Reality TV

2»

Comments

  • Calling Haiti a shithole is an insult to latrines everywhere.

  • A more self-aware person might pause before writing something like that, to consider whether people are more likely to attribute it to your general expertise on Haiti or, say, to your dislike of brown people.
    1. I don't dislike brown people. You are confusing my support of various public policy positions with animosity.
    2. Your thinking that I'm not self-aware is almost laughable to me.
    3. Haiti is dismaying mess, and comparing it with the Dominican Republic is strong evidence that it's the fault of the Haitians.
  • edited January 15

    I don't dislike brown people.

    Reread please. Nowhere did I imply that you believe you dislike brown people.

  • @fenomas said:
    Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you read the article. It doesn't argue that Trump isn't racist or that he wasn't saying something awful or whatever, it's basically doing the "it's cool because those countries are shitholes" hot take.

    But it started in one place and... oh wait. This is what makes him a 'humor' writer isn't it?

    ....isn't it?

    I... really don't want to read it again. You know what? I'll just take the failing grade on this quiz.

  • Facebook has taught me that Trump cannot be racist because 6 years ago he donated some tax-deductable money to Rand Paul to go and perform free medical exams and surgery in Haiti.

  • edited January 19
    • He was 10 when his parents moved here.

    • He's been trying to become a legal citizen since 2005.

    • He’s regularly checked in with ICE agents and filed extensions. ICE actually made it a point to let him stay through Christmas since he didn't have a criminal record.

    • He and his family have paid ICE over $125,000.

    • He voluntarily went to the airport to be deported, and didn't need to be forcibly removed.

    • He will not be eligible to return to the US legally for over 10 years unless the hearing with the consulate in 18 months grants an exception or some sort of successful appeal. (The bit about ten years is from other stories, I don't think it was mentioned in this one).

    Oh yeah. Justice was served here all right. How great that we have removed this vile criminal back to his homeland where he can... start from scratch and take years to fully integrate, if he ever does.

    For his sake I hope he still has family there that he can lean on for shelter and food until he gets on his feet.

  • He's married to an American (isn't he?). How did that not keep him in the country? Don't you get to be an American if you marry one?

  • edited January 20
  • @Rufus said:
    He's married to an American (isn't he?). How did that not keep him in the country? Don't you get to be an American if you marry one?

    The general gist of a thread I read the other day by an immigration lawyer was that the system is jumbled and stupid enough that a lot of people are in Kafkaesque states where nobody involved particularly objects to their becoming legal a resident, but no series of actions exists that can result in their becoming a legal resident.

    Probably because so many people involved view it as a religious issue :|

    Through detailed study of tone and word choice I've determined that your source of news might be biased.

  • edited January 21

    It's definitely biased, but it helps to balance the usual press coverage.

    Jean Montrevil

  • > It's definitely biased, but it helps to balance the usual press coverage.

    "That news I disagree with is bad because it is biased, and this news I agree with is biased, which is good", said the sane person.
  • @fenomas said:

    It's definitely biased, but it helps to balance the usual press coverage.


    "That news I disagree with is bad because it is biased, and this news I agree with is biased, which is good", said the sane person.

    I know I've said this before, but it was a long time ago. My problem isn't with clearly biases sources that aren't hiding their point of view, it's with biased sources that pretend that they aren't biased.

  • @Bill said:
    I know I've said this before, but it was a long time ago. My problem isn't with clearly biases sources that aren't hiding their point of view, it's with biased sources that pretend that they aren't biased.

    Nonsense - nothing anywhere is completely without bias. The spectrum of media doesn't run from unbiased to biased, it runs from "attempts to minimize bias" to "attempts to maximize persuasiveness".

    Your underlying issue is that you reject CNN because it's biased in the "wrong" direction, and accept media you believe is biased because it's biased towards things that are true about the world. You understand why that's insane, right?

  • edited January 22

    Lately the mood on the conservative interwebs has been "If news involves the president and its negative, then its biased. Full stop."

    Boy its amusing how the same people have suddenly turned on Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell. I'm in awe of how quickly the mood shifted.

