Thank you border czar

A DHS spokesman told NBC News in a statement: "The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes people who entered the country over the past 40 year or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.""

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigatio...ata-rcna173125 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Trump and the MAGA cult “misinterpreting” data?

Nah, impossible!

When context added, the figures being pushed by TWK, ###Salty and the other guy and attributed to Harris are bullshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The problem is not that the "MAGA cult" as Yssup Rider puts it is misinterpreting data, but rather that politicians in general misinterpret data all the time to support their position. Republicans, Democrats and Independents all do it.

That's what good journalism is for and IMHO a bureaucratic state. That's why it's important to stick with reputable, independent and sometimes foreign news sources to check how slanted the data politicians are giving you is.

The problem is not that the "MAGA cult" as Yssup Rider puts it is misinterpreting data, but rather that politicians in general misinterpret data all the time to support their position. Republicans, Democrats and Independents all do it.

That's what good journalism is for and IMHO a bureaucratic state. That's why it's important to stick with reputable, independent and sometimes foreign news sources to check how slanted the data politicians are giving you is. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

So in this thread, by whom are the misinterpretations being pushed?

FOX, I guess.

And swallowed hook line and sinker by those worship at that altar. And then sworn to by our pals on the other side of the aisle.

Is that a problem or just the state of play? Does it matter.

The problem is not that the "MAGA cult" as Yssup Rider puts it is misinterpreting data, but rather that politicians in general misinterpret data all the time to support their position. Republicans, Democrats and Independents all do it.


I will fully agree with this statement. You really hit a home run when mentioned Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all do it.



I'm going to use a hurricane analogy. Say there is a storm in the chute between Yucatan and Cuba and the storm is churning water in the Gulf of Mexico. Now living in the Houston/Galveston area, it's the last thing any of us need, no matter where we live. Now say CNN and ABC have the storm headed to Galveston while some other news outlets have it headed to Lake Charles Louisiana or down south to Corpus Christi. People may just naturally watch the other news outlets to avoid hearing about Galveston getting hit. The same can also be said of polls. As a conservative I check out the Trafalgar polls, where someone else may not like what they show the view other polls, maybe CNN or NY Times polls. This is just human nature. Then again it takes a bit of time to realize the Bloomberg polls have zero confidence by either party. Bloomberg weather would have the storm in the Gulf making landfall in Point Barrow Alaska.



That's what good journalism is for and IMHO a bureaucratic state. That's why it's important to stick with reputable, independent and sometimes foreign news sources to check how slanted the data politicians are giving you is.


OK, I'm not being sarcastic, however which news outlet can actually be trusted to deliver the news using integrity? Democrats don't trust Fox or Newsmax, plus there may be some I don't know about. As for myself, I don't trust any of the main stream media. With the debates ABC could've done a great job and may have gotten a million or so new viewers, instead they blew it on the national stage and it's costs Muir over a million viewers. Actually CNN is being more understanding and moving toward the middle, but this may just be short term.


I do feel the MSM has led to two assassination attempts on Trump calling him all sorts of names and saying all sorts of things about him. There should be a point to where when the rhetoric gets to a certain spot, something needs to be done. Trump isn't Hitler and the cunts on the view and a cunt like joy reid makes things worse.


I can't speak for the democrats here, but I can only speak for myself. I detest harris about as much as I can detest anybody. I feel she makes America very unsafe and I hope she gets beat in a landslide. HOWEVER, in no manner do I ever want to see her get hurt or get shot. and if she did, I would feel nothing but the greatest sorrow and compassion for her family and friends, and hope the shooter either gets the death sentence or life without parole. I would be very upset if this happens.


Yes, I support Trump and feel he is the right person for the job, but make no mistake, he is an arrogant asshole. I feel like he will bring back world respect for our country, which is better than harris getting elected and Putin and Xi warming up their ICBM's a day or two after she gets inaugurated. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

...

Let's not equivocate.

Sure, everybody gets it wrong. Everybody does it.

Just not on this one, which is what we're discussing, right?

