. "The focus of this is changing the asylum process, changing the way we do detention, turning people around faster, doubling the number of deportation flights so that people that qualify get in and people that don't, which is the vast majority of folks, they all get turned around."

Let's just see what's actually in the bill and then Orange Jesus can give you your marching orders.

https://www.newson6.com/story/65b79c0f5b5ae4064d42...

who, let's not forget, owned Congress for Biden's first 2 years and did nothing

Oh how easily we conviently forget how the senate rules work. I do not remember the Democrats having 60% of the senate seats during Biden's term. Perhaps you could refresh my memory, or retract your statement.

Craig

Trump is in opposition to a bill that codifies north of 1 million illegal immigrants every year, as should most Americans be.
There's nothing stopping the democrats - who, let's not forget, owned Congress for Biden's first 2 years and did nothing - from working with the GOP and passing a border bill without the 5,000 person per day trigger provisions. - Dope

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

Lankford says that 5,000 trigger is not in there, at least the way it is rumored to operate, but lets say it does codify 1M or closer to 1.5M, the pluses I see are,

- A giant leap conceding that limits must exist.

- Counting the migrants is basically the same as sealing the border so the count is accurate, that also provides a giant opportunity to filter out what currently are gottaways

- The fact that a deal was made at all is an ice breaker, opening the door to future fine tuning such as reducing that 5,000 trigger. The important thing right now is that a trigger comes into existence.

- Trump will get his chance to operate this machine for four years and when the voters see what can be accomplished, they likely give DeSantis another eight year to deliver more of the same.

Anyway, I too share a concern for Biden loosing his enthusiasm for Border, especially after the check to Ukraine is cut.

But apart from that skepticism, am I missing something about the benefits I listed?

bhm, always interested in sane rebuttal.

Trump is in opposition to a bill that codifies north of 1 million illegal immigrants every year, as should most Americans be.

As was pointed out upthread, the number in question is only a rumored part of the package, which has been denied by negotiators.

But your statement is wrong even apart from that. Trump has not limited his opposition to just that point - he has expressed general opposition to the Congress reaching an agreement with the Administration on border controls.

Plus, it's worth noting - over and over again - that asylees are not illegal immigrants, but are allowed to request asylum and remain in the U.S. lawfully until their request is adjudicated.

Plus, it's worth noting - over and over again - that asylees are not illegal immigrants, but are allowed to request asylum and remain in the U.S. lawfully until their request is adjudicated. - albaby

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

Is that literally true? I certainly respect what you showed us earlier and it sounds pretty cut and dried. However, and this is the part I hope you can clarify, now that you have enlightened me, my ear perk up whenever a hear a politician or an attorney or someone saying that claiming asylum can only happen at one of the 28 Ports of Entry.

They suggest there is some other law that makes crossing between POE's a crime and anyone BC apprehends doing do is subject to immediate deportation.

This sounds like a reasonable provision but does it really exist? What do you think?

Oh how easily we conviently forget how the senate rules work. I do not remember the Democrats having 60% of the senate seats during Biden's term. Perhaps you could refresh my memory, or retract your statement.

I've forgotten nothing, and I retract nothing.
There's nothing stopping democrats from passing legislation that could peel off 10 GOP Senators at any time.

Further, I reject the premise and narrative that many of you push around 'Republican obstructionism'. The democrats don't pass legislation that's any good; if they did, Republicans would support it.

Lankford says that 5,000 trigger is not in there, at least the way it is rumored to operate

I read some of Lankford's comments and took it as a "I can't confirm or deny" the 5,000. It was really confusing.


- The fact that a deal was made at all is an ice breaker, opening the door to future fine tuning such as reducing that 5,000 trigger. The important thing right now is that a trigger comes into existence.

I agree here. For years the democrats have insisted on basically zero extra security measures; that they've caved AT ALL shows you how nervous they are about what the "Sanctuary Cities" are getting.

If we set aside the 5,000 illegal per day trigger bit the deal isn't terrible on its face. It doesn't do anything about the 10 million people that Biden's let in over the past 3 years and there needs to be some immediate measures taken to ensure there's not a run to the border in the weeks leading up to when this stuff takes effect.

As was pointed out upthread, the number in question is only a rumored part of the package, which has been denied by negotiators.

I read Lankford's comments. They're hardly a denial.

But your statement is wrong even apart from that. Trump has not limited his opposition to just that point - he has expressed general opposition to the Congress reaching an agreement with the Administration on border controls.

I doubt his statement was that nuanced.

Plus, it's worth noting - over and over again - that asylees are not illegal immigrants, but are allowed to request asylum and remain in the U.S. lawfully until their request is adjudicated.

And has also being said, they're illegals who know exactly how to game the system. Come on.

BMH:
And please stop looking at Border Security and Ukraine aid as an either/or. We can and should do both.

As Albaby has explained, the Repubs tied them together, and the compromises being made to get aid for Ukraine won't be there in a year. And as I have stated if we don't get aid for the Ukraine the US is signaling it's decline on the world stage as an untrustworthy ally. It looks like we are going to f!ck Ukraine because Trump wants what he considers an easy campaign issue. That's too much for me.

It looks like we are going to f!ck Ukraine because Trump wants what he considers an easy campaign issue. That's too much for me. - Lapsody

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

Well then that is something else I disagree with Trump about. I hope this doesn't get out or my MAGA membership might get revoked.

DOPE:Some folks on this board have a very stilted understanding of the word "alliance". An "alliance" isn't a thing where one member of it pays all the money and provides all the effort while the other "members" hang out at the bar.


Some people are thick and think we pay all the money, like Trump. There is no "pot" where all the money goes in. Each country is supposed to spend 2% of it's GDP on it's defense budget. Obama had it worked out that countries would be up to 2% by this year, but some countries hit that figure very early. The problem they have is that they haven't built up the armament and munitions manufacturing capability right now.

The other problem is that there seems to be a large anti-democratic force within MAGA that wants authoritarianism.. It's puzzling because it increasingly looks pro-Israeli, anti-Democratic, and yes - anti-American pro Putin. How did we get here?

I certainly respect what you showed us earlier and it sounds pretty cut and dried. However, and this is the part I hope you can clarify, now that you have enlightened me, my ear perk up whenever a hear a politician or an attorney or someone saying that claiming asylum can only happen at one of the 28 Ports of Entry.

They suggest there is some other law that makes crossing between POE's a crime and anyone BC apprehends doing do is subject to immediate deportation.

Nope. In fact, when the Trump Administration tried to impose that as a requirement administratively, it got tossed out by the courts (as well as when the Biden Administration tried to adopt a similar but modified provision). Not only is crossing at a POE not required - it violates the statute for the government to impose that as a requirement administratively. You don't have to cross at a port of entry to claim asylum.

https://www.courthousenews.com/port-of-entry-asylu...

I doubt his statement was that nuanced.

It wasn't. That's the point. He's objecting to the idea of a border deal generally, not any specific term or provision.

And has also being said, they're illegals who know exactly how to game the system. Come on.

They're not "gaming the system." As noted above between a third and forty percent of asylum applications are granted. That's an astonishingly high win rate for folks who are (for the most part) poor and not represented by private counsel. These aren't specious claims that invariably get thrown out - they're legitimate and substantive.

Plus, again, even if you think they're "gaming" the system they're still not illegals. Even if something is legal only under a loophole or a technicality, it's still legal. Which, again, is why Trump's and Biden's efforts to adopt administrative rules to change the legal status of asylees were thrown out by the courts.

As Albaby has explained, the Repubs tied them together

And as I'VE explained, there's nothing stopping the dems from compromising on the border and offering up a clean bill to do that.

This narrative framing of everything being the GOP's fault stops, right now.

Some people are thick and think we pay all the money, like Trump. There is no "pot" where all the money goes in. Each country is supposed to spend 2% of it's GDP on it's defense budget. Obama had it worked out that countries would be up to 2% by this year, but some countries hit that figure very early. The problem they have is that they haven't built up the armament and munitions manufacturing capability right now.

*Boggle*
You don't really follow the news at all, do you?

NATO countries and what they spend as a percentage of GDP: 2020

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/10/21/10-NAT....
Oct. 21 (UPI) -- NATO countries' military spending grew in 2020 for the sixth straight year, but only 10 of 30 members spent two percent of GDP, a report on Wednesday said.

Obama? Lol.

Germany barely spends 1 and a half percent.

The other problem is that there seems to be a large anti-democratic force within MAGA that wants authoritarianism..

Sez the faction that supports a government/private sector collaboration to stifle dissent and squelch speech. The world played out that movie for the first time in the 1920's. It was called Italian fascism.

Do better.

It wasn't. That's the point. He's objecting to the idea of a border deal generally, not any specific term or provision.

Because he's well aware of the propensity for lawfare and poison pills. Plus why should he root for a bill that ties his hands as President?

They're not "gaming the system." As noted above between a third and forty percent of asylum applications are granted.

They're gaming the system. There's no mass upheaval in any country in Central or South America right now. Just a bunch of folks looking for an economic upgrade. That's the majority of our southern border crossings.

And they've been instructed to say the magic words to get the nice CBP officer to hand them a phone and a court date sometime in the next decade.

We're being played. Why can't you see that?

This narrative framing of everything being the GOP's fault stops, right now.

No one's framing "everything being the GOP's fault." The GOP and the Democrats have mutually failed to adopt any significant immigration reform to address their differences since 1996 (the 1996 bill was mostly a GOP wish-list on immigration, which Clinton pushed as part of his efforts to triangulate for re-election). The two parties have different positions on the border on a wide number of issues.

There's "nothing stopping the Dems" from doing what Republicans want on the border, just like there's "nothing" stopping the Republicans from adopting universal single-payer health care - other than the fact that a wide swatch of the voters in their party don't support those measures. The Democrats want to ensure that people who are legally entitled to asylum in the United States continue to have a path to claim it, so that we don't repeat the horrors of WWII (when we turned away a boat full of Jews fleeing the Nazis). They're willing to compromise with the GOP on a number of border security measures in order to address valid issues at the borders - but it is inconsistent with that core value that the MS St. Louis scenario could be repeated.

It takes two to compromise. This narrative framing of the GOP being entitled to 100% of what they want on border security or else it's the Democrats who are being unreasonable stops, right now.

Plus why should he root for a bill that ties his hands as President?

Because there's plenty of room for a bill that doesn't tie his hands as President, and because this is supposedly an urgent crisis right now. No matter what happens in the election, Trump won't be President for a full calendar year.

We're being played. Why can't you see that?

Because it's not true. "Mass upheaval" isn't the only criteria for being able to claim asylum, and (once again) nearly all asylees end up showing up for all of their court hearings and a huge chunk of them end up winning their asylum cases in front of a judge despite their lack of resources in the judicial system.

You're being played, I'm afraid. You've been told over and over again that all of these asylum claims are pretextual, and you've never bothered to check whether that's true. So you've formed a worldview about asylees that's simply inconsistent with the results from literally hundreds of thousands of asylum hearings, but you're going to stick with it.

No one's framing "everything being the GOP's fault."

Actually, it was a theme that began under Obama where he was a prisoner in his own government. If only the Republicans would just cave and give me everything I want, all will be well. Others in this thread are doing the same thing - we can't pass aid for Ukraine or Israel or whatever Because Republicans.

I'm declaring this narrative dead because I'm going to call it out. Nothing is stopping the democrats from passing a border security bill without conditions.

The Democrats want to ensure that people who are legally entitled to asylum in the United States continue to have a path to claim it, so that we don't repeat the horrors of WWII (when we turned away a boat full of Jews fleeing the Nazis).

Heh. 1) I doubt your average democrat knows of the incident you're talking about here and 2) you're aware that a significant chunk of the progressive coalition would actually try to sink the MV St. Louis in deep water with all hands, right? That tiger the progressives put a saddle on is hungry.

It takes two to compromise.

It certainly does. What doesn't help the Compromisery Process is when the democrats run out and refer to people who have legit policies objections as Racist Bigot Meanies Who Hate The Plaque On The Statue Of Liberty. Call anyone a name long enough, they'll stop talking and merely extend a middle finger in reply.

