Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

[jvcarroll]

FACT: Labeling an opinion as FACT does not make it a FACT. It is still just an opinion, only with the word FACT in front of it.

Exhibit A



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-deported-more-people/


CONCLUSION: FACTS can be misleading.

Statistically, more people were deported from the U.S. during the administration of President Barack Obama than during that of any other president.That statistic was due in large part to a change in how "deportations" are defined rather than to an increase in the number of persons deported. That's the conclusion you listed. What I said was true (and Snopes did not include a KEY piece of information). Obama streamlined the apparatus to deport people. He made it muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch easier and cheesed a lot people. So, the only thing you took issue with in my post was something that's actually TRUE with an incomplete investigation of the FACTS. That's misleading with incomplete research. You gotta do more than SNOPES. They're good, but not great. They're the Wikipedia of true or false statements. And we all know how Wikipedia can be incomplete or off. They technically cite a possible number they could never confirm. I'm not sure if you read the whole thing. Any reclassification of catch and release, whether voluntary or involuntary on the part of the migrant, is pretty much what deportation is - and that classification changed under Bush 43, not Obama. That's why it got mixed. If you're looking for a specific percentage, it's probably higher than W. That's A LOT. Comparing it to the number for Clinton or Bush 41 is difficult, but it's difficult to know for sure. My statement was also connected to this one that followed it: Obama did not support illegal immigration or open borders. He shared similar feelings on the issue as every president before him, regardless of party, since Jimmy Carter. He felt that people shouldn't be rewarded for cutting in line.So, the statistics and spirit of my statement is TRUE and not misleading. Obama was not SOFT on undocumented immigration, but he was a heck of a lot more empathetic toward migrant families - like anyone should be. I listed 15 FACTS, and you found a technicality with one thing that's actually true. That's why SNOPES has it as MIXED. And, yes, I'm purposely typing this in Trumpian Twitterease. LOL. But, still, I get what you mean. What I said should have an asterisk by it. That part of your assessment is technically TRUE. Without any snark, good job for finding that. It was an incomplete statement.

 

[MikaelaMuppet]

https://people.com/tv/cynthia-nixon-reveals-son-samuel-is-transgender/amp/

 

[jvcarroll]

BTW, I wish Trump would have a Dickensian change of heart and quit being a selfish, loudmouth, Scrooge in every way that can be measured. I'd support that 100% even if he remained a republican. Not all republicans are bad. Yes, a recent Quinnipiac poll lists 55% of republicans supporting the tearing apart of families at the border. That's disturbing, but paints an incomplete picture. It's rare for republicans to have such a mixed reaction. They usually tow the party line, even if it's through silence. So, that number, while heartless, actually exposes nearly half of those polled as being angry about the situation. Regardless of all that. I still have a roof over my head, gainful employment that I'm very good at, family, friends, and people who love me to bits that I love right back, and I live in a city and state that will catch me if I fall from any of that. I will survive Trump. We all will. His environmental damage will be permanent, but the rest will pass for most Americans that can survive his cuts to the country's social safetynet. He's awful, like so much of life, but let's take a moment to acknowledge how darn lucky we all are!!!

 

[MuppetsRule]

Statistically, more people were deported from the U.S. during the administration of President Barack Obama than during that of any other president.That statistic was due in large part to a change in how "deportations" are defined rather than to an increase in the number of persons deported. That's the conclusion you listed. What I said was true (and Snopes did not include a KEY piece of information). Obama streamlined the apparatus to deport people. He made it muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch easier and cheesed a lot people. So, the only thing you took issue with in my post was something that's actually TRUE with an incomplete investigation of the FACTS. That's misleading with incomplete research. You gotta do more than SNOPES. They're good, but not great. They're the Wikipedia of true or false statements. And we all know how Wikipedia can be incomplete or off. They technically cite a possible number they could never confirm. I'm not sure if you read the whole thing. Any reclassification of catch and release, whether voluntary or involuntary on the part of the migrant, is pretty much what deportation is - and that classification changed under Bush 43, not Obama. That's why it got mixed. If you're looking for a specific percentage, it's probably higher than W. That's A LOT. Comparing it to the number for Clinton or Bush 41 is difficult, but it's difficult to know for sure. My statement was also connected to this one that followed it: Obama did not support illegal immigration or open borders. He shared similar feelings on the issue as every president before him, regardless of party, since Jimmy Carter. He felt that people shouldn't be rewarded for cutting in line.So, the statistics and spirit of my statement is TRUE and not misleading. Obama was not SOFT on undocumented immigration, but he was a heck of a lot more empathetic toward migrant families - like anyone should be. I listed 15 FACTS, and you found a technicality with one thing that's actually true. That's why SNOPES has it as MIXED. And, yes, I'm purposely typing this in Trumpian Twitterease. LOL. But, still, I get what you mean. What I said should have an asterisk by it. That part of your assessment is technically TRUE. Without any snark, good job for finding that. It was an incomplete statement.

Like I said in the conclusion, FACTS can be misleading. And I gave an example of one of them. Sorry, but I just don't have the time to post long-winded several paragraph replies and go in to each one in detail. I do happen to agree with much of what you posted. But several of the posts aren't necessarily FACTS. Some of them are opinions. And it is misleading to label them as facts when they are debatable or need asterisks. If they are indeed FACTS then no * is needed. They should be able to stand on their own.

