Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[pErvinalia]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

[pErvinalia]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

I thought my approach was more fun, and might drive the point home for some folks, who seem to think these reports have some credibility.

The utter bullshit that's reported and taken as fact, largely unexamined, is insane. And, I don't care if it's about Trump or anyone else.

I recall how when Trump said that he thought his building has been "wiretapped" the media was apoplectic. No evidence! They said. How can you say something totally without evidence! Little did he know that all Trump needed to say was that he talked to "source familiary with the process" or a "source close to the FBI" and the allegation would not be questioned by the press. The media would never ask who the source was, what their motives were, what it meant to be "familiar" or "close" in that context, and none of them would ever say that there was no reason for there to anonymity. Nobody would ask for explanation as to how someone not party to a phone call came to be familiar with its contents, etc.

You're like a rhetorical train wreck. Or a rhetorical machine gun just spraying (mostly empty) rhetoric all over the shop.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, they have to protect their sources, but they are also supposed to "vet" their sources, and when a reporter asks you to believe their anymous source, the reporter is telling you "I have done the work, and I believe the source is credible." That doesn't mean a guarantee of truth, but it means that the reporter is not being used as a mouthpiece. And, the reporter is supposed to explain why the source needs anonymity. You see that in the case of national security issues - they at least say that the source needs to be confidential to protect "sources and methods" or to guard against retaliaiton or the like

How do you know that they aren't vetting/corroborating their sources?

And, it's the media's job to be reporters and journalists. When they write a news article, i want some substance. And, for the love of fucking Pete - "a source familiar with the phone call" (who is not the person ON the phone call) telling us not only what the President said (which he did not hear)

How do you know the source didn't hear what was said?

but also what the President was thinking and feeling at the time -- without even telling us anything about the person doing the reporting and how that person got their info is, well, a bit weak, i think anyone should be able to agree with that.

It depends on what sort of vetting and corroboration went on. If the journalists did their job properly, then I don't think it's weak at all. You think it's weak, as you have a preconceived view of what Trump et al did or didn't do. This is just more lame rhetoric from you, as it's the only way you can discount what's being said in these articles.

[pErvinalia]

Trump is giving the State of the Union speech now. Greatest standing ovation any president has ever received! FACT!

[pErvinalia]

this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. They have to stand up and clap someone or something about every thirty seconds.

[Sean Hayden]

I listened on the way home from school. He sounded polished, it was just the sort of thing a lot of people are going to love.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, it's the usual rhetoric that the 'hand on heart' crowd lap up.

But the looks on the Dems faces... priceless!

[Tero]

Stormy got her second lump some gift from Trump today:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/adult- ... on-speech/

[Tero]

After Shithead in chief, Joe Kennedy (4 year congressman) gave a super rebuttal. Hecis a little early for 2020, but some day....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kennedy_III

[Seabass]

These motherfuckers are sociopaths.

[Tero]

But the Constitution! But her emails!

[Forty Two]

These motherfuckers are sociopaths.

Trump has offered to give them a path to citizenship - 1.8 million people (three times the number that would have been covered under Obama's proposal).

In exchange, Trump wants:

(a) an end to the visa "lottery" program which hands out green cards to people by random selection of applicants. Something no "civilized" country does.
(b) An end to some "family based" immigration categories (the nuclear family would be preserved, and parents could sponsor their children and spouses), but no more would "adult children" be sponsored - so if a person aged like 45 immigrates, then they can't sponsor their 25 year old son, and no more siblings of adult immigrants, or parents of adult immigrants. In other words. The idea is that what happens is that one immigrant gets in illegally, gets the dream act legalization, and then they will apply for parents, adult children, brothers and sisters, and then each of those people can bring spouses, and their children, and the like.
(c) funding for the wall and border security to prevent the large numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the border whether by foot, car, or plane.

When Democrats have mentioned that he would be cutting immigration substantially by limiting family based immigration to spouses and children, the Trump camp has been clear that the numbers can be compensated for by increasing the employment/merit based immigration avenues (and those people would be able to bring spouses and children too).

So, with all due respect to Kimmel. The wondrous nature of Dreamers, and how fabulous they are, is rather irrelevant. Yes, everyone knows that Dreamers are people, and theare just as good, and bad, as everyone else. But, (a) they are not legally in the country -- so they are getting a rather good benefit by being allowed to stay - obviously, it's not their fault they are here, but it's not the US's fault either, and I daresay if France, Germany or UK had 1,000,000 people who had just been spirited across the border as kids and now want legal status, there would be some policy discussion on the matter, too, and (b) A path to citizenship is being offered to them, to the tune of 1.8 million.

If the demand is that we just have to legalize them, but take no steps to keep the numbers from rising again, then the legalization of those Dreamers does not fix the problem. It is a problem that we have millions of people who come here with children and knowingly raise their kids in a country in which they and those kids are not legally admitted. That would be a problem for any country. It's not unreasonable or racist or insulting to anyone to acknowledge this to be a problem. Canada wouldn't tolerate. Oz wouldn't tolerate it. Europe wouldn't tolerate it. They would want, of course, to be compassionate to the innocent, but they would also want to adjust the system to prevent the problem from happening again.

[Tero]

Why would we want: funding for the wall and border security to prevent the large numbers of illegal immigrants crossing the border whether by foot, car, or plane.

Big waste of public funds. Spend the money on roads and bridges. You can have 500 paddywagons to round up illegals.

[Forty Two]

After Shithead in chief, Joe Kennedy (4 year congressman) gave a super rebuttal. Hecis a little early for 2020, but some day....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kennedy_III

LOL, what's with the spittle and vaseline on his lips. LOL. His speech was just emotional claptrap with no specifics at all. It's just more Bernie-esque we can have everything all at the same time, and we don't have to make any tough choices, and look, I can pander by speaking a couple lines in Spanish.

Power to the people, says the prep school, Stanford, Harvard, fourth generation Kennedy trust fund baby.

[Scot Dutchy]

Finance seems the last thing that worries Trump. I suppose being bankrupt nine times does make one slightly blasé.