Because there's plenty of room for a bill that doesn't tie his hands as President, and because this is supposedly an urgent crisis right now. No matter what happens in the election, Trump won't be President for a full calendar year.

Okay. Drop the "trigger" provision to zero. Deal?

Because it's not true.

*Throws up hands*

You're being played,

Sorry, no. My stance has been identical to what it was 20+ years ago: if you don't have a border, pretty soon you don't have a country.

You've been told over and over again that all of these asylum claims are pretextual

And you've been quoting the textbook at me this entire time without acknowledging once that people game systems in real life.

We're being played. Why can't you see that?

I think he sees the 40% success as worth the trade-off. Thus he can't lend any support or sympathy for the conservative issue over the cost of supporting the other 60% or the bad guys that hide within the overall swarm.

I think he sees the 40% success as worth the trade-off. Thus he can't lend any support or sympathy for the conservative issue over the cost of supporting the other 60% or the bad guys that hide within the overall swarm.

I think he's also unwilling to acknowledge that system get gamed, and that our system is being gamed big time.

The way the asylum laws are being applied right now, I could be a citizen from anywhere, jump on a plane to Mexico and hire a coyote to take me over the border. If I got caught by CBP I say the magic asylum words and I'm paroled into the country (something else he's not acknowledging).

My court date is 7+ years away amongst a backlog of 2 million cases. For all practical intents and purposes...I'm here to stay.

That's not sustainable.

Dope1: You don't really follow the news at all, do you?

Neither do you, evidently.

First, allied leaders agreed on two key 10-year spending targets at the Wales summit in September 2014 (yeah, Obama was president then so your Lol is a little misplaced). By 2024, they said, members would, 1.) "move towards" or beyond spending 2 percent of GDP on their militaries, while, 2.) committing 20 percent of annual defense spending to major new equipment and related research and development.

Not all Nato nations have met the 2 percent goal but most have moved towards it. As of July 2023, all 31 member states had surpassed the 20 percent spending target. As Fabrice Pothier, a former director of policy planning for Nato, said: "It's not just about how much you spend, it's where you spend it."

BTW, Orange Jesus did not get member nations to the 2 percent goal, either, despite all of his huffing and puffing and threats to withdraw from Nato.

For example, Orange Jesus told the European Commission in 2020 that the US would “never come help” if Europe was attacked and also said “Nato is dead, and we will leave, we will quit Nato.”

LOL at that, whydontcha.

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-hits-major-equipment...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/do...

This narrative framing of the GOP being entitled to 100% of what they want on border security - albaby

The unseen bill is far from 100% but I think it is worthy of serous consideration and should not be rejected out of hand. It is a first step and does make the situation better than the status quo.

Sorry, no. My stance has been identical to what it was 20+ years ago: if you don't have a border, pretty soon you don't have a country.

Which is why it's a good thing we have a border. All these people being arrested and detained for processing before being released for later adjudication of their claims are evidence that we have a border. It's a very different thing to claim that "if you have a border, but allow people access to judicial hearings on their cases, pretty soon you don't have a country."

And you've been quoting the textbook at me this entire time without acknowledging once that people game systems in real life.

Of course there can, and will, be some people who game systems. Any system.

But if asylees consisted predominantly of people gaming the system, they'd be losing a lot more of their cases. People game legal systems all the time, using an array of procedural tricks and claims....but whenever those people end up getting to an actual decision, they always lose. Because, again, they're gaming the system, not presenting legitimate claims.

Asylee claimants, though, don't always lose. They win their cases - a lot. Far more than would ever happen if most of them were gaming the system.

That's what you won't acknowledge, Dope - not only that people legitimately claim asylum in real life, but that most of the people that have been claiming asylum have legitimate and colorable claims. They don't always win, but so many of them do win that on the whole, the population can't be filled up with people gaming the system. These are, for the most part, legitimately people with a valid argument for claiming asylum in the U.S.

I think he sees the 40% success as worth the trade-off. Thus he can't lend any support or sympathy for the conservative issue over the cost of supporting the other 60% or the bad guys that hide within the overall swarm.

Not at all. It's not a question of it being "worth the trade-off." It's that the 40% success rate means that an even larger percentage of the overall population has a valid claim that's not "gaming the system," especially given their lack of resources.

I have enormous sympathy for the cost of supporting all of the claimants during their wait for their hearing, and am 100% in support of taking steps to reduce that wait time as much as possible so that pending asylees don't get a few years waiting in the U.S. before their hearing. What I push back on is characterizing the overall population of asylees as "gaming the system," when in fact they're predominantly people who are presenting legitimate arguments and are (and should be) entitled to have those heard.

I think he's also unwilling to acknowledge that system get gamed, and that our system is being gamed big time. - Dope

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

The existence of the 60% pretty much confirms the gaming. Why else would the people be let in to stay under a notice to appear if not for a pending asylum hearing?

The way the asylum laws are being applied right now, I could be a citizen from anywhere, jump on a plane to Mexico and hire a coyote to take me over the border. If I got caught by CBP I say the magic asylum words and I'm paroled into the country (something else he's not acknowledging).

Again, none of that is true. If you got caught by CBP being a "citizen from anywhere" with nothing but a few "magic asylum words," you'd almost certainly fail your credible fear interview and be deported/detained immediately. You're simply mistaken that the process works like this. The credible fear interview lasts for more than an hour (between 1.5-4 hours), and about a third of folks fail (and thus go into expedited removal and don't get into the country). And if you're just making everything up, you're almost certainly going to be one of the folks that doesn't get released into the country for a court date a few years down the road even if you pass your CFI.

If you think there's a rote incantation that allows you to get through the process, then you just really don't know how the system works, Dope.


https://www.aila.org/aila-files/84232834-EC30-4264...

The existence of the 60% pretty much confirms the gaming. Why else would the people be let in to stay under a notice to appear if not for a pending asylum hearing?

Because losing a court case doesn't mean that you never had a decent argument. People with decent, colorable, good faith arguments to support their cases lose in court all the time. That doesn't mean they're "gaming the system," it doesn't mean they're making bad-faith arguments, it doesn't mean that they didn't have a legitimate chance of winning. It just means that they lost their hearing. That's especially true of people who are so poor (and lack other resources) that they can't afford to hire paid private counsel.

If 40% are winning their cases, it means that there's a much larger percentage that are proceeding in good faith with legitimate claims that deserve to be heard by an immigration judge, even if ultimately it goes against them - and don't deserve summary expulsion without even a hearing. The people are being let in to stay for that hearing because we don't decide questions that could result in someone dying in a summary interview if they've made enough of a showing to deserve a full hearing.

LOL at that, whydontcha. - CO

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

No, I will LOL at this instead,

Not all Nato nations have met the 2 percent goal but most have moved towards it.

What the hell does his mean? It is an entirely worthless and vacuous statement.

Said, I have set a target weight goal and I am happy to report steady progress.

<<<Not said, at my present trend rate, I will achieve my goal weight in about another forty years.>>>

These are, for the most part, legitimately people with a valid argument for claiming asylum in the U.S. - albaby1

-----------

Now I'm puzzled. Most? For that to be mathematically true, would not the rejection rate have to 49% or less instead of 60%? At 60%, "Most" are presenting an unsupportable claim.

I must be missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

I must be missing something. It wouldn't be the first time.

Sure.

Here's a way to think about it. Imagine a typical civil court, who hears lots of typical civil suits, one between a plaintiff and a defendant. Plaintiff files the suit, defendant defends. Over the course of a year, assume that about half the time the plaintiff wins, and about half the time the defendants win. Does this mean that half the plaintiffs are pursuing specious, invalid, or "made up" cases? And that half the defendants are asserting specious, invalid, or "made up" defenses?

Not at all. Because in some amount of cases - theoretically in as many as all the cases - it may be true that both sides have a decent argument that deserved to be heard in court. But sometimes those arguments lose. There is a lot of space between a case that loses and a case that was improperly brought. Some of those plaintiffs will have colorable claims that they should win, but end up losing; and some of the defendants will have colorable claims that they should win, but be unsuccessful. That's especially true because there are lots of winnowing processes before trial, so that most of the speculative "gaming the system" cases get weeded out.

It's entirely possible that every single party had a "good enough" case that they deserved their day in court, even though half of those people lost.

And that's true in immigration court as well. Some non-trivial portion of immigrants will have a legitimate, colorable claim that they should be granted asylum - but they might still lose. That's especially true because they are poor and are unlikely to be represented by private paid counsel. It's more especially true because there is a winnowing process before they even get to a hearing, so the really invalid cases get thrown out before they get to a judge. They might not prevail before the judge, but they still could have had a decent enough case that they deserved to have a judge hear their arguments.

Which is why it's a good thing we have a border. All these people being arrested and detained for processing before being released for later adjudication of their claims are evidence that we have a border. It's a very different thing to claim that "if you have a border, but allow people access to judicial hearings on their cases, pretty soon you don't have a country."

Uh, huh. How do 10M additional people running around factor into that? We've added something like enough people to populate a large state by now.

But if asylees consisted predominantly of people gaming the system, they'd be losing a lot more of their cases. People game legal systems all the time, using an array of procedural tricks and claims....but whenever those people end up getting to an actual decision, they always lose. Because, again, they're gaming the system, not presenting legitimate claims.

Without looking into the details, how do you know they're not gaming the courts, or if the judges are just rubber-stamping them in? We've seen entire institutions essentially apply their execution through a partisan lens in the last few years, what's one more?

That's what you won't acknowledge, Dope - not only that people legitimately claim asylum in real life, but that most of the people that have been claiming asylum have legitimate and colorable claims. They don't always win, but so many of them do win that on the whole, the population can't be filled up with people gaming the system. These are, for the most part, legitimately people with a valid argument for claiming asylum in the U.S

And what exactly are these arguments?

Again, none of that is true.

Except for the fact that's what's happening.

If you got caught by CBP being a "citizen from anywhere" with nothing but a few "magic asylum words," you'd almost certainly fail your credible fear interview and be deported/detained immediately.

Sigh. You think that people aren't being coached there?

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-as...

. Why Will Asylum Officers Conduct Credible Fear Interviews?
A. Asylum officers conduct interviews when you are subject to expedited removal and you tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or ICE:

You intend to apply for asylum
You fear persecution or torture; or
You fear returning to your country.

How hard is it to game this? They practically give you the answer key right there on the website.

Even the Washington Post gets it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/31...
https://archive.is/X8l1V

Long-term stability at the border calls for a sustainable approach to asylum — the promise, enshrined in domestic and international law, of haven for people facing “persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” in their countries of origin. It is a noble and necessary commitment. In practice, however, it was being rendered untenable by the sheer number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years, each with a legal right to press an asylum claim. Between those assigned to Justice Department immigration courts and Department of Homeland Security asylum officers, the backlog of cases has reached roughly 1.6 million, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. It can take years just to get a hearing in immigration court.

This was from their editorial board a year ago. That 1.6M number is higher now.

Instead of the selective, humanitarian adjunct to general immigration flows that the law intended, asylum is evolving into an open-ended parallel system. The backlog encourages people to make a dangerous and expensive trip to the U.S. border, knowing that — even if their asylum cases are weak — they can live and work in the United States for years pending a ruling. Even those whose claims are rejected, as they were in most final rulings over the past decade, seldom face prompt removal. Meanwhile, those with strong claims wait longer than they should.

Bingo. Exactly as I've said.

How do 10M additional people running around factor into that? We've added something like enough people to populate a large state by now.

Because "border" isn't the same thing as "impenetrable barrier." We're a fairly open country, and we allow hundreds of millions of people to cross our borders for business, tourism, and other purposes every year. Because that provides us with innumerable benefits. A consequence of having a border, but one with many gates and ports, is that some portion of people are able to remain in the country without permission - the majority of which are visa overstays. Again - doesn't mean we don't have a border, just that no border (except for totalitarian security states like North Korea) is ever perfect.

And what exactly are these arguments?

