Politics anyone?

Ok - are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about illegal immigrants. And Joe Arapaio - I don't care for him.
At all. But I'd take him over that screecher Elizabeth Warren.

While Warren is a power in the Democratic party, Ocasio-Cortez is not, although I'm sure she is favored to win the House election in her district. As I said, the majority of the people in this country, whether Republican or Democrat, want SANE immigration policies. You neglected to give us your opinion on Joe Arapaio in your response. He is much worse than Warren or Ocasio-Cortez in my opinion. Warren and Ocasio-Cortez have expressed opinions that you don't like. Arapaio violated the constitutional rights of people and was arrested.

The cartels and smugglers are not the same as those that are seeking asylum in the U.S. No one wants them in this country. Trump loves to associate ALL immigrants coming over the Mexican border as members of MS-13. It appeals to his constituency, just like it did during the campaign when he referred to Mexican immigrants as murderers and rapists.

BTW, do you think your mom would be welcomed to the U.S. under Trump's immigration policies? Did she have more than a HS education? Did she have a special job skill that would make her attractive to major companies? Could she speak English at the time she entered the country? My grandparents were my ancestors that entered the U.S. for the first time. They had none of those skills that Trump wants immigrants to have. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Ok - are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about illegal immigrants. And Joe Arapaio - I don't care for him.
At all. But I'd take him over that screecher Elizabeth Warren. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

So you would take Joe Arpaio who has broken the law and violated the constitutional rights of Americans over Elizabeth Warren simply because you don't like her political viewpoints? That says volumes about you.

I find it odd that whenever I point out the failures of Trump you conveniently move the discussion in other directions. In post #168 I countered every one of your "accomplishments" by Trump. No response. When I post a link to lies/mis-statements remarks that Trump has made:

http://www.politifact.com/personalit...yruling/false/

you have no comment.

And I am still waiting for a response to my question from post #165:

"Ellen, still waiting for a response. You say the media hates Trump and promotes "fake news". Give us some examples."

Ok - are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about illegal immigrants. And Joe Arapaio - I don't care for him.
At all. But I'd take him over that screecher Elizabeth Warren. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

BTW, we are discussing immigration policy, both illegal and legal. The people who work for ICE are under the direction of Trump and others in the cabinet or in appointed posts. They follow orders. They do not make policy. The policy of separating children from their parents was horrible but that policy came from the top. Here is an article on ICE which questions why ICE is needed since it performs tasks which are already done by other agencies:

"This essentially makes ICE, and its $3.8 billion annual budget, redundant. I can't think of anything ICE does that brings added value to the country, but I can point to numerous instances of the agency unnecessarily harassing Americans."

http://theweek.com/articles/782486/case-abolishing-ice

So maybe critics of ICE are not so far off base when they criticize its functionality.

As for Trump and "legal" immigration, this article pretty much sums up his immigration policy. But if it is "fake news" let me know:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...11-story.html#

Huh, let's see, there are about 20,000 people working for ICE. That would be 20,000 jobs gone. See the dems never look at that because they don't care about blue color workers so good luck with that.

BTW, we are discussing immigration policy, both illegal and legal. The people who work for ICE are under the direction of Trump and others in the cabinet or in appointed posts. They follow orders. They do not make policy. The policy of separating children from their parents was horrible but that policy came from the top. Here is an article on ICE which questions why ICE is needed since it performs tasks which are already done by other agencies:

"This essentially makes ICE, and its $3.8 billion annual budget, redundant. I can't think of anything ICE does that brings added value to the country, but I can point to numerous instances of the agency unnecessarily harassing Americans."

http://theweek.com/articles/782486/case-abolishing-ice

So maybe critics of ICE are not so far off base when they criticize its functionality.

As for Trump and "legal" immigration, this article pretty much sums up his immigration policy. But if it is "fake news" let me know:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...11-story.html# Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I thought I posted this: Example of fake news.

BTW, we are discussing immigration policy, both illegal and legal. The people who work for ICE are under the direction of Trump and others in the cabinet or in appointed posts. They follow orders. They do not make policy. The policy of separating children from their parents was horrible but that policy came from the top. Here is an article on ICE which questions why ICE is needed since it performs tasks which are already done by other agencies:

"This essentially makes ICE, and its $3.8 billion annual budget, redundant. I can't think of anything ICE does that brings added value to the country, but I can point to numerous instances of the agency unnecessarily harassing Americans."

http://theweek.com/articles/782486/case-abolishing-ice

So maybe critics of ICE are not so far off base when they criticize its functionality.

