Trump

[manlyfan76]

Nebraska was in a world of pain with drought and poor crops before this so I can see it being somewhat true.

So some socialism might help them out.

 

[manlyfan76]

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

Seriously it is virtually impossible to watch anything political and know it is not loaded with some kind of bias.. I say this from the perspective of both sides of the spectrum….i guess its a case of selecting the news you like most, kind of like using Netflix. It’s just all about entertainment..

 

[lsz]

From a policy perspective, I support border enforcement and legal immigration. I believe most immigrants genuinely want a better life and to contribute to their new home. Only through border enforcement can countries control the extent to which this is true.

As for ICE and DHS, I’d say that the open border policies of the previous administration has created a unique set of circumstances that require a level of activity well above what would normally be the case. I understand all illegal immigrants have the opportunity to self report and go through the legal channels for immigration, as over 1 million people do every year in the US. Is there a particular reason why people jumping the queue should get preferential treatment?

I also believe that the Democrats see illegal immigration as a way to stack census data in their favour for House of Representatives seats, hence the violent opposition to ICE/DHS and the virtuous hand wringing by elitist, globalist celebrities safely ensconced in their gated LA mansions, upper NYC apartments and/or island getaways. The type of people socialists would normally see as the enemy, rather than the enemy as defined by CNN and MSNBC.

I agree that there needs to be some form of border enforcement and a legal immigration process.


As for ICE and DHS, we may have to agree to disagree. To me, their approach seems heavy handed and more about sending a message than taking constructive action. Regarding the “jump the queue” comment, I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. Many of these people came due to policies set by a previous government (rightly or wrongly), and if they’ve made meaningful and valuable contributions, they deserve more respect in how the process handles them.


On the census issue, I’m honestly confused by the U.S. approach....it seems like a chaotic mix of state-based decisions. I also don’t think the Democrats are pursuing a political agenda here, especially given the increase in Latino support for Trump in the last election, which arguably hurt them more than helped.


Could you expand on your last sentence? I didn’t quite follow what you meant.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Seriously it is virtually impossible to watch anything political and know it is not loaded with some kind of bias.. I say this from the perspective of both sides of the spectrum….i guess its a case of selecting the news you like most, kind of like using Netflix. It’s just all about entertainment..

But there are degrees of bias. Some blatant, some less so

And when you say ‘anything political’? You can usually distinguish between news reports, on one hand, and opinion on the other.

As to the actual news reports of stuff that happens - bias is often revealed by which stories are not reported. But when a variety of news agencies report something has happened then … I often guess it probably has.

But as to what it all means - who is to blame, who benefits, the predictions, all of the ‘analysis’ and ‘expert opinion’… this is where we make our own best judgment. Using our life experience, and a healthy dose of scepticism.

But the fact ‘news’ is dominated by billionaire media moguls and various state agencies shouldn't mean we just throw our hands up and say 'Ah, it’s all impossible. No-one has any idea what’s really going on'. That just plays into the hands of the status quo - people in power, who far prefer us mere citizens just carry on with our day to day, and don't worry our pretty little heads about whatever they are up to.

 

[Uber Eagle 72]

But there are degrees of bias. Some blatant, some less so

And when you say ‘anything political’? You can usually distinguish between news reports, on one hand, and opinion on the other.

As to the actual news reports of stuff that happens - bias is often revealed by which stories are not reported. But when a variety of news agencies report something has happened then … I often guess it probably has.

But as to what it all means - who is to blame, who benefits, the predictions, all of the ‘analysis’ and ‘expert opinion’… this is where we make our own best judgment. Using our life experience, and a healthy dose of scepticism.

But the fact ‘news’ is dominated by billionaire media moguls and various state agencies shouldn't mean we just throw our hands up and say 'Ah, it’s all impossible. No-one has any idea what’s really going on'. That just plays into the hands of the status quo - people in power, who far prefer us mere citizens just carry on with our day to day, and don't worry our pretty little heads about whatever they are up to.

To be more precise in my opinion for what that it is worth….I don’t think relying upon the mainstream media news especially when it involves politics is a alone a reliable form of sense making… The alleged Russian collusion is a classic example as you will find seemingly logical evidence watching MSNNBC or on fox however one side says it was likely while the other side says it was a hoax. The list is endless…I am certainly not the first person to proclaim mainstream media news is more about entertainment and loaded biases than facts… does this mean you throw your hands in the air and give up? No. But I personally have come to the conclusion that there are some things etc that I will likely never know the truth or get to the bottom of. I personally go off my gut for the things that are important to me combined with some personal research, which does involve looking into some individual, and independent forms of media.. which I believe our government is looking to somewhat regulate which I find somewhat disturbing… but that is a different topic I guess.

 

[Brookie1973]

I agree that there needs to be some form of border enforcement and a legal immigration process.


As for ICE and DHS, we may have to agree to disagree. To me, their approach seems heavy handed and more about sending a message than taking constructive action. Regarding the “jump the queue” comment, I’m not sure that’s entirely fair. Many of these people came due to policies set by a previous government (rightly or wrongly), and if they’ve made meaningful and valuable contributions, they deserve more respect in how the process handles them.


On the census issue, I’m honestly confused by the U.S. approach....it seems like a chaotic mix of state-based decisions. I also don’t think the Democrats are pursuing a political agenda here, especially given the increase in Latino support for Trump in the last election, which arguably hurt them more than helped.


Could you expand on your last sentence? I didn’t quite follow what you meant.

Thanks. I’m not sure “sending a message” is necessarily a bad thing on illegal immigration, but I take your point. On jumping the queue, I don’t think the US policy has ever been officially “open borders” ie no party has ever taken that to an election and won. I think it is valid for the current administration to remedy the mistakes of the previous administration (deliberate or otherwise) particularly as that was part of the platform they were elected on.

Fair enough that illegal immigrations may have made a contribution, but so would the millions of people who were denied legal entry because of the influx of illegal immigrants. So I say again, why should someone who entered illegally get preferential treatment? As for being treated respectfully, one could ask did they treat the US respectfully when entering illegally? And again, they have the opportunity to self report and go through the proper process.

We will have to agree to disagree on the census stuff, but I agree, like most things in the US, it gets very messy at a state level.

My last sentence refers to the fact that historically, people on the left are generally less well inclined towards the wealthy. But we now have a situation where the left/democrats are sided with the wealthy elites in support of a globalist agenda.