That they face persecution and threats of violence, torture, and other harms in their home countries based upon their "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." So if Jews are being persecuted in some country (to take an historical example), they can seek asylum here - even if their country is not in "upheaval." Similarly, if a dissident is being persecuted because they dare stand up to communism they can claim asylum (to use the classic instance of folks getting asylum after defecting from the Soviet Union).

How hard is it to game this? They practically give you the answer key right there on the website.

Pretty hard, Dope. You don't just get to recite those three sentences and you're done. You actually have to provide a considerable amount of detail about the circumstances that give rise to your claim of asylum before you can pass your credible fear interview, and a sizable number of people don't pass. Those aren't the answers, Dope - they're just the topics that are going to be discussed.

Bingo. Exactly as I've said.

So do you support massively expanding the immigration court system? That's all you need to do to solve that problem. If immigrants' asylum claims are heard quickly - within months, rather than years - then these issues disappear. Asylees with valid claims don't have to spend years in limbo; asylees with invalid claims get adjudicated quickly and don't get to stay for very long - perhaps even a short enough period that they can be detained for most of it.

Any objection to that?

So do you support massively expanding the immigration court system? That's all you need to do to solve that problem. If immigrants' asylum claims are heard quickly - within months, rather than years - then these issues disappear. Asylees with valid claims don't have to spend years in limbo; asylees with invalid claims get adjudicated quickly and don't get to stay for very long - perhaps even a short enough period that they can be detained for most of it.

Any objection to that? - albaby

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

Just the enormousness of the resources required. If 5,000 legitimate sounding claims arrive every day, then there must be a corresponding 5,000 cases concluded every day to keep up.

Think of each court is a little machine that has teams of people to organize the daily flow of 5,000 applicants into and through the court. Then on the back end, two other sub-teams are required - a welcome to America team and Deportation team. With a 40% success rate the welcome team will need to process about 2,000 per day and the deportation team will need to process about 3,000 per day.

How many total people does it take to operate each machine, 100? 200?

How many copies of this machine do you need to reliably produce 5,000 units a day?

Enormous. And will take years to hire and train this massive workforce and construct the facilities they will work in. Relief will certainly be slow and years away.

Because "border" isn't the same thing as "impenetrable barrier."

It also means more than a dotted line on a map. Or something metaphorically represented by a sieve.

We're a fairly open country, and we allow hundreds of millions of people to cross our borders for business, tourism, and other purposes every year.

Sure. Guess what all those people have in common. They're here legally.

Now, what do 100% of all illegal immigrants have in common? They're all here in violation of US law.

That they face persecution and threats of violence, torture, and other harms in their home countries based upon their "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." So if Jews are being persecuted in some country (to take an historical example), they can seek asylum here - even if their country is not in "upheaval." Similarly, if a dissident is being persecuted because they dare stand up to communism they can claim asylum (to use the classic instance of folks getting asylum after defecting from the Soviet Union).

And they're supposed to be held in detention on arrival until their cases are adjudicated. But Biden is paroling them all into the country, thus enabling the parallel pipeline and therefore a default amnesty program.

BTW. What stops me from paying a coyote to lash me across the back a few times with a power cord a few weeks before I cross?

Pretty hard, Dope.

Uh, huh. Pardon my skepticism.

You don't just get to recite those three sentences and you're done. You actually have to provide a considerable amount of detail about the circumstances that give rise to your claim of asylum before you can pass your credible fear interview, and a sizable number of people don't pass.

So again, there's no possible way to embellish a story or game that. And there are noooooo people in the administration willing to accept marginal cases, right?

So do you support massively expanding the immigration court system?

I merely point to the WaPo editorial to buttress my point about the system being gamed.

If immigrants' asylum claims are heard quickly - within months, rather than years - then these issues disappear. Asylees with valid claims don't have to spend years in limbo; asylees with invalid claims get adjudicated quickly and don't get to stay for very long - perhaps even a short enough period that they can be detained for most of it.

Any objection to that?

As long as it's a valid claim...and we place a limit on how many we accept.

"Trump Did This and it Never Would Have Happened Except for Trump Act of 2024," it might still get done. But I think it's far too likely that the measure just ends up dying on the vine, and neither policy advances.

Trump tells the MAGAs to cut off their nose to spite their face and they happily comply.

So do you support massively expanding the immigration court system?

and BTW. I assume you're now willing to grant the point that the system is being gamed. It's not just me saying it.

Dope1: You don't really follow the news at all, do you?

That's hilarious coming from someone who gets their 'news' from clearly biased right wing media.

Sure. Guess what all those people have in common. They're here legally.

Now, what do 100% of all illegal immigrants have in common? They're all here in violation of US law.

Right. And what do 100% of all asylum claimants have in common? They're all lawfully permitted to remain in the U.S. Because they're not illegal immigrants - they're lawful asylees.

And they're supposed to be held in detention on arrival until their cases are adjudicated.

They can be held in detention - if you want to pay for that. And pay for a system to take care of all their kids - and 100% be able to reunite them - who are not supposed to be held in detention. But unless you want to pay for feeding and clothing and housing and providing medical care and everything else for those many hundreds of thousands of people...that's the dilemma. Again, the system was built for catching and returning people trying to sneak over the border, not people claiming asylum.

BTW. What stops me from paying a coyote to lash me across the back a few times with a power cord a few weeks before I cross?

Nothing. But it won't do you any good unless you can tell a convincing story, with details that make sense, about who specifically gave you those injuries and for what reason, to a person who's heard literally thousands of people telling variants on that story in order to weed out a third of them to never even make it to an immigration judge. You absolutely wouldn't be the first person to deliberately inflict an injury - or repurpose an old injury - in order to try to clear a CFI. I doubt that you (Dope1) would ever be able to pull it off.

So again, there's no possible way to embellish a story or game that. And there are noooooo people in the administration willing to accept marginal cases, right?

Again, it's pretty hard to game it. Not impossible, but it's going to take a fair amount of detail and skill at deception in order to bluff your way past people who spend literally all their time assessing the stories of people trying to do this. It's like counterfeit money or trying to fake a casino chip - you might think you can come up with something that looks pretty good, but if you show it to someone who spends all their time around money or casino checks (like a banker or a casino dealer), it's laughable.

Marginal cases are just that - marginal. They're not someone trying to "game" their way into the system - that would be someone who has a colorable, but imperfect, argument for asylum. Many of those get turned down at the CFI, but get appealed to the judges for preliminary determination on the credible fear issue. Maybe about 10-20% of the CFI denials get reversed by a judge (it varies). But as I noted to BHM, marginal cases ought to end up (eventually) at an asylum merits hearing, because we want the marginal cases to be ruled on by judges and not just an administrative staffer.

I merely point to the WaPo editorial to buttress my point about the system being gamed.

But it doesn't. It merely points out - as I have - that asylum is granted in a minority of cases. That doesn't mean the system is being gamed - it simply means that a lot of people who don't eventually qualify for asylum end up spending a lot of time in the U.S. because the system takes so long. It doesn't mean their claims were faked, specious, or didn't deserve to get a hearing.

As long as it's a valid claim...and we place a limit on how many we accept.

Why? What's the justification for refusing to grant asylum for someone who is, in fact, a legitimate asylee?

Once more with feeling...

They are NOT illegals. They are following current law to the letter. And that will continue for another decade or more because of MAGA and Trump.

You made your bed, now lay in it.

Right. And what do 100% of all asylum claimants have in common? They're all lawfully permitted to remain in the U.S. Because they're not illegal immigrants - they're lawful asylees.


...many of whom fall outside the spirit of the asylum laws, which would be why the system is being gamed.

You keep bringing up the MV St. Louis. Do you really believe that a similar situation is playing out in central America right now?

They can be held in detention - if you want to pay for that.

So it's free to charter flights for them, give them free education and health care, and all that?

But it won't do you any good unless you can tell a convincing story, with details that make sense, about who specifically gave you those injuries and for what reason, to a person who's heard literally thousands of people telling variants on that story in order to weed out a third of them to never even make it to an immigration judge. You absolutely wouldn't be the first person to deliberately inflict an injury - or repurpose an old injury - in order to try to clear a CFI. I doubt that you (Dope1) would ever be able to pull it off.

To a CBP official who has a thousand of these waiting for him and who could rightly conclude "It's not worth my time to argue; I'll just sign this person through".

I show up, I show some half-healed whip marks on my back and I tell a tall tale of drug thugs beating me up as an example to the rest of my village.
I'm sure that never happens.

Again, it's pretty hard to game it.

We can agree to disagree.

But it doesn't. It merely points out - as I have - that asylum is granted in a minority of cases.

Other than them explicitly saying 'the system is being gamed', you mean?

They are NOT illegals. They are following current law to the letter. And that will continue for another decade or more because of MAGA and Trump.

You made your bed, now lay in it.

And here's a 2fer.
They're illegals who are gaming the system. You know what everyone who ever gamed every system says? "I followed the letter of the law".

The other part of the two-fer is you doing what I said upthread: democrats are always prisoners inside our system, and are completely powerless to pass legislation Because Republicans.

Why? What's the justification for refusing to grant asylum for someone who is, in fact, a legitimate asylee? - </i?

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

The same justification that will exist after the new law is in place. Except now there is a tool to do so. Controlling overwhelming migration was the justification and still is.

To use the new law means those turned away are being denied a hearing, something you think 100% are entitled to. I think this is OK because we are a sovereign country making a decision. You seem to extend some right to non citizens presently not in our country that if they come here they have a right to to make their case and it is a right we must honor under all circumstances.

The idea that "all migrants have a right" is unsustainable as more and more citizens are becoming aware of, thanks to the pioneering work done by Greg Abbott.

Why? What's the justification for refusing to grant asylum for someone who is, in fact, a legitimate asylee?

How many of them are you willing to put up at your house?

You seem to extend some right to non citizens presently not in our country that if they come here they have a right to to make their case and it is a right we must honor under all circumstances.

The idea that "all migrants have a right" is unsustainable as more and more citizens are becoming aware of, thanks to the pioneering work done by Greg Abbott.

Exactly. He's arguing that literally every single person on the planet has the unfettered right to show up here and be granted the process and with Biden running the show, that means instant parole and relocation into the country.

Where does this end? We have finite resources.

The unseen bill is far from 100% but I think it is worthy of serous consideration and should not be rejected out of hand. It is a first step and does make the situation better than the status quo.

We agree. Tell that to Johnson, Trump, and people like dope1. Because they aren't listening and/or are more concerned about political advantage.

So this won't get done.

MAGA is an insidious cancer, and it will destroy everything. Starting with border security and Ukraine.

Dope:"You know what everyone who ever gamed every system says? "I followed the letter of the law".

LOL. That's a Trump & MAGA mantra.

Trump 'I know more about tax/debt.etc than anybody.'

MAGA: "He's really smart. It's not his fault the system allows him to do these things."

MAGA is an insidious cancer,

If this is the attitude of the democrat party, then good luck with that.

We can agree to disagree.

In other words, don't confuse you with facts. Because that is what that phrase really means in most circumstances. And you've been saying it a lot recently.

It's legit to agree to disagree about the priority ranking of issues, but not the facts of issues.

If they follow the letter of the law, by definition they are not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law. Except Trump told you not to, and/or you're being an absolutist -wanting all our nothing. Just like many progressives.

"It takes two to compromise. This narrative framing of the GOP being entitled to 100% of what they want on border security or else it's the Democrats who are being unreasonable stops, right now."

You cannot recommend a post more than once!

That response line should be enshrined in Shrewd'm history. Kudos! Kudos!

In other words, don't confuse you with facts.

Sorry, he's posting his opinion, which is no more valuable than mine. I'm sorry (okay, I lied, I'm not sorry) if my opinion on the border offends some of you.

The fact of the matter is that asylees ARE gaming the system as even the Washington Post Editorial board points out.

You guys are hiding behind the letter of the law and ignoring the fact that the spirit of it is being violated six ways from Sunday. That's fine; just don't go around casting stones at anyone else.

If they follow the letter of the law, by definition they are not illegal. If you don't like it, change the law. Except Trump told you not to, and/or you're being an absolutist -wanting all our nothing. Just like many progressives.