As for Trump and "legal" immigration, this article pretty much sums up his immigration policy. But if it is "fake news" let me know:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...11-story.html# Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Huh, let's see, there are about 20,000 people working for ICE. That would be 20,000 jobs gone. See the dems never look at that because they don't care about blue color workers so good luck with that. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

First, let's be clear. I did not say anything about me supporting the doing away with ICE.

One of Trump's campaign promises was, as a successful businessman, he would streamline the federal government and make it function more efficiently. If there is job duplication in business, 2 jobs become 1 and there is one less person on the payroll. Happens to white collar workers all the time. I don't want anyone to lose their job but if that job is not needed then sorry, no sense in paying 2 people to do the same job. Has nothing to do with whether or not it is a blue color or white collar job.

And why do you think ICE agents are blue-collar? The average ICE agent earns more than $61,000 a year. Entry level ICE agents typically must possess a bachelor's degree at a minimum and one year of graduate studies is also required. Hardly a blue collar job!!!

I thought I posted this: Example of fake news. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

And I mentioned in a post that I believed that Time had published a rather inaccurate article. However, the meme you posted listing "Everything the media missed" is bullshit when you take into account the intent of the WHOLE article. Yes, the girl in the picture was not at all relevant. The picture was NEVER intended to be anything other than a representation of Trump looking down at a girl who had been separated from her parents. The intent was not that this specific girl was one of them. Bad choice by Time but the point that should be taken away from the article is that Trump erred in his decision to separate children from their parents.

So even if I agree with you that this qualifies as "Fake news", Donald Trump and his supporters have been parroting "Fake news" ever since Trump began his campaign for office. And you can come up with a single article that comes close to qualifying as "fake news". Come on.

I hate to point out the obvious but - not everybody who works for ICE is an agent. Not everybody earns the average agent salary. It is government graded so not everyone starts off as a GS - 9. No, I didn't say you did but the democratic party is headed down that road. It's a losing proposition.

First, let's be clear. I did not say anything about me supporting the doing away with ICE.

One of Trump's campaign promises was, as a successful businessman, he would streamline the federal government and make it function more efficiently. If there is job duplication in business, 2 jobs become 1 and there is one less person on the payroll. Happens to white collar workers all the time. I don't want anyone to lose their job but if that job is not needed then sorry, no sense in paying 2 people to do the same job. Has nothing to do with whether or not it is a blue color or white collar job.

And why do you think ICE agents are blue-collar? The average ICE agent earns more than $61,000 a year. Entry level ICE agents typically must possess a bachelor's degree at a minimum and one year of graduate studies is also required. Hardly a blue collar job!!! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And I am still waiting for a response to my question from post #165:

"Ellen, still waiting for a response. You say the media hates Trump and promotes "fake news". Give us some examples." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Seriously, speedy? Are you suggesting the mainstream media is NOT biased? Do you think it does NOT propagate fake news?

What planet are you living on?

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of examples out there. Many of them pre-date Donald Trump (why do think Dan Rather was fired by CBS?). But Trump's arrival on the scene has clearly accelerated the descent of journalism, a once-proud tradecraft, into an unprofessional cesspool.


Here is a link to an article published way back in February 2017, soon after Trump took office. It lists 16 fake news stories pedaled by the media in the brief time span since Trump's election. To quote from the author:


"We are in the midst of an epidemic of fake news. There is no better word to describe it than “epidemic,” insofar as it fits the epidemiological model from the Centers for Disease Control: this phenomenon occurs when “an agent and susceptible hosts are present in adequate numbers, and the agent can be effectively conveyed from a source to the susceptible hosts.”

The “agent” in this case is hysteria over Trump’s presidency, and the “susceptible hosts” are a slipshod, reckless, and breathtakingly gullible media class that spread the hysteria around like—well, like a virus...

It is worth cataloging at least a small sampling of the hysteria so far. Only when we fully assess the extent of the media’s collapse into ignominious ineptitude can we truly begin to reckon with it."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/...nce-trump-won/


And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It was taken from a tiny 3-month sample. There have been many, many more egregious examples of fake news in the year and a half since then. (E.g. see Time cover above. I can't believe you would defend Time and echo the lame excuses of its editors. Knowing they didn't even bother to fact-check the details surrounding the little girl in the cover photo, why would anyone have confidence they would get the "big picture" story right?)

Do you really want to argue the point? Seriously?

I hate to point out the obvious but - not everybody who works for ICE is an agent. Not everybody earns the average agent salary. It is government graded so not everyone starts off as a GS - 9. No, I didn't say you did but the democratic party is headed down that road. It's a losing proposition. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Most of the people working for ICE are agents out in the field. But even those not in the field would NOT be considered blue collar in my opinion. So your statement falls flat.