OK, I'm not being sarcastic, however which news outlet can actually be trusted to deliver the news using integrity? Democrats don't trust Fox or Newsmax, plus there may be some I don't know about. As for myself, I don't trust any of the main stream media. With the debates ABC could've done a great job and may have gotten a million or so new viewers, instead they blew it on the national stage and it's costs Muir over a million viewers. Actually CNN is being more understanding and moving toward the middle, but this may just be short term. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

First of all you should have more than one source for news. The less they require advertising the better. Remove editorials from your sources as they are deliberately biased.

My news sources of choice are:

The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Wall Street Journal
PBS
NPR

Most are left of center and the Journal is what I use when I want a different perspective. I have confidence that the facts presented are accurate. The choice of stories however are definitely slanted to the left.

First of all you should have more than one source for news. The less they require advertising the better. Remove editorials from your sources as they are deliberately biased.

My news sources of choice are:

The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Wall Street Journal
PBS
NPR

Most are left of center and the Journal is what I use when I want a different perspective. I have confidence that the facts presented are accurate. The choice of stories however are definitely slanted to the left. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The news reporting in all of those is biased except for the WSJ. I do not trust the others to be accurate or factual. I subscribe to the NYT and used to subscribe to the WAPO.

As to Dear John's original post, the best source by far for reporting on the cartels and crimes they commit is Borderland Beat. And a lot of what they write is fucking scary. Expect it to get even worse, in Mexico and the USA, as Claudia Sheinbaum and Puppet Master Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador emasculate the Mexican judiciary and police and let the cartels run rampant.

https://www.borderlandbeat.com/

First of all you should have more than one source for news. The less they require advertising the better. Remove editorials from your sources as they are deliberately biased.

My news sources of choice are:

The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Wall Street Journal
PBS
NPR

Most are left of center and the Journal is what I use when I want a different perspective. I have confidence that the facts presented are accurate. The choice of stories however are definitely slanted to the left. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The news reporting in all of those is biased except for the WSJ.

As to Dear John's original post, the best source by far for reporting on the cartels and crimes they commit is Borderland Beat. And a lot of what they write is fucking scary. Expect it to get even worse, in Mexico and the USA, as Claudia Sheinbaum and Puppet Master Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador emasculate the Mexican judiciary and police and let the cartels run rampant.

https://www.borderlandbeat.com/ Originally Posted by Tiny

All news is biased. I’ve admitted so. Their data however is factual and if you are aware of the bias you can usually see to the truth of things.

What specifically does the cartels have to do with the OP’s point? Or are you saying that the criminals who the OP referenced are somehow involved with the cartels.

What specifically does the cartels have to do with the OP’s point? Or are you saying that the criminals who the OP referenced are somehow involved with the cartels. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I was mainly grasping at straws to stay on topic. But some of them certainly are. And with net immigration of "other-foreign-nationals" (see Gristle and my links to CBO reports in LustyLad's thread) now at 2.4 million/year, up from -500,000 to +600,000 in 2001 to 2020, there's plenty of opportunity for cartel members to slip back and forth across the border.

We're hopefully never going to be as bad as Mexico, but if the politicians don't change the status quo we're going that direction. I've read horror stories in Arizona about cartel activities.

... As the Thread Title sayes:

... "Thank You Border Czar!" ...

#### Salty

The data goes back decades; it includes people who entered the country over the past 40 year or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.""

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigatio...ata-rcna173125 Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have not commented on this thread until now for a reason. 1st of all, the numbers made no fucking sense to me over that short amount of time and 2nd of all, I admittedly have more important shit to do with my day than to put in the time to find out whether I am wrong. Unlike many Trumpettes, I am not going to act like something is factual unless I have enough detailed information to come to that conclusion.

Anyway, just curious to see whether Trump is going to stick to being full of shit now that there has been some clarification to clear up the ambiguity of the data or whether he is just going to continue to feed his miserable and constantly whining flock of blind sheep the bullshit they crave and love.

As were Trump's policies on immigration which were simple -- you aren't coming into our country for humanitarian reasons. As I pointed out, Trump lowered the number of refugees legally allowed to enter the country from over 100,000 a year to 15,000 a year. He also instituted a "Muslim ban". Ridiculous.

Since Biden's EO order to limit illegal immigration, you know, the proposed bill that Trump fought against solely for political reasons, the number of encounters at the border has dropped to its lowest level since 2020.