And here's where you're guilty of not actually reading things your debate opponents post.

I've asked a billion times what security measures you people would put on the table. Crickets.

Here's your chance. Would you take the current deal in the Senate if the "Trigger" portions were zeroed out?

By 2024, they said, members would, 1.) "move towards" or beyond spending 2 percent of GDP on their militaries, while, 2.) committing 20 percent of annual defense spending to major new equipment and related research and development.

Thanks for the correction, memory imperfect. :)

BmH: I think he sees the 40% success as worth the trade-off. Thus he can't lend any support or sympathy for the conservative issue over the cost of supporting the other 60% or the bad guys that hide within the overall swarm.



DOPE: I think he's also unwilling to acknowledge that system get gamed, and that our system is being gamed big time.

The way the asylum laws are being applied right now, I could be a citizen from anywhere, jump on a plane to Mexico and hire a coyote to take me over the border. If I got caught by CBP I say the magic asylum words and I'm paroled into the country (something else he's not acknowledging).

No. I think he's saying that if the crowd was full of people gaming the system, and that "magic words" got you paroled into the USA, we would be seeing 3-7% success, not the 33-40% success we have now, so it isn't happening. You have to adjust to the fact that 40% success means either 1. the cursory original screening review is amazingly effective (they may be much better at that than we think they could be), 2. the criteria are too loose and need adjusting, and 3. those people who choose to game the system aren't using coming across the border claiming asylum (Exmple: fly in on a Visa and then just overstay, or apply for asylum or another avenue so you don't have to leave)

My court date is 7+ years away amongst a backlog of 2 million cases. For all practical intents and purposes...I'm here to stay.

That's not sustainable.

But it looks like it's going to be sustained for another 20 years. Tell ya what Dope, I'll agree to zero as a trigger for a year for a years full funding of Ukraine. Deal?

No. I think he's saying that if the crowd was full of people gaming the system, and that "magic words" got you paroled into the USA, we would be seeing 3-7% success, not the 33-40% success we have now, so it isn't happening.

That's under the assumption that CBP isn't just waving people through on these interviews straight to the parole system. Right now the system is so underwater and the officers are so overwhelmed, do you guys really think they're doing their due diligence on the asylees?

Because if you do, I've some oceanfront property in Montana to sell you.

But it looks like it's going to be sustained for another 20 years. Tell ya what Dope, I'll agree to zero as a trigger for a year for a years full funding of Ukraine. Deal?

See, the rest of you? This is called dealmaking.

You can have *5* years of funding for the Ukraine in exchange for perpetual zero triggers and a rule that states that if we catch you entering the US illegally and you've committed ANOTHER crime, you're doing time in a US jail. I'll also throw in a new program that expands the amount of work authorizations for inbound immigrants (which the current bill has).

Deal?

I think he's also unwilling to acknowledge that system get gamed, and that our system is being gamed big time. - Dope

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

The existence of the 60% pretty much confirms the gaming. Why else would the people be let in to stay under a notice to appear if not for a pending asylum hearing?

No. Those numbers don't confirm gaming. Someone in a bad situation leaves, going to the US border and is going to try their luck for asylum. the initial screening should be set up to weed out those obviously not qualifying for asylum and to be slightly over inclusive for those that do seem to qualify. You make it past the initial interview. Now you get to your court date and your case is presented to the judge. Now your scrutinized to see if you qualify for more exacting criteria, there is no allowance to be slightly over inclusive, there is just criteria and whether or not it's believable, and some subjectiveness. You lose, and file an appeal.

If a lot of people were gaming the system, the success rate would be 7% or less.

The spirit of the law is irrelevant except where the law is ambiguous. There is wiggle room in the ambiguity. Where it is not ambiguous, there is no wiggle.

He already said every system is gamed. He's also outlined why this system is extremely difficult to game, and that the vast majority of gamers will be snagged at the first interview before they are able to go anywhere.

I really try not to cast stones. It's unproductive. But you keep coming back to the same baseless assertions that have already been addressed, often multiple times.

But you keep coming back to the same baseless assertions that have already been addressed, often multiple times.

They're not baseless. That people here repeatedly post this or that doesn't make something true.
You're invited to weigh in on the deal I just proposed.

But it looks like it's going to be sustained for another 20 years. Tell ya what Dope, I'll agree to zero as a trigger for a year for a years full funding of Ukraine. Deal?

Works for me, a year of excluding unknown persons(potential terrorists) infiltrating in to our country versus a year of degrading Russia military is a no brainer.

Zero? Probably not. Then people will shift from asylum seeking to crossing and hiding. That is worse. Plus the humanitarian implications of a zero trigger point. Thoughtful law allows for future possibilities, such as a capricious xenophobe in a position of power.

In fact, I think a trigger is a bad idea. Any number you set would be arbitrary. But I'm willing to accept it if it gives the executive a few levers that they can pull when necessary (which should be defined in the law). Right now the only lever is Title 42, and that is very narrow.

I would probably be fine with requiring people turn themselves in at proper border crossings. Expand the adjudication process.

As explained exhaustively, today's issue is not like 30 years ago (when I was a registered Republican). They aren't trying to sneak in to find under the table work. They are fleeing violence and persecution, gladly turning themselves in. A completely different scenario that current law and tactics are not designed to handle.

The real solution lies in fixing their problems back home, but that is probably impractical.

Works for me, a year of excluding unknown persons(potential terrorists) infiltrating in to our country versus a year of degrading Russia military is a no brainer.

Change the rules per the above and the dedicated (potential terrorist) infiltrator will simply take another route...like a boat. Boats are making it through despite everything we've put in the air, on the water, and lookouts on land.


Back to the drawing board.

As discussed before, a terrorist trying to sneak in via the asylum system is going to get caught. It would be stupid. Better to avoid getting caught, and dodge BP. That sort of crossing still likely happens, and would be a terrorist's best shot at getting in.

Probably true, sano. But no solution will be perfect. Someone determined to get in, with some brains and luck, will find a way.

You have to have a system that addresses most of the issue, and adapt as possible to the rest.

Back to the drawing board"

Back to the Kiddie table for you

As discussed before, a terrorist trying to sneak in via the asylum system is going to get caught. It would be stupid. Better to avoid getting caught, and dodge BP. That sort of crossing still likely happens, and would be a terrorist's best shot at getting in. - 1pg

But under the new rules, his odds of success by sneaking thru are greatly reduced, never zero, but near zero, because why? Because under the bill, border control resources will be deployed to count all of them in order to administer the triggers. Right?

This is one of the main features that allows me to support the rumored bill. But I remain skeptical of Biden's motives. As Tim Scott says, there is nothing the bill that forces him to follow the new law. Why would he do this, because he has no principled interest in reducing immigration, legal or illegal, and he will exploit any opening he has to keep it flowing.

The thing is, no matter how bad Joe abuses the system for another year, Trump will use the tools aggressively and cleanup Biden's mess and then some.

As discussed before, a terrorist trying to sneak in via the asylum system is going to get caught.

And as discussed before, you guys are underestimating our opponents.

bighairymike: But I remain skeptical of Biden's motives. As Tim Scott says, there is nothing the bill that forces him to follow the new law. Why would he do this, because he has no principled interest in reducing immigration, legal or illegal, and he will exploit any opening he has to keep it flowing.

This thread has had a staggering amount of stupid in it. If president Biden were to blow off a triggering event, it would be a PR nightmare, especially in an election year, and especially since he has already said "If that bill were the law today, I'd shut down the border right now and fix it quickly."

bighairymike: The thing is, no matter how bad Joe abuses the system for another year, Trump will use the tools aggressively and cleanup Biden's mess and then some.

Even though albaby1 has patiently explained, border encounters exploded in 2019. Tell us, please, what did Trump do to stem that flood of migrants and clean up his own mess?

HINT: nothing.

If that bill were the law today, I'd shut down the border right now and fix it quickly."

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

Saying quickly doesn't make it so. It will takes years to hire and train all the resources and construct all the facilities the bill calls for. He literally has no capability to shut down the border right now and likely won't have even by the time he leaves office.

Even though albaby1 has patiently explained, border encounters exploded in 2019. Tell us, please, what did Trump do to stem that flood of migrants and clean up his own mess?

HINT: nothing. - CO.

OK, but the fact remains, the border is a mess, and Biden's neglect is making it worse. Saying repeated that Trump is Hitler is no excuse and doesn't make conditions on the border or in the sanctuary cities any better. Biden had had three years to clean up the mess Trump left him and hasn't, that is not Trump fault.

Hopefully Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office again. But I do agree on the point that the law will outlast Biden. So the next 10 POTUSes will be able to use it.

And except for signing it, Biden has nothing to say about it. Senators from both parties are hammering this out. Plus one independent (I saw a photo of Sinema).

All moot unless someone can get to Johnson and get him to ignore Trump.

Actually, you are.

They won't use that because it would be a guaranteed catch, or nearly so. They are smarter than that, and will use other means. As sano mentioned, boats would be a good approach. It's what drug cartels are using with a lot of success.

Lots of other options than matching up to an agent and saying "hi".

Biden had had three years to clean up the mess Trump left him and hasn't, that is not Trump fault

Honestly, it isn't entirely on Trump either. We can blame him for not pushing reform while he was in office, and instead trying illegal things that got shot down in the courts. But it was the current law, unchanged, that led us here. Not Biden, and not Trump.

Though if Trump blows this up, that's ALL on him.

But I remain skeptical of Biden's motives. As Tim Scott says, there is nothing the bill that forces him to follow the new law. Why would he do this, because he has no principled interest in reducing immigration, legal or illegal, and he will exploit any opening he has to keep it flowing.

The thing is, no matter how bad Joe abuses the system for another year,

Where does this distorted stilted view come from? If Biden had no principled interest in reducing immigration, legal or illegal, and he will exploit any opening he has to keep it flowing, then why did he keep and enforce Title 42? There was nothing there to force him to follow that law, that wouldn't be in the bill. Why would he attempt to duplicate Title 42 administratively if he had no principled interest? This seems like a contrived view that you know doesn't correspond to reality.

Where does this distorted stilted view come from? If Biden had no principled interest in reducing immigration, legal or illegal, and he will exploit any opening he has to keep it flowing, then why did he keep and enforce Title 42? There was nothing there to force him to follow that law, that wouldn't be in the bill. Why would he attempt to duplicate Title 42 administratively if he had no principled interest? This seems like a contrived view that you know doesn't correspond to reality. - Lapsody

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

Doesn't comport with reality? Biden has a well earned soft on border image as reflected in poll and poll after poll. The caravans were shown marching along in nice white Biden T-shirts but the optics is bad so you don't see that much anymore. Even the migrants themselves, periodically in interviews while they wait to cross, will express their gratitude to Joe Biden for opening the border... One video showing migrants chanting Biden Biden as they marched and the narrator quipped, "It was the biggest rally that Biden has ever had."

There are a lot of videoes of migrants thanking Biden, here is one (6:48)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsOMSw_fxEc

C'mon, Mike. You're better than that, as you've shown recently with your understanding of the situation with the bill.

What you basically said is "a bunch of people with no specialized knowledge about this think so, so I'm gonna go with that".

Biden had done nothing because there is nothing he can do without a law change. I believe you have accepted that. I wasn't aware, but apparently Biden did try an end-around, but the courts called it back.

Certainly I will not claim he represents your policy preferences, but there is no actual data supporting the notion that he is "allowing" it when he could stop it. That's just something Tucker Carlson would invent.

"As discussed before, a terrorist trying to sneak in via the asylum system is going to get caught. "

You are grossly underestimating the terrorist abilities and capabilities. All of the high school gaming and positing that was presented here notwithstanding

No I'm not. You are.

They are sophisticated enough to avoid detection, or at least the successful ones will be. One doesn't accomplish that by presenting yourself to a federal officer.

Also, the Canada border isn't nearly as secure. The longest unguarded border in the world. I wouldn't try to come from Mexico, except by sea.

"One doesn't accomplish that by presenting yourself to a federal officer."