Seriously, speedy? Are you suggesting the mainstream media is NOT biased? Do you think it does NOT propagate fake news?

What planet are you living on?

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of examples out there. Many of them pre-date Donald Trump (why do think Dan Rather was fired by CBS?). But Trump's arrival on the scene has clearly accelerated the descent of journalism, a once-proud tradecraft, into an unprofessional cesspool.


Here is a link to an article published way back in February 2017, soon after Trump took office. It lists 16 fake news stories pedaled by the media in the brief time span since Trump's election. To quote from the author:


"We are in the midst of an epidemic of fake news. There is no better word to describe it than “epidemic,” insofar as it fits the epidemiological model from the Centers for Disease Control: this phenomenon occurs when “an agent and susceptible hosts are present in adequate numbers, and the agent can be effectively conveyed from a source to the susceptible hosts.”

The “agent” in this case is hysteria over Trump’s presidency, and the “susceptible hosts” are a slipshod, reckless, and breathtakingly gullible media class that spread the hysteria around like—well, like a virus...

It is worth cataloging at least a small sampling of the hysteria so far. Only when we fully assess the extent of the media’s collapse into ignominious ineptitude can we truly begin to reckon with it."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/...nce-trump-won/


And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It was taken from a tiny 3-month sample. There have been many, many more egregious examples of fake news in the year and a half since then. (E.g. see Time cover above. I can't believe you would defend Time and echo the lame excuses of its editors. Knowing they didn't even bother to fact-check the details surrounding the little girl in the cover photo, why would anyone have confidence they would get the "big picture" story right?)

Do you really want to argue the point? Seriously? Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you for the response. Much more than AE has given me despite several requests.

The cover photo on Time was OBVIOUSLY fake. That scene depicted never was meant to portray a real event. Yes, Time made a mistake in using that specific girl in the photo but that does NOT change the intent of the article -- that Trump did not handle the immigration problem at the border correctly.

As you pointed out, SOME of the news about Trump is incorrect. Most of the reporting is correct.

Just yesterday he tweeted "Just won lawsuit filed by the DNC and a bunch of Democrat crazies trying to claim the Trump Campaign (and others), colluded with Russia. They haven’t figured out that this was an excuse for them losing the election!"

Totally incorrect.

A week or 2 ago at a rally in Wisconsin he stated that He was the first Republican candidate to win the vote in that state since Eisenhower.

Totally incorrect.

At a rally in Montana Trump stated that wages are on the rise for the first time in 18 years.

They are not.

I won't bother citing again the website that provides a partial list of Trump's lies/mis-statements/inaccurate statements.

As I keep saying, Trump digs his own hole and very little of the news articles are incorrect. I find it amazing that Trump says what he says. So yes, as you have pointed out there have been some "false news" concerning him. To be honest, I follow the news rather closely and I've never read or heard about them.

On a different subject, I'd like your opinion as to how the 2018 elections will turn out. Ellen was too vague. Do you believe:

Republicans will gain seats in the House.
Republicans will keep the same number of seats.
Republicans will lose seats but keep a majority.
Republicans will lose control of the House.

Same questions for the Senate.

Yeppers!! God, I love a man with intelligence****swooning****

Seriously, speedy? Are you suggesting the mainstream media is NOT biased? Do you think it does NOT propagate fake news?

What planet are you living on?

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of examples out there. Many of them pre-date Donald Trump (why do think Dan Rather was fired by CBS?). But Trump's arrival on the scene has clearly accelerated the descent of journalism, a once-proud tradecraft, into an unprofessional cesspool.


Here is a link to an article published way back in February 2017, soon after Trump took office. It lists 16 fake news stories pedaled by the media in the brief time span since Trump's election. To quote from the author:


"We are in the midst of an epidemic of fake news. There is no better word to describe it than “epidemic,” insofar as it fits the epidemiological model from the Centers for Disease Control: this phenomenon occurs when “an agent and susceptible hosts are present in adequate numbers, and the agent can be effectively conveyed from a source to the susceptible hosts.”

The “agent” in this case is hysteria over Trump’s presidency, and the “susceptible hosts” are a slipshod, reckless, and breathtakingly gullible media class that spread the hysteria around like—well, like a virus...