There has to be a happy medium between Trump's policies and the Biden/Harris policies. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

No. the border needs to be closed. by Military force if need be. you like polls yes? at least those you like. what if upwards of 70% of all polled Americans .. Democrat/Republican/Independent .. want these people who never should have been allowed in the first place .. mass deported? they do. look it up.


now about that 10 million number. YR thought i made it up. if anyone did the Government did by underestimated it at ONLY 10 million. you tell me if the GOV is lying. or just intentionally hiding the true numbers.


STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: Biden Administration on Track to Reach 10 Million Encounters Nationwide Before End of Fiscal Year

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/2...f-fiscal-year/


what about this?

and that "Muslim ban"? that was actually Obama's own DOJ terrorist watch list. but you knew that, right?


read this. straight from polifact .. even they can't "whitewash it" no matter how hard they try.


The travel part of Trump’s order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ps-travel-ban/


thank you valued poster

now about that 10 million number. YR thought i made it up. if anyone did the Government did by underestimated it at ONLY 10 million. you tell me if the GOV is lying. or just intentionally hiding the true numbers.

It’s a large number but an encounter does not mean an actual entry into the country. It’s simply an encounter between the border patrol and a person who is trying to come into the country. It includes the northern border as well as the southern border. It includes airports and ports of entry locations. All this number really means is that the border patrol does not have enough resources to deal with the problem.

STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: Biden Administration on Track to Reach 10 Million Encounters Nationwide Before End of Fiscal Year

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/2...f-fiscal-year/


what about this?

and that "Muslim ban"? that was actually Obama's own DOJ terrorist watch list. but you knew that, right?


read this. straight from polifact .. even they can't "whitewash it" no matter how hard they try.


The travel part of Trump’s order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ps-travel-ban/

You’re not wrong about that but Donald Trump did not spin it that way. He used hatred of muslims as a campaign slogan. While campaigning for president days after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

thank you valued poster Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Like politifact, I rate your post half true.

No. the border needs to be closed. by Military force if need be. you like polls yes? at least those you like. what if upwards of 70% of all polled Americans .. Democrat/Republican/Independent .. want these people who never should have been allowed in the first place .. mass deported? they do. look it up.


now about that 10 million number. YR thought i made it up. if anyone did the Government did by underestimated it at ONLY 10 million. you tell me if the GOV is lying. or just intentionally hiding the true numbers.


STARTLING STATS FACTSHEET: Biden Administration on Track to Reach 10 Million Encounters Nationwide Before End of Fiscal Year

https://homeland.house.gov/2024/05/2...f-fiscal-year/


what about this?

and that "Muslim ban"? that was actually Obama's own DOJ terrorist watch list. but you knew that, right?


read this. straight from polifact .. even they can't "whitewash it" no matter how hard they try.


The travel part of Trump’s order does target the same seven countries that were singled out with a law Obama signed in December 2015.


https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ps-travel-ban/


thank you valued poster Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Encounters is different from illegals entering the country. Encounters means that people were caught trying to enter the country illegally and most all were sent back across the border.You believe, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the number of illegals entering and staying in the country under Biden was 10 million. That is incorrect.

The "Muslim ban" to which I was referring was Trump's EO 13780 banning ALL people from 6 majority-Muslim countries from entering the country. Yes, there are many terrorists in those countries for sure. The day Biden entered office he rescinded all of Trump's travel bans, except for the one prohibiting U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea. And to-date there is no reason to believe, after almost 4 years, that any terrorists from those countries have entered the country.

As was the case then and continues today -- Trump governs using fear as a campaign tool.

First of all you should have more than one source for news. The less they require advertising the better. Remove editorials from your sources as they are deliberately biased.

My news sources of choice are:

The New York Times.......that would be a hard no
The Washington Post.......another hard no
The Wall Street Journal ...intriguing
PBS........................... ........another hard no, are you trying to set me up
NPR........................... ........https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR_controversies....hard no

Most are left of center and the Journal is what I use when I want a different perspective. I have confidence that the facts presented are accurate. The choice of stories however are definitely slanted to the left. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I want straight honest facts and I trust harris with my tax money further than I trust the Times, Post, and PBS. I'm surprised you didn't menion the Atlantic Magazine.

I get my news from Hooker boards