For starters you are assuming that everyone coming in is presenting themselves to a Federal officer.

bighairymike: The caravans were shown marching along in nice white Biden T-shirts but the optics is bad so you don't see that much anymore.

Are you really this gullible?

In this tightly framed video about two-dozen migrants appear at the port of entry in brand spanking shiny new white Biden t-shirts that don't have a spot of dust or dirt on them -- not even a wrinkle -- after marching hundreds of miles across the desert. Naw, doesn't look staged, at all.

First, here's the actual photo, not the Sky News -- Media Bias Fact Check: "Borderline Questionable and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks, unproven claims, and the promotion of conspiracy theories and misinformation" -- tightly framed video that makes the gullible think this is some gigantic caravan: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dpat...

Second, "the biggest rally that Biden ever had"? This scary t-shirted "caravan" is 22 people, mostly women and children.

From March, 2021.

I mean, fer' cripessake, they're all wearing masks, a dead giveaway that this is early on in the pandemic.

I swear, you people are nuts.

C'mon, Mike. You're better than that, as you've shown recently with your understanding of the situation with the bill.

What you basically said is "a bunch of people with no specialized knowledge about this think so, so I'm gonna go with that".

Biden had done nothing because there is nothing he can do without a law change. I believe you have accepted that. I wasn't aware, but apparently Biden did try an end-around, but the courts called it back.

Certainly I will not claim he represents your policy preferences, but there is no actual data supporting the notion that he is "allowing" it when he could stop it.

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

The Biden T-shirts indicate the migrants know who is encouraging them to come.....

That aside, I don't accept that "Biden had done nothing because there is nothing he can do without a law change."

He could be advocating for changes in the law, articulating the urgency, explaining the risks of non action, etc with all the enthusiasm, volume, and frequency he does for something he actually cares about like climate change. The fact that he doesn't should inform you of the level of his concern for this issue.

"As discussed before, a terrorist trying to sneak in via the asylum system is going to get caught. "

You are grossly underestimating the terrorist abilities and capabilities. All of the high school gaming and positing that was presented here notwithstanding - Boater

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

Have you heard about the Al-Shabaab bomb maker who was detained at the Southern border in March. He was released into the country after clearing the vetting process that albaby has described to us. The known terrorist was arrested in MN this month. If you do a search there are plenty of articles.

In the article I read, DHS explains away this failure as due to a name misspelling in some database. But if you think about it, the name the terrorist gives BC does not show up in any of their vetting databases, so BC lie detectors sweat him with questions for 1 to 4 hours and yet the terrorist was able to construct BS back story that got him into to the country, exactly as dope was saying.

"One doesn't accomplish that by presenting yourself to a federal officer."

For starters you are assuming that everyone coming in is presenting themselves to a Federal officer. - boater

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

Border control catches as many as they can given that most of their manpower is back at the POE passing out cell phones and doing paperwork. However, they can't catch them all and the ones they can't are called gottaways. The BC, who is in the best position to know, says the number of gottaways is 800 to 1,000 a day.

There is some reason these gottaways try to avoid detection. As a group, they are way more threatening than any group of true asylum seekers.

"... the Al-Shabaab bomb maker who was detained at the Southern border in March."

Of course, and it is utter naive foolishness to presume that he is the only one that has come here to harm this country. Unfortunately, we have too many people, here on this board too, that are party before country in their allegiances.,

The Biden T-shirts indicate the migrants know who is encouraging them to come.....

The Biden T-shirts indicate that Biden's opposition is doing a psyop for the gullible. Are you paid Mike? Because I don't think you're this gullible.

That aside, I don't accept that "Biden had done nothing because there is nothing he can do without a law change."

He could be advocating for changes in the law, articulating the urgency, explaining the risks of non action, etc with all the enthusiasm, volume, and frequency he does for something he actually cares about like climate change. The fact that he doesn't should inform you of the level of his concern for this issue.

Look, when Trump fails he fails loudly - for his base. When Biden fails, he fails quietly - for his base. One of the reasons I come here is to read Albaby. But Buden is a pro and knows how to work the Senate and work with the House, so the Bill that's being killed he worked on, helped, assisted, used pressure, gave carrots - I know he did for it to get this far.

You know what I don't accept? I don't accept, "The Biden T-shirts indicate the migrants know who is encouraging them to come.....". You aren't that dumb Mike. So explain to me why you are telling us crap you don't believe in.

>>The Biden T-shirts indicate the migrants know who is encouraging them to come.....<<

The Biden T-shirts indicate that Biden's opposition is doing a psyop for the gullible. Are you paid Mike? Because I don't think you're this gullible. - Lapsody

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

OK, I am vanquished. I will admit that when CO made his point, my intent was to reply with a crushing post with links to all sorts of example photos. But when I noodled around there were a lot of different pictures but many of the same people or background. There were only a few unique examples.

So being vanquished, I suppose I should join the choir and start praising Biden for his tough stance on the border. OK, I will try but can't guarantee results.

So being vanquished, I suppose I should join the choir and start praising Biden for his tough stance on the border. OK, I will try but can't guarantee results.

I can't find the Al-Shabaab bomb maker coming across the border either. Just a Jersey fellow going to Kenya and trying to aid Al-Shabaab. I dod believe you can have a tyerrorist come across the border, but point out no actual bombings or even a mild terrorist action form someone coming across there. I would like being inconspicuous, but getting an actual valid stamp on my passport. having fake papers with invalid stamps would make me sweat.

Look, when Trump fails he fails loudly - for his base.

Yes! I have a hunch that's why he hired Alina Hubba Hubba. She's pretty to look at, but pretty stupid too.

He knows he's going to lose, so he may as well lose loudly and raise all the money he can from his sympathetic cult.

Just hire a pretty, incompetent dumbbell the cameras will love, with a lousy resume, who will campaign for him by repeating his victimhood schpiel at every opportunity regardless of how stupid she appears to judges and associates.

Is she this stupid?

1/30/2024: "Trump attorney Alina Habba may have made up a fake person to push her arguments in the former president's defamation case, the lawyer of columnist E. Jean Carroll alleges.

In a Tuesday letter to the judge presiding over the defamation trial, Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, raised her concerns that Habba used a fake person to push her accusations that she and the judge had a conflict of interest."

If she is that stupid, can Trump call for a mistrial or retrial based on her illegal actions?

sano: If she is that stupid, can Trump call for a mistrial or retrial based on her illegal actions?

Not likely. First, this "fraud" occurred after the judgment. Second, Dementia Don would have to prove that Habba's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that her failures caused him significant prejudice.

His more logical recourse would be to sue her (and perhaps her law firm).

ETTD.

I can't find the Al-Shabaab bomb maker coming across the border either. - Lapsody

I would not have known about it, to even look into, if it weren't a report on Fox News. I take it, this story was not covered in the approved media fact checked sources you follow?

Anyway, here ya' go

https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/01/30/terrorist-...

Terrorist Finally Captured After Roaming Free For Almost a Year

The unnamed individual, who the memo only identifies as a member of the Somali terror group al-Shabaab, was released shortly after being caught illegally crossing the southern border near San Ysidro, California on March 13, 2023, according to the memo, which the DCNF is not publishing in order to protect the identity of a confidential source. The Terrorist Screening Center “deemed him a ‘mismatch’” after running his name through the terror watchlist, according to the memo, which was sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

bighairymike: Anyway, here ya' go

And here ya' go right back atcha': we have natural born U.S. citizens already here and already devoted to waging violent jihad against America and its allies.

Last December a Complaint was unsealed charging KARREM NASR, a/k/a “Ghareeb Al-Muhajir,” who moved from New Jersey to Egypt in or about July 2023, with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization. NASR, a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody in Nairobi, Kenya, on December 14, 2023, and was transported to the United States on December 28, 2023.

In communications exchanged with the CS and postings online, NASR stated that he had been thinking about engaging in jihad for a long time, and he was particularly motivated to become a jihadi by the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack in Israel. For example, in communications with the CS, NASR stated that the number one enemy was “evil America,” which he called the “head of the snake.” In recent public social media posts, NASR warned that “Jihad” was “coming soon to a US location near you,” posting airplane, bomb, and fire emojis...

Bottom line: we caught 'em both.

BTW, currently don't white nationalists in America commit more murders than any terrorist group?

Just askin'.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/new-jersey-ma...

bighairymike: The thing is, no matter how bad Joe abuses the system for another year, Trump will use the tools aggressively and cleanup Biden's mess and then some.

The idea that Trump will be a competent leader and do ANYTHING well, is borderline insane. It's a CULT! Can't explain this crazy commitment to the worst POTUS we've ever had any other way.

I swear, you people are nuts.

THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! : )

Bottom line: we caught 'em both.

BTW, currently don't white nationalists in America commit more murders than any terrorist group?

Just askin'. - co

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

So, that has nothing to do with point being discussed, that the vetting process at the southern border leaks...

So, that has nothing to do with point being discussed, that the vetting process at the southern border leaks...

What, does he want more action along the southern border?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/crimes-committed-illega...

The number of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States surged in fiscal year 2021 after declining in the years before that.

Homicides, assaults, incidents of domestic violence, illegal weapons possession, and sexual offenses committed by illegal aliens all increased dramatically in fiscal year 2021 compared to fiscal year 2020, data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows.

Illegal immigrants committed 1,178 assault and domestic violence crimes in 2021, which represents a more than 400% increase from the 208 in 2020.

Sixty homicide or manslaughter convictions were attributed to illegal immigrants in 2021, a 1,900% increase from the previous year.

Don't think he quite stuck the landing on the point he was trying to make. Oh, well!

Back to the thread. No takers on my 5 years of funding for the Ukraine, it seems.

Can you provide a link other than the dubious "HotAir"?

I just spent several minutes searching various combinations, and find zero hits. Something like that would make local headlines in Minnesota, at least. But so far, zip.

News organizations love getting an exclusive headline, but then everyone else picks up on it and re-reports it. I'm not saying (yet) that this story was a fabrication, but I am skeptical. It's been a week, and no one has picked up on it? Not even overseas (where they are not partisan in US party politics, and don't have a position on our border security)? Not even local Minnesota?

Strains credibility.

Strains credibility.

Whose? Not Mike’s.

Had you clicked the link, you would have seen that the source was the Daily Caller. Had you gone there, you would have seen this

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-terro...

FFederal authorities caught a terrorist at the U.S. southern border and released him into the country, where he roamed freely for nearly a year before being arrested in Minnesota just days ago, according to an internal federal memo exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The unnamed individual, who the memo only identifies as a member of the Somali terror group al-Shabaab, was released shortly after being caught illegally crossing the southern border near San Ysidro, California on March 13, 2023, according to the memo, which the DCNF is not publishing in order to protect the identity of a confidential source. The Terrorist Screening Center “deemed him a ‘mismatch'” after running his name through the terror watchlist, according to the memo, which was sent to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Biden has a well earned soft on border image as reflected in poll and poll after poll.

You mean carefully crafted soft on border image by the right.

Nah, he’s earned it. Serves him right for pandering to the open border set.

I did. The Daily Caller is not reliable. Without corroboration (which should have happened by now), I strongly question the event. Which is why I was asking for another source. I couldn't find one, but my google-fu is not infallible.

No, I wasn't questioning Mike. He didn't make up the story. But the Daily Caller might have.

<i:?>I did. The Daily Caller is not reliable. Without corroboration (which should have happened by now), I strongly question the event. Which is why I was asking for another source. I couldn't find one, but my google-fu is not infallible.

No, I wasn't questioning Mike. He didn't make up the story. But the Daily Caller might have.

Why would they do that? It's more likely that the mainstream media are the ones not bothering to cover anything border-related as would make Biden look bad.
At some point you guys are going to have to realize that THE BEST journalism happens far, far away from places like the NYT and CNN.

1pg is right to question it Dope, that's prudent with poor sources. It should be easily corroborated with a phone call, and appear in good sources, but it hasn't. So questioning it is appropriate and smart. It still could easily be very valid and we won't know why the delay, but waiting for corroboration is fine.