* (and yes, the snark was intended, hence the )

Neither side does any good when they state misleading facts to prop up their side. Case in point, the picture of the crying 2 year old Honduran girl was never separated from her mother. FACT.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-never-separated-mom-father-says/725499002/

"The photographer who took the picture, Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer John Moore, reported that after he took the photo, the child's mother picked her up and they got into a van."
​

And then TIME magazine doubles down and uses the photo on their cover of the crying baby standing at President Trump's feet. There are tens of thousands of children being separated while their parents are in detention. Why is it necessary to use this particular photo when any other one could be used? AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER KNEW IT WAS MISLEADING!!! It's misleading and feeds in to the lack of credibility of our media. It doesn't serve either side of the debate any good.

And your post of the propaganda poster showing President Trump as Hitler featured that same crying 2 year old. I'd call it hyperbole but I know you don't engage in that.

 

[jvcarroll]

Like I said in the conclusion, FACTS can be misleading. And I gave an example of one of them. Sorry, but I just don't have the time to post long-winded several paragraph replies and go in to each one in detail. I do happen to agree with much of what you posted. But several of the posts aren't necessarily FACTS. Some of them are opinions. And it is misleading to label them as facts when they are debatable or need asterisks. If they are indeed FACTS then no * is needed. They should be able to stand on their own.

* (and yes, the snark was intended, hence the )

Neither side does any good when they state misleading facts to prop up their side. Case in point, the picture of the crying 2 year old Honduran girl was never separated from her mother. FACT.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-never-separated-mom-father-says/725499002/

"The photographer who took the picture, Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer John Moore, reported that after he took the photo, the child's mother picked her up and they got into a van."
​

And then TIME magazine doubles down and uses the photo on their cover of the crying baby standing at President Trump's feet. There are tens of thousands of children being separated while their parents are in detention. Why is it necessary to use this particular photo when any other one could be used? AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER KNEW IT WAS MISLEADING!!! It's misleading and feeds in to the lack of credibility of our media. It doesn't serve either side of the debate any good.

And your post of the propaganda poster showing President Trump as Hitler featured that same crying 2 year old. I'd call it hyperbole but I know you don't engage in that.

A non-ironic thanks. I agree mostly. Not completely, of course. But again - who has the time. Close enough is close enough. I also did cite the poster as being a propaganda drawing of a propaganda poster, so there was that preface. Not exactly hyperbole, but I called it out. The spirit of it ia still disturbing and based on the impact of his policy. I wish the media would be more technically accurate more often in order to not undermine the truth of their reports. Even 99% truth with 1% inaccuracy is enough these days to make the whole thing crumble. Most Americans reach a conclusion before searching for evidence to back it up. My purpose is never to defend democrats. It's to defend the most vulnerable people currently living in our world. I'm reminded why people like Dianne Feinstein was once spectacular, is past her political expiration date. She just ran commercials supporting universal healthcare. That's something she keeps shelving. As a younger, hungrier, less compromised, pol, she would have never behaved this way. Like Orin Hatch did by finally stepping aside for new republican voices to emerge, so should she. The American people should always be put before personalities or politics.

 

[MuppetsRule]

A non-ironic thanks. I agree mostly. Not completely, of course. But again - who has the time. Close enough is close enough. I also did cite the poster as being a propaganda drawing of a propaganda poster, so there was that preface. Not exactly hyperbole, but I called it out. The spirit of it ia still disturbing and based on the impact of his policy. I wish the media would be more technically accurate more often in order to not undermine the truth of their reports. Even 99% truth with 1% inaccuracy is enough these days to make the whole thing crumble. Most Americans reach a conclusion before searching for evidence to back it up. My purpose is never to defend democrats. It's to defend the most vulnerable people currently living in our world. I'm reminded why people like Dianne Feinstein was once spectacular, is past her political expiration date. She just ran commercials supporting universal healthcare. That's something she keeps shelving. As a younger, hungrier, less compromised, pol, she would have never behaved this way. Like Orin Hatch did by finally stepping aside for new republican voices to emerge, so should she. The American people should always be put before personalities or politics.

Yeeeeaaahhhh, I know what you are sayin'. I'm just not real big on the Hitler/Facist/Nazi comparison's. People lose a lot of credibility the moment they glibly throw those out. They should do some research and reading up on the Holocaust. While President Trump may be an a-hole, there is still a loooong stretch between a-hole and the second coming of Hitler.

 

[D'Snowth]

Can I just once again express how much I love the right's mentality? After all these months, they've finally come up with a rebuttal for the argument that white people in America are the original immigrants, since they immigrated over here from Europe, stole the land from the natives, then tried to drive them out. The right's new response? "Whites weren't immigrants, they were conquerors."



At the risk of encouraging them . . . they . . . do have a point, actually.

Oh, now Ann Coulter came up with one of her own: white people from Europe weren't immigrants, they were settlers.

Despite being a nasty b!+c# with no credibility, she's . . . not wrong.

 

[LittleJerry92]

not wrong.

Geez, have all my slogans spread like cancer cells on this site?

 

[D'Snowth]

Well, you are a cancer-causing member.

 

[LittleJerry92]

"I'm sorry, Snowth. But your Littlejerry92 is terminal."