It is worth cataloging at least a small sampling of the hysteria so far. Only when we fully assess the extent of the media’s collapse into ignominious ineptitude can we truly begin to reckon with it."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/...nce-trump-won/


And this is just the tip of the iceberg. It was taken from a tiny 3-month sample. There have been many, many more egregious examples of fake news in the year and a half since then. (E.g. see Time cover above. I can't believe you would defend Time and echo the lame excuses of its editors. Knowing they didn't even bother to fact-check the details surrounding the little girl in the cover photo, why would anyone have confidence they would get the "big picture" story right?)

Do you really want to argue the point? Seriously? Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you for the response. Much more than AE has given me despite several requests.

The cover photo on Time was OBVIOUSLY fake. That scene depicted never was meant to portray a real event. Yes, Time made a mistake in using that specific girl in the photo but that does NOT change the intent of the article -- that Trump did not handle the immigration problem at the border correctly.

Do you realize what you just typed? You said the "intent of the article" was to show that Trump is screwing up at the border. In other words, you admit the story is BIASED from the start. Are you trying to make MY point?


As you pointed out, SOME of the news about Trump is incorrect. Most of the reporting is correct.

Whoa! Where do you come up with the sweeping generalization that "most of the reporting" by the mainstream media is "correct"? Even if it could be quantified (it can't), what level of bias/falsehood would you find acceptable? 10%? 20%? If one out of five stories in a publication is wrong, do you still trust it? I don't. Hand me any daily copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post and I guarantee you I can spot at least a dozen specific examples of flagrant bias/slanting/error within 15 minutes. And that's before I even get to the opinion pages.


Just yesterday he tweeted "Just won lawsuit filed by the DNC and a bunch of Democrat crazies trying to claim the Trump Campaign (and others), colluded with Russia. They haven’t figured out that this was an excuse for them losing the election!"

Totally incorrect.

A week or 2 ago at a rally in Wisconsin he stated that He was the first Republican candidate to win the vote in that state since Eisenhower.

Totally incorrect.

At a rally in Montana Trump stated that wages are on the rise for the first time in 18 years.

They are not.

I won't bother citing again the website that provides a partial list of Trump's lies/mis-statements/inaccurate statements.

Whoa! Who's talking about Trump? I never claimed Trump doesn't misstate facts or exaggerate. YOU, however, suggested the mainstream media doesn't deserve the "fake news" label. So I furnished a link with 16 examples of media lies. That's just an opening instalment... I'll be happy to provide many, many more examples if you seriously want to continue this discussion. But you can't deflect from my fake news examples by pointing to something Trump said. Is the media somehow absolved of its lies because Trump lies too? What kind of argument is that? Why not flip the argument - Trump gets away with his lies because the media tells stupid lies too.


As I keep saying, Trump digs his own hole and very little of the news articles are incorrect. I find it amazing that Trump says what he says. So yes, as you have pointed out there have been some "false news" concerning him. To be honest, I follow the news rather closely and I've never read or heard about them.

Whoa! You asked for examples. I gave you 16. Now you're scrambling to pooh-pooh and minimize them. You consider 16 examples in a 3-month period "very little"? You never heard the lie about Trump removing Martin Luther King's bust from the Oval Office on Jan. 21, 2017? The anti-Trump media fell all over themselves putting that one out - it fit so neatly into their Trump-is-a-racist narrative! Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Now I will give you two more examples of mainstream media lies. I choose them because they really, really, really annoyed me. They're my two pet peeves. To me, they reflect a deep and thorough dishonesty and bias that I find very disturbing. They both occurred after Trump's election.

1. For 8 months (Nov. 2016 - June 2017) I kept reading over and over again in the Trump-hating media that "17 US intelligence agencies" had all reached the conclusion that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. This claim was preposterous on the face of it, since anyone familiar with the swamp knows we don’t have 17 intelligence agencies in a position to intercept and evaluate such Russian activity. (I don't challenge the conclusion, just the idiot claim that 17 agencies reached it.) Yet the lie was repeated over and over again by the major TV networks and mainstream print media. The reason was to make it sound like the conclusion was overwhelming and unassailable. Finally on June 29, 2017 the New York Fucking Times issued the following correction, which of course it tried to bury, hoping nobody would notice:

"Correction: June 29, 2017
A White House Memo article on Monday... referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."