Biden has a well earned soft on border image as reflected in poll and poll after poll.

The right has seized on this false narrative as an effective political weapon to use against Biden, so they just make shit up and spew it out into the right wing mediasphere that propagates through social media and you have statements as per above.

1pg is right to question it Dope, that's prudent with poor sources.

You guys routinely define sources that you just don't like as "poor". Meanwhile, all of you swear by places like the NYT and MSNBC. You can't have it both ways.

Can you provide a link other than the dubious "HotAir"?

I just spent several minutes searching various combinations, and find zero hits - 1pg

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

Sure....

I DDG'ed for this term,

al-shabaab terrorist arrested in MN

below are the first 5 sites returned, there were more identified by the search, sorry the gold standard of reliability, Fox News, was not among the sites returned,

--------

https://www.lawofficer.com/terrorist-arrested-minn...

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/01/terrorist...

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-terro...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2024...

https://americanactionnews.com/featured/2024/01/29...

No, I define sources as poor if they have a reputation for inaccuracy, failing fact-checks, etc. Daily Caller is such a source. You never know if it's real or propaganda without corroboration. Most fact-check sites rate them as mixed/medium reliability.

NYT is excellent in that regard, though not infallible.

So I take it no one is able to provide a corroborating link, even after a week after the story "broke". I made a few more attempts, but came up empty. Until it is verified, this story can be safely disregarded. Right up there with the child sex ring operating out of a pizza parlor basement...

In science, you replicate results to insure validity. More people should take that approach to the journalism they consume. There would be far fewer misinformed people.

Biden has a well earned soft on border image as reflected in poll and poll after poll.

You mean carefully crafted soft on border image by the right. = lapsody

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

You are right, I guess I forget about the cosnant pitches he makes for border security and the need for legislation. He talks about Border Security with the annoying frequency of those medicare advantage commercials.

It is annoying but you can tell he cares for this issue with every bit of the same level of passion as he does for climate change. The only thing he talks more about than his obsession with securing our border is Donald Trump's evil.

NYT is excellent in that regard, though not infallible.

The NYT repeated the Russian collusion story ad nauseum. Did they ever give their Pulitzer back?

I appreciate the effort, but they all seem to refer to the Daily Caller as the source. No independent follow up.

It is like me linking the story about Ingenuity, and then crediting me as an additional source. I'm just a repeater, not a source.

I'll pay attention if a more credible publication picks it up. Heck, it speaks volumes that not even Fox has picked it up. If it doesn't meet their standards...(!!)

I appreciate the effort, but they all seem to refer to the Daily Caller as the source. No independent follow up.

Welp, your loss. The story was exclusive to the DC.
The mainstream media isn't really covering the border.

As POTUS, he has visited the border once after Title 42 expired. Plus he attempted an EO that was shot down in court. While I have to agree it has not been his #1 priority, he has already said if this legislation reaches his desk he will sign it, and then use the power it gives the executive.

Makes sense. As an analogy, I have no control over Putin launching a mirv at Phoenix. Until I do have that power, I'll worry about other things I can control. Politically, one may criticize him for not attacking Trump about the bipartisan bill.

Of course, we don't know what is going on behind the scenes. He may or may not be pulling some levers.

I'll pay attention if a more credible publication picks it up. Heck, it speaks volumes that not even Fox has picked it up. If it doesn't meet their standards...(!!) - 1pg

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

LOL, I think that is a great observation.

I should have been immediately suspicious because Fox News was not among those reporting it.

To be blunt, how would you know? You don't seem to look at "mainstream" media, based on the links you do provide.

The media I observe (from all over the world) is covering the border at an appropriate level. And especially when it was revealed they were trying to negotiate a deal.

I don't consider it a loss any more than Pons & Fleischman. Their claims couldn't be verified either.

You guys routinely define sources that you just don't like as "poor".

No. We define poor sources first, then we are skeptical of them.


Overall, we rate the Daily Caller as strongly right-biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis.

In review, The Daily Caller is a strongly conservative news and opinion website involved in publishing controversial and false stories. For example, they routinely publish misleading or false information regarding climate change that goes against the consensus of science. The Daily Caller has also published articles by Jason Kessler, a white supremacist who organized a rally of hundreds of white nationalists in Charlottesville. They subsequently scrubbed those articles after the Charlottesville vehicular homicide incident.

The Daily Caller frequently uses loaded emotional language that favors the right: DEM NOMINEE FOR FLORIDA GOVERNOR IS PROGRESSIVE MAYOR WITH CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION SWIRLING AROUND HIM. The Daily Caller usually sources their information to credible media outlets. Still, sometimes they utilize factually mixed sources, such as the Daily Wire, and Questionable sources, such as Judicial Watch. In reviewing story content, virtually all favored the right in story selection and wording while denigrating the left. The Daily Caller also promotes a favorable view of Former President Donald Trump by promoting his policies.

I DDG'ed for this term,

do you mean Duck Duck go go? Please don't use acronyms.

No, you didn't forget, you never knew Mike.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/20/fact-sheet-bid...

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/11/21/dhs-continues-...

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/12/27/dhs-conducts-r...

https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/20...

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/14/dhs-continues-...

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-thre...
Biden at the Three-Year Mark: The Most Active Immigration Presidency Yet Is Mired in Border Crisis Narrative

By taking 535 immigration actions over its first three years, the Biden administration has already outpaced the 472 immigration-related executive actions undertaken in all four years of President Donald Trump’s term.

DopeYou guys routinely define sources that you just don't like as "poor".

If "just don't like" means they are sources that chronically spread misinformation, aka lie, that would be correct.

Otoh, 'you MAGA guys' like sources that chronically spread misinformation, and regurgitating that misinformation.

BHM: below are the first 5 sites returned

More of that MAGA humor. I get it. I get it. LOL>

do you mean Duck Duck go go? Please don't use acronyms. = Lapsoy

-----------

Yes, Duck Duck Go. On the other hand, Duck Duck go go was a disco back in the 60's.

By taking 535 immigration actions over its first three years, the Biden administration has already outpaced the 472 immigration-related executive actions undertaken in all four years of President Donald Trump’s term. = Lapsody

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

Counting, Border related EO's is not a proxy for border hawkishness, especially when some of the EO's were Bidens so called day 1 EO's ending most of Trumps border security policies. And other Biden EO's had to do with such things as work permits after the immigrant has already gained entry. I am not saying work permits are necessarily bad but counting such an EO as an example of stricter controls on entry is misleading.

Another point found in the article contradicts the liberal contention that Biden is so hawkish that he sought to expand Title 42 but was thwarted by the courts. Here the artcle sounds quite the opposite...

Although Biden entered office promising to end the use of Title 42, which prevented individuals from being able to seek asylum by permitting rapid expulsions

Another point found in the article contradicts the liberal contention that Biden is so hawkish that he sought to expand Title 42 but was thwarted by the courts.

I think you're misconstruing the liberal contention. Which is that Title 42 is no longer a viable option for immigration control, not that Biden intended to expand it. Not only is the acute emergency of Covid over, but the philosophical grounding for an argument that the Executive can find some enormous power to change immigration policy hidden in a public health statute is inconsistent with SCOTUS' recent jurisprudence. They've been clamping down on agencies digging up vague and unrelated statutory grants of power in order to achieve broad policy goals, and although the GOP might wish it to be different, the Court is unlikely to distinguish between the agencies that conservatives (in the moment) want to have broad and expansive powers and the ones they want to be narrowly constrained to the statutory language. Conservatives have celebrated the Court's trimming the sails of government agencies - but immigration control is also the province of a government agency(ies), so it's harder to find administrative work-arounds to make up for a lack of Congressional action.

So if Trump were to be elected, he would find it much more difficult to re-enact the Title 42 program as a means of controlling immigration - the facts and the law have changed dramatically.

So if Trump were to be elected, he would find it much more difficult to re-enact the Title 42 program as a means of controlling immigration - the facts and the law have changed dramatically. - albaby

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

The article stated that Biden ran on ending Title 42. That is the point being made and is evidence that Biden is soft on the border. Despite his defenders trying to convince us of his hawkishness.

The article stated that Biden ran on ending Title 42. That is the point being made and is evidence that Biden is soft on the border. Despite his defenders trying to convince us of his hawkishness.

I don't think anyone's trying to convince you that he's an immigration hawk - just that the caricature of him being in favor of open borders and being 100% in favor of wide open entry is false. He's no Tom Tancredo. But being an old-time Democrat, and being from the Labor side of the party all those years back, he's going to be well to the conservative side within the Democratic caucus, and definitely wants to solve the current critical problems to lower the temperature on the issue.

As we've discussed before, modern political parties are coalitions. The Democrats definitely have a faction within the party that favors immigration liberalization - but it's not an especially large or powerful one. It's large enough to crater immigration deals (just like the House Freedom Caucus can crater almost any legislation they want), but it's not large enough to actually get any immigration policy enacted. Which is why immigration reform never gets prioritized when Democrats have the trifecta, why Obama ended up being the "Deporter in Chief," and why the DREAMERs still don't have any formalized legal status. In terms of political priorities, Biden favors Labor, the Greens and the Black vote within the coalition - not the immigration advocates.

Which is why Biden's been trying to fix this terrible political problem, and has been telling the immigrant faction within the party to pound sand. He's already tried to re-adopt the "First Safe Country" administrative rule that Trump tried (and was voided by the courts) - even though the advocate community hates that policy. As has been pointed out a few times, deportations are much higher under Biden than Trump - even though that's certainly going to get him a "Deporter in Chief" label like Obama. And he's basically told the immigrant faction to eat dirt in the negotiations with the GOP for the border bill - he's planning on trading away immigration policies that the GOP wants in exchange for nothing on immigration, just Ukraine funding. Which is literally a disaster for immigration advocates within the party.

So, again, he's no Trump or Tancredo or Buchanan (oh, the irony of those last two) on immigration - but neither is he the caricature that conservatives have constructed of him.

And he's basically told the immigrant faction to eat dirt in the negotiations with the GOP for the border bill - he's planning on trading away immigration policies that the GOP wants in exchange for nothing on immigration, just Ukraine funding. Which is literally a disaster for immigration advocates within the party.

So, again, he's no Trump or Tancredo or Buchanan (oh, the irony of those last two) on immigration - but neither is he the caricature that conservatives have constructed of him. - albaby

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

Fair enough. This is why I support the unseen <bhm humor tag> border bill.

If it comes out as rumored and doesn't contain other odious provisions, the revisions to immigration policy are reasonable and the new tools should come into existence. I'm OK with letting the people decide by their votes whether they want a D or an R operating those tools.

Another point found in the article contradicts the liberal contention that Biden is so hawkish that he sought to expand Title 42 but was thwarted by the courts.

No one ever said expand Title 42, we said he attempted to duplicate, recreate Title 42 - administratively. I was surprised, but pleasantly. He tried. BTW, that is called a straw man fallacy and you and Dope do it a lot. And it falls under misrepresentation which is a subset of lie.

Although Biden entered office promising to end the use of Title 42,

Now as for your promise - "Your administration must stand with voters who elected you into office by fulfilling your commitment to protect immigrants, restore the asylum system, and end family separation,”

ENDING FAMILY SEPARATION WAS THE BIG PROMISE! Haven't you ever seen Dope chortle about finding ways to make the border so odious no want would want to come that route? Some sources paint separating families as a Steve Miller deliberate action, but until I get a good sound reputable source that gives the details backed by solid support I'm not going that route.

No. We define poor sources first, then we are skeptical of them.

No you don't. If you held the outfits you like up to any kind of standard, you've never click on any of the major media sites ever again. It's all good though. I try to pick left wing sources because it makes posting more difficult for me.

drebbin used to say that the easiest thing in America was to live in a left wing bubble. You could go all day, every day, without ever encountering a thought that didn't upset your worldview. Boy, was he right.

Some sources paint separating families as a Steve Miller deliberate action, but until I get a good sound reputable source that gives the details backed by solid support I'm not going that route.