2. For most of last year (Jan.-Oct. 2017), I kept reading over and over again that the Christopher Steele/Fusion GPS “dossier” containing fake dirt on Trump was originally requested by Trump’s GOP primary opponents. This was a deliberate and convenient lie, intended to diffuse responsibility away from the Hillary Clinton campaign, which commissioned and paid for the dossier entirely on its own (using a DC law firm as the funding conduit). It is true that a conservative website (the Washington Free Beacon) did hire Fusion GPS briefly for opposition research, but they weren’t stupid enough to ask a British ex-spy to solicit phony dirt from Putin’s agents! Finally on October 27, 2017 the New York Fucking Times quoted the conservative website as follows:

“The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”

Of course, when the New York Fucking Times is forced to come clean on a widely disseminated lie, it tries to do so as stealthily as possible. The headline of the story with the above quote was “Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research By Firm That Later Produced Dossier”. LOL! See how sneaky that is? Still trying to deflect responsibility for the dossier away from the Clinton campaign, where it squarely belonged.


Those are my two favorite examples. Everyone has their own. Eventually people lose confidence in what the mainstream media reports. It’s inevitable. And it opens the door for someone like Trump to make fun of the media and reduce the whole phenomenon down to two simple words - FAKE NEWS!

On a different subject, I'd like your opinion as to how the 2018 elections will turn out. Ellen was too vague. Do you believe:

Republicans will gain seats in the House.
Republicans will keep the same number of seats.
Republicans will lose seats but keep a majority.
Republicans will lose control of the House.

Same questions for the Senate. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don’t have a clue. Plus I think it’s silly to focus on those questions until we are less than two weeks out from the election.

The article reported on Trump's screw-up at the border. It was un-biased reporting. If you find anything in the article that is "fake news" let us know. Anybody who looked at the cover of Time and thought it to be a depiction of an actual event would be a certifiable idiot.

I sincerely doubt you can pick up a copy of the NY Times and find consistent "fake news" reporting. Why all of a sudden are news sources reporting "fake news"? I voted for George Bush. I don't recall much "fake news" about him. Same for Obama. Did news sources have a change of heart concerning Trump?

Regarding the supposed removal of a bust of MLK, the person who made the erroneous claim corrected himself 1 hour later, stating that the bust was obscured by an agent and a door. And he apologized.

"For the record, the MLK bust dust-up never attained the status of a “big story” in the media. Zeke Miller corrected his error — via Twitter — within an hour of making it — via Twitter. There was never any published story to retract."


Here are the 17 intelligence agencies:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...112-story.html

SO the U.S. does have 17 agencies considered to be intelligence agencies. The FACT is that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. IF you think it is important that ONLY 4 reached that conclusion, so be it.


Regarding your 2nd example of "mainstream lying", here is an excellent article detailing the Steele dossier"

John Sipher, the former C.I.A. officer, predicts that Mueller’s probe will render the final verdict on Steele’s dossier. “People who say it’s all garbage, or all true, are being politically biased,” Sipher said. “There’s enough there to be worthy of further study. Professionals need to look at travel records, phone records, bank records, foreign police-service cameras, and check it all out. It will take professional investigators to run it to ground.” He believes that Mueller, whose F.B.I. he worked with, “is a hundred per cent doing that.”

Until then, Sipher said, Steele, as a former English spook, is the perfect political foil: “The Trump supporters can attack the messenger, because no one knows him or understands him, so you can paint him any way you want.” Strobe Talbott, a Russia expert who served as Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, and who has known Steele professionally for ten years, has watched the spectacle in Washington with regret. Talbott regards Steele as a “smart, careful, professional, and congenial” colleague who “knows the post-Soviet space, and is exactly what he says he is.” Yet, Talbott said, “they’re trying to turn him into political polonium—touch him and you die.”


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...SAAEgIxifD_BwE

Yes, as you, unlike Ellen, pointed out there have been a handful of "fake news" items which are anti-Trump over many, many years. Everyone should take that into consideration on a daily basis and not believe everything one hears or reads.

Not sure why you won't take a shot at predicting the outcome of the 2018 elections. Ellen has already predicted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. We know almost all of the candidates, if not all of them. There are plenty of sources of information outlining each House and Senate race with knowledgeable opinions on how close each race is -- solid red/blue, leaning red/blue, or up in the air.

Would someone please translate into English the following statements made by President Trump 2 days ago:

"I have broken more Elton John records, he seems to have a lot of records. And I, by the way, I don’t have a musical instrument. I don’t have a guitar or an organ. No organ. Elton has an organ. And lots of other people helping. No we’ve broken a lot of records. We’ve broken virtually every record. Because you know, look I only need this space. They need much more room. For basketball, for hockey and all of the sports, they need a lot of room. We don’t need it. We have people in that space. So we break all of these records. Really we do it without like, the musical instruments. This is the only musical: the mouth. And hopefully the brain attached to the mouth. Right? The brain, more important than the mouth, is the brain. The brain is much more important."