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

A story in The Atlantic in 2022 reported on the origins of the family separation policy extensively. Separation for the purpose of cruelty to "send a message" to potential members of the next wave was ABSOLUTELY the core purpose of the policy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/...

Trump-administration officials insisted for a whole year that family separations weren’t happening. Finally, in the spring of 2018, they announced the implementation of a separation policy with great fanfare—as if one had not already been under way for months. Then they declared that separating families was not the goal of the policy, but an unfortunate result of prosecuting parents who crossed the border illegally with their children. Yet a mountain of evidence shows that this is explicitly false: Separating children was not just a side effect, but the intent. Instead of working to reunify families after parents were prosecuted, officials worked to keep them apart for longer.

(snip...)

Many of these officials now insist that there had been no way to foresee all that would go wrong. But this is not true. The policy’s worst outcomes were all anticipated, and repeated internal and external warnings were ignored. Indeed, the records show that almost no logistical planning took place before the policy was initiated.

(snip...)

It is easy to pin culpability for family separations on the anti-immigration officials for which the Trump administration is known. But these separations were also endorsed and enabled by dozens of members of the government’s middle and upper management: Cabinet secretaries, commissioners, chiefs, and deputies who, for various reasons, didn’t voice concern even when they should have seen catastrophe looming; who trusted “the system” to stop the worst from happening; who reasoned that it would not be strategic to speak up in an administration where being labeled a RINO or a “squish”—nicknames for those deemed insufficiently conservative—could end their career; who assumed that someone else, in some other department, must be on top of the problem; who were so many layers of abstraction away from the reality of screaming children being pulled out of their parent’s arms that they could hide from the human consequences of what they were doing.

The nutshell version?

The family separation policy has roots back to the Bush Administration after 9/11/2001 when border security became viewed as a terroristic threat and the need to appear tough on national security made cracking down on illegal immigration politically advantageous. The idea of purposely making the immigration process so onerous and unpleasant few would want to try it traces to a a Border Patrol official from Texas in 2005. Operation Streamline instituted a practice of prosecuting EVERY border crossing, flooding insufficiently staffed courts with cases and creating huge backlogs. This mindset continued through the Obama Administration. And these problems predated the more recent MASSIVE floods of asylum seekers attempting to flee recent economic meltdowns in places like Venezuela.

THE IDEA of family separation as an intentional incentive to stem illegal immigration actually traces to Tom Holman, the executive director within ICE responsible for removal and enforcement in the Obama Administration. He proposed the idea but it was rejected by his boss. THE IMPLEMENTATION of family separation only came to fruition within the Trump Administration because Trump's abysmal transition effort succeeded at chasing away any moderate establishment Republicans from seeking leadership roles anywhere in the Trump Administration, leaving Trump's team only "C-players" at best to choose from who had virtually no significant experience in the subject matter of their department and questionable personal ethics.

Stephen Miller led the team during the transition that formulated many of the policies Trump intended to launch from Day One and did so by having participants sign NDAs and work without any outside legal counsel. He made it clear long-time career officials who stuck around hoping to use "process" to slow down the worst of the incoming policies would be identified and chased out. The idea of separation seemed to come back around March 2017 and John Kelly publicly came out and attempted to stop it. However, Miller and his team worked around Kelly directly with DHS officials and despite a second effort by Kelly to halt the effort after becoming Chief of Staff, Miller had succeeded at getting a one-off trial started between Border Patrol and DOJ in El Paso that started the ball rolling.

So yea, it can be accurately stated that Stephen Miller is THE single person most responsible for implementing intentional cruelty to women and children as a strategic policy of the United States of America.


WTH

Dope1: No you don't. If you held the outfits you like up to any kind of standard, you've never click on any of the major media sites ever again.

Well, I wouldn't click on @EndWokeness.

But major media outlets? Sure, anytime.

And that includes both left and right of center: NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, AP, WSJ (News, not Opinion), BBC, The Globe and Mail, Scripps News, News Nation, Barron's, and Financial Times.

I don't watch The Rachel Maddow Show but I would expect her positions to be far left and generally accurate (but I would want to verify her information with at least one other source). Something like Jesse Watters Primetime, though? Anything coming from his show would require multiple independent sources of verification.

Why? Because generally Maddow is rated far left but mostly accurate while Watters is rated far right and unreliable.

Here, if you don't like Media Bias Fact Check, then use Media Bias Fact Chart from Ad Fontes Media: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-c...

No you don't. If you held the outfits you like up to any kind of standard, you've never click on any of the major media sites ever again.</i?

This is an absurd statement. You have never shown us that you have any standards other than what you like. I have shown you yardsticks (media bias, Ad Fontes charts) where I go to get critiques of the sources and then critically assess the source myself. You have never shown that you have any standards.

Here, you are shown regularly that your sources are poor, riddled with falsehoods, misstatements, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, half truths, and outright lies, which you ignore entirely 99.995% of the time and are back 2 minutes later hawking the same bad source.

I don't have time for bad sources. There's enough going on and that I have to do, even though I'm retired.

Overall, we rate the Daily Caller as strongly right-biased based on story selection that almost always favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks. The Daily Caller is a source that needs to be fact-checked on a per-article basis.

Interesting that this 'media' chose a name so similar the the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. Maybe it's a coincidence?

The Daily Stormer is an American far-right, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, misogynist, Islamophobic,[1] antisemitic, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for a second genocide of Jews.[2][3][4][5][6] It is part of the alt-right movement.[7][8][9] Its editor, Andrew Anglin, founded the outlet on July 4, 2013, as a faster-paced replacement for his previous website Total Fascism, which had focused on his own long-form essays on fascism, race, and antisemitic conspiracy theories. In contrast, The Daily Stormer relies heavily on quoted material with exaggerated headlines.[10] Wikipedia

WTHSo yea, it can be accurately stated that Stephen Miller is THE single person most responsible for implementing intentional cruelty to women and children as a strategic policy of the United States of America.

That's good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

So now you see BHM, reversing deliberate child separation from their families was the big promise, and Biden did it. We set up a task force to unite separated children with their families:

As of October, 2023:
<snip>The Biden administration created a task force to continue reuniting 4,227 children who were separated from their families when the policy was being enforced. The task force said 3,126 children have been reunified with their parents or legal guardians and it is working with non-governmental organizations to reunite the remaining 1,100 children with family members, according to a federal government report.<snip>

We're still working on it and Steve Miller is a cruel, inhuman bastard worthy of being a concentration camp Nazi.

This is an absurd statement.

It's hard to process, sure. But all of the liberal media perpetuated the RUSSIAN COLLUSION hoax and help front Star Chamber sham impeachment process that was ALL based on a bogus intel report.

And yet...those are "acceptable" source. Sure.

I have shown you yardsticks (media bias, Ad Fontes charts) where I go to get critiques of the sources and then critically assess the source myself. You have never shown that you have any standards.

Lulz. You showing me left wing "fact checkers" is hardly a refutation of anything. Here's how shamelessly bad a lot of these outfits are. I give you Snopes:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/biden-hard-...

Snopes reversed one of its rulings over the weekend to admit that President Biden did, in fact, wear a construction hard hat backwards. Biden was pictured during a visit to union workers in Wisconsin and the photo showed Biden noticeably wearing the hard hat backwards, with the strap and tightening knob clearly visible.

Snopes' published an initial fact check, admitting the photo was authentic but insisting the president was correctly wearing the protective headwear.

Given their leanings it's highly likely the people at Snopes think you wear hard hats with the support strap on your forehead.

Here, you are shown regularly that your sources are poor, riddled with falsehoods,

Double lulz. And here's the lazy logical fallacy again. Let me help you out: if the worst student in math class says that 2+2=4, he's right, no matter how bad the poor kid is an arithmetic.

But you people - despite supporting the worst of the worst - want to have it such that you get to dictate where information comes from. Not happening, homie.

This is an absurd statement.

It's hard to process, sure. But all of the liberal media perpetuated the RUSSIAN COLLUSION hoax and help front Star Chamber sham impeachment process that was ALL based on a bogus intel report.

It's not hard to process. My assessment was there were contacts, for sure, but Trump didn't seem to get enough help to make a difference, though I can't quantify or evaluate the help he received, but it seemed minor. Your determination that any discussion of it discredits the source is just way out there - are you Q? There were plenty of contacts.

WIKI - Since Donald Trump was a 2016 candidate for the office of President of the United States, myriad[1] suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials have been discovered by the FBI, Special counsel, and several United States congressional committees, as part of their investigations into the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[2] Following intelligence reports about the Russian interference, Trump and some of his campaign members, business partners, administration nominees, and family members were subjected to intense scrutiny to determine whether they had improper dealings during their contacts with Russian officials.[3][4] Several people connected to the Trump campaign made false statements about those links and obstructed investigations.[2] These investigations resulted in many criminal charges and indictments.

Starting in 2015, several allied foreign intelligence agencies began reporting secret contacts between Trump campaigners and known or suspected Russian agents in multiple European cities.[5][6][7] In November 2016, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov contradicted Trump's denials by confirming the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russia, stating in a 2016 Interfax news agency interview: "Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage," adding "I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."[8][9]

See? The Russians admit there were contacts. Is the admission a hoax too?

The Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Report described how "secretive meetings and communications with Russian representatives... signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided in its unprecedented attack on American democracy."[10] Ultimately, Mueller's investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".[11]

Barr sidelined Mueller's report IIRC

More from WIKI:
By April 19, 2019, The New York Times had documented that "Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition."[16]

The Moscow Project – an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund – had, by June 3, 2019, documented "272 contacts between Trump's team and Russia-linked operatives ... including at least 38 meetings.... None of these contacts were ever reported to the proper authorities. Instead, the Trump team tried to cover up every single one of them."[17]

So, is your argument then circular? Since you deemed it a Russian Collusion Hoax - any discussion of it in a paper, etc., shows the paper, etc., to be a bad source, and therefore any quantification of contacts/meetings, no matter what source they get it from, is null and void? So it's all bad? Never happened? Is this your argument?

So, is your argument then circular? Since you deemed it a Russian Collusion Hoax - any discussion of it in a paper, etc., shows the paper, etc., to be a bad source, and therefore any quantification of contacts/meetings, no matter what source they get it from, is null and void? So it's all bad? Never happened? Is this your argument?

That's YOUR argument.
That's EXACTLY the flow you libs are setting up. You sit here and try to proclaim that certain media outlets are unreliable (because you don't like what they say). You then point to some "fact checker" (who also shares a liberal bias) who then dutifully applies their own confirmation bias to find fault with non-liberal sites.

That's not how life works. I merely point out that the stones you're throwing are from the porch of a very large and very brittle glass house.

That's YOUR argument.

No it isn't. I asked you for your standards to evaluate papers, sources, and you seemed to say - anyone who had a discussion of the Russian Contacts, etc., was a bad source to you. It sounds circular.

That's EXACTLY the flow you libs are setting up. You sit here and try to proclaim that certain media outlets are unreliable (because you don't like what they say). You then point to some "fact checker" (who also shares a liberal bias) who then dutifully applies their own confirmation bias to find fault with non-liberal sites.

No, I use the fact checks as corroboration (I think the source is flaky and see if it supports my thinking), or a starting point (first article and before wading thru 15 pages, I want to see if it's worthwhile). I know there's a liberal bias and that's good - RW sites just omit inconvenient facts, whereas liberal sites explain them, and sometimes give a gloss to them.

If I see the site has a RW bias but is highly factual, I'll read the site. I can account for RW bias. But if the site promotes conspiracy theories, or has too many failed fact checks, I don't want to read it, but may skim an article to see.

That's not how life works. I merely point out that the stones you're throwing are from the porch of a very large and very brittle glass house.

Well, you've established that you have no real articulable criteria for rating sources than a vague reference to Russian Collusion Hoax. This reference seems to be indistinguishable from "a source that I like", which is understandable but there's no attempt to evaluate for a fact source or weed out misinformation and conspiracy theories.

No it isn't.
Yes, it is. It's the MO of several of you, so that you can dismiss without debate any material that you don't want to discuss. It's a way for you to disarm your opponents with a pre-emptive strike.

I know there's a liberal bias and that's good aaaannnndddd thanks for the confirmation.

Well, you've established that you have no real articulable criteria for rating sources than a vague reference to Russian Collusion Hoax.

This statement makes zero sense. Did you not follow the news during the, I don't know, entire Trump Presidency?

My favorite all-time liberal media moment was during a CNN town hall when that moron Jake Tapper had to explain to the equally misinformed audience who Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were. Because of course his network never actually covered the story in any real detail. Perfect.

you've established that you have no real articulable criteria for rating sources - Lapsody

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

A while back I spent more time than I should have digging deep into Media Bias Fact Checkers website. I posted about that odyssey here. The bottom line the "authority chain" led back eventually to a few people, recruited by somebody well respected in media, who as best I can figure appointed themselves to the lofty position of "Fact Checkers", a very noble sounding profession.

But there was nothing to establish their claim of possessing the skills to make such judgements. Granted they did have a system they explained very well that subjectively rated a publisher on a number of metrics and then mathematically combines these ratings into a final score. But at the root of it were subjective scores, assigned by humans of unknown bias, to various criteria. That was more or less the end of the trail.

I will give MBFC some credit for designing what appeared to be a decent methodology, but nothing to convince me their conclusions are dispositive.

But there was nothing to establish their claim of possessing the skills to make such judgements. Granted they did have a system they explained very well that subjectively rated a publisher on a number of metrics and then mathematically combines these ratings into a final score. But at the root of it were subjective scores, assigned by humans of unknown bias, to various criteria. That was more or less the end of the trail.

I will give MBFC some credit for designing what appeared to be a decent methodology, but nothing to convince me their conclusions are dispositive.

That's how it's supposed to look: a bunch of hopelessly biased people get together, create a framework, and then go forth and demonstrate confirmation bias on an industrial scale. Let's look at the track record of the "fact checkers". I already provided a very recent example of Snopes face-planting itself:

Let's start with NPR, who you know will soft-peddle this and/or turn it into an "icky conservatives pounce" thing:
https://www.npr.org/2012/01/10/144974110/political...

HEMINGWAY: Well, there's a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.

And they found that of the 98 statements that PolitiFact had rated false, 74 of them were by Republicans. Now, I can think of a number of reasons why you might cite one party over the other more, in terms of, you know, who was telling the truth and who wasn't. But doing that at a rate of three to one strikes me as awfully suspicious, particularly when, if you delve into the specifics of the statements that they cited, there's all kinds of problematic things contained there, whereas they are, you know, like you're mentioned, they're often fact-checking opinions and providing counter-arguments to, you know, stated opinions.

This is how the left does it: you offer an opinion, and they fact-check your opinion with some bogus misdirection or 2 to either change the subject or paint you as a misinformation specialist. This is how ChatNPC made his bones back on Political Asylum. He'd literally respond to every thread with some irrelevant fact that did nothing to advance any kind of argument - he'd just do it to present it in a way to try to discredit whoever he was responding to. He'd be responding to a post about, say, how deep the water was in the port of New York with some snide remark that "You know, 2+2=4, not 6". All the PA seals would bark in applause. One has zero to do with the other, but that wasn't the point. The disruption was.

but back to NPR. As I said, they try their best NPR-BS way to soft peddle this, but Hemingway isn't having it:
CONAN: Mark Hemingway, checking matters of fact would seem to be a useful exercise.

HEMINGWAY: Absolutely, and I don't think anybody's against checking the actual fact. It's just that it comes down to, you know, like what you mentioned before, where you have situations where, you know, you have debates that are far too nuanced to say this is, you know, correct or this is incorrect.

And it just becomes this thing where, you know, one person's presenting an opinion, but because you have this pseudo-scientific marketing gimmick, where you're saying it's false, or you're assuming someone's intent or, you know, no disrespect to Glenn, you know, the Pinocchio itself does sort of imply lying and intent and other things like that.

LOL.

Now let's get into investigating the "fact checkers" these guys like to brag about. One of America's best investigative journalists is Sharyl Atkisson. Here's her column on this (no libs, I could care less where it appears. Her credibility is legendary)

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/08/10/investigati...

That discord is likely to persist because in large part the fact-checking solution is illusory. Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification. The fact-checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers, who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies. This small group of players exerts an oversized influence, using fact checks to shape and censor information.

Yup. 100%.

For now, the trend to “fact-checking” information the public accesses online and on the news is gaining momentum approaching the 2020 election. The evidence indicates the backgrounds and interests of those involved in the effort are serving to complicate rather than purify an increasingly fact-challenged information landscape.

it's not gotten any better since then.

That's EXACTLY the flow you libs are setting up. You sit here and try to proclaim that certain media outlets are unreliable (because you don't like what they say).

Determination of bias may not be an exact science, but it doesn't need to be. There are a number of ways to determine bias from the reporting or opinion pieces a particular media produces. Fact checking is even easier.

Your use of highly questionable and obviously biased sources with a bad track record for factual reporting is something makes you less than credible.

Why not use sources that are known to have the least bias? Is it because you must use the biased sources to maintain your warped political views?

Determination of bias may not be an exact science, but it doesn't need to be. There are a number of ways to determine bias from the reporting or opinion pieces a particular media produces. Fact checking is even easier.

Your use of highly questionable and obviously biased sources with a bad track record for factual reporting is something makes you less than credible.

Why not use sources that are known to have the least bias? Is it because you must use the biased sources to maintain your warped political views?- ges

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

Your assertion is a bit self contradictory even if you can't see it.

Your assertion is a bit self contradictory even if you can't see it.

Nope. Some of these guys are like alcoholics criticizing another person for having a sip of wine. He'd probably have zero issue with threads full of MSNBC or CNN cites. Who knows? Maybe he was in Jake Tapper's audience that day.

"You guys routinely define sources that you just don't like as "poor". " - Dope1

Utter nonsense. Laughingly wrong. Even for you.

There are objective ways of evaluating sources of information.

The ones you use are generally poor because they don't reliably inform you. They misinform you in ways that you want to hear.

There is a reason you always get schooled by just about every poster here. Most use better information sources to shape their worldview than you do. They don't use sources that tell them what they want to hear but instead use sources that tell them how the world actually is.

And it's still much, much better than "Russian Collusion Hoax" discussion = bad source. Yes, I have read criticisms and I think there should be criticisms. But it beats what you're using by an order of magnitude -what you offer regularly here is way out there. I'm happy that you can do some research, but think your evaluation system is based on what you like.

You have nothing, no method of evaluation, but you are convinced your "gut" is right.

Media Bias Fact Check

Overall, we rate the Daily Signal, Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right. We also rate them Mostly Factual, rather than High, due to not aligning with the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Daily Signal reports on political news and policy with a right-leaning bias in both story selection and wording such as this: Osama Bin Laden Was Right. This article is critical of President Trump’s decision to leave Syria, arguing that pulling out will result in “at some point having to fight them again on U.S. soil.” In other words, the Daily Signal supports a more right-leaning interventionist Neoconservative military approach.

In another article, the moderate use of loaded language in the headline negatively portrays the Mueller investigation: Mueller Investigation Stirring Up More Trouble Than Its Finding. This particular story is republished directly from the Tribune Content Agency. Other stories are republished from the factually Mixed Daily Caller. Original news stories such as this one are typically properly sourced through hyperlinking to credible media sources.

Editorially, The Daily Signal consistently casts doubt on the role of humans in climate change with articles such as this: Climate Change Alarmism Is the World’s Leading Cause of Hot Gas. Further, all opinion pieces favor the right and denigrate the left. In general, story selection and editorials almost always favor the right, though, at times, The Daily Signal is critical of former President Donald Trump’s policies and actions.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years

Yes, I have read criticisms and I think there should be criticisms.

LOL. You’re griping about Fox but forgetting that the outfits you like do the same thing as Mike just showed you.

I will give MBFC some credit for designing what appeared to be a decent methodology, but nothing to convince me their conclusions are dispositive.

And, as I say, they are a starting point, or corroborate your POV, or don't. No one is saying they are dispositive, and when I looked, I just like the fact that respected people hired good people who rode here over the fact checkers. But they beat the hell out of anything you or Dope have, don't they? They can be pretty much on the mark and that pisses Dope off. Let him be pissed.

Good lord you ought to read some of the disputes over certain facts that are part of history by historians. Well respected historians can go bonkers in their old age. veer onto strange paths. But they're one person. A group, lead and supervised by someone who cares, and is paid to care by someone who cares, is much better than any shill that appears on FOX. I never looked, but the person Dope praised as being tops in her area is going to have her detractors.

So let me reiterate -ultimately YOU MAKE THE DECISION. The original was ad fontes, the visual that so crowded now it's hard to use. But it tells you something about our environment that we need these media bias fact checkers. And they are an order of magnitude better than whatever Dope's Russia Contacts Discussion = bad.

But they beat the hell out of anything you or Dope have, don't they? They can be pretty much on the mark and that pisses Dope off. Let him be pissed.

LOL. A group of liberals hires another group of liberals to "fact check" things and lo and behold...they rate all the liberal sites as trustworthy.

Meanwhile, people like you run around here shouting Credibility! when presented with a classical case of confirmation bias. Do you think this actually helps your running series of logical fallacies? It doesn't.

What does you media research group say about CBS and the Bush National Guard story? Does it even come up? One is hard pressed to find a worse example of media fabulism of that but for many of you it's gone down the 'ol memory hole.

So, no. You don't get to pre-emptively declare that only liberal sources of news are legit and everything else is bad.

Try harder to actually debate and land points.

Dope1: A group of liberals hires another group of liberals to "fact check" things and lo and behold...they rate all the liberal sites as trustworthy.

Well, lessee. Here's what Media Bias Fact Check says about Rachel Maddow:

LEFT BIAS. These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Overall, we rate Rachel Maddow Left Biased based on political positions that closely align with the progressive left. We also rate her Mixed for factual reporting due to the promotion of conspiracy theories and a few failed fact checks.

And here's how Media Bias Fact Check rate the National Review:

RIGHT BIAS. These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources, and one failed fact check.

In short, it treats far left and far right the same: Maddow gets a "mixed" for 'factual' while the National Review gets a higher "mostly factual" because Maddow has failed a few fact checks and the Review just one.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

Again.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rachel-maddow-bias-...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

:Meanwhile, people like you run around here shouting Credibility! when presented with a classical case of confirmation bias. Do you think this actually helps your running series of logical fallacies? "

I don't think you know what confirmation bias is because you are using it wrong.

Its isn't confirmation bias. You clearly do not have the slightest bit of understanding that go into the ratings at all. You just know that you disagree with them so they must have a liberal bias.

"What does you media research group say about CBS and the Bush National Guard story? Does it even come up? One is hard pressed to find a worse example of media fabulism of that but for many of you it's gone down the 'ol memory hole."

Great example. It is quite telling that you had to go back 20 years for such an example of a major news media source screwing up so badly in your favor.

But what you fail to understand is it isn't that a news source makes mistakes. Every source makes at least occasional mistakes. It is how often they make mistakes and how they handle it when they realize they are making a mistake. Does an information source at least have some safeguards in place to try and make sure they minimize the mistakes they make? Also, do information sources openly correct mistakes and then stop conveying false information when they know better?

CBS did both in the forged Bush National Guard story.

Fox News doesn't do either. That is why Fox News is unreliable as an information source.

Also, the forged GWB National Guard story doesn't even make the top 10 of worst media fabulism stories of this century. Not even close. Obama being a Muslim born in Kenya was at least an order of magnitude worse than that. Or the stolen election claims in 2020 is many orders of magnitude worse (heck the media coverage of it caused thousands of fools to try and violently overthrow a legally, fair election).

Tellingly, in both of those cases, the unreliable rightwing news sources (many of which you regularly use) continued to try and highlight those stories even after they were shown to be obviously untrue. That is why they are known as unreliable news sources. They are not rated as unreliable because of how they give a rightwing perspective. They are unreliable because they regularly mislead their viewers with misinformation.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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