  • I think a lot of general media has been misreading things by casting most everything as MAGA types vs. the anti-Trump left. With his approval ratings as low as they are there has to be a fair number of conservative Trump detractors, but they kind of get lost in the mix.

  • edited January 22

    Thing is, they don't attempt to minimize bias on issues they care about. Some of them may believe that's what they are doing, but they actually aren't doing it.

    As for rejecting things, what makes you think I flatly reject anything? I try to take into consideration the unreliability of the information source, but that isn't the same thing as rejecting it.

    Orwellian manipulation

  • @Bill said:
    Thing is, they don't attempt to minimize bias on issues they care about. Some of them may believe that's what they are doing, but they actually aren't doing it.

    If you really believe that, then you've convinced yourself that you not only know what things are true about the world, but you also know what CNN reporters believe (but won't say) about those things, and why they believe them. Why not make it a grand slam and claim to know what God thinks as well?

    As for rejecting things, what makes you think I flatly reject anything? I try to take into consideration the unreliability of the information source, but that isn't the same thing as rejecting it.

    I said nothing about any of that. I said you accept or reject media sources based on whether they're biased in the right direction (i.e. in the direction of saying things that are true), which is flat-out insane. Doing it very carefully doesn't make it less insane.

  • Getting back on topic... The situation is: The president is holding DACA hostage, to get is wall funded (among other things). The Democrats are holding government funding hostage to get DACA.

    I kinda agree with the Republicans, in that DACA has nothing to do with budget, so how can you include anything for DACA with a funding bill. What I think is that the Democrats believe (perhaps rightly-so) that without leverage, they won't get legislation to save dreamers from deportation.

    It's likely that, without leverage from the Dems, the republicans won't pass DACA legislation without LOTS of money for Trump's white elephant on the Southern boarder. I also think that it's possible that won't happen and deportations will begin in March. It would be easy to deport them, since they've been dutifully telling the government where they are and what they're doing, for years. I wonder if Trump (or the Republicans) will actually care... aside from what it would do to their polling numbers.

    Given his position on immigration... I wonder if deportations would make Bill happy.

    I actually agree with a few of the other things on Trump's immigration wish-list... The things I may agree with don't get much press, since (probably) most people agree with them. The things getting all the press (the lottery and chain-migration, in particular) are completely miss-characterised by Trump (to the point of dishonesty and fear mongering) and are nothing more than attempts to cut legal immigration (which I'm sure would make Bill happy).

    If I were Trump and the Republicans.... (sorry... I just threw up in my mouth, a little...)...

    Were it me, I would focus on getting legislation to fix the less controversial things first (Visa overstays, Inadmissible aliens, deportable aliens, Visa security).

  • DACA and the shutdown aren't that simple, but at a minimum note that putting DACA changes into a budget bill is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very much what congress does all day.

  • @fenomas said:
    note that putting DACA changes into a budget bill is very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very much what congress does all day.

    Oh I know... It's one of the things that's broken, with American politics.

    "Oh look... A public infrastructure bill... Lets amend it with a provision to defund Planned Parenthood."

  • @fenomas said:

    @Bill said:
    Thing is, they don't attempt to minimize bias on issues they care about. Some of them may believe that's what they are doing, but they actually aren't doing it.

    If you really believe that, then you've convinced yourself that you not only know what things are true about the world, but you also know what CNN reporters believe (but won't say) about those things, and why they believe them. Why not make it a grand slam and claim to know what God thinks as well?

    As for rejecting things, what makes you think I flatly reject anything? I try to take into consideration the unreliability of the information source, but that isn't the same thing as rejecting it.

    I said nothing about any of that. I said you accept or reject media sources based on whether they're biased in the right direction (i.e. in the direction of saying things that are true), which is flat-out insane. Doing it very carefully doesn't make it less insane.

    I've told you some of the ways that I evaluate bias. If you don't believe I can do what I say I can do, that's your problem, not mine.

  • @Rufus said:

    Given his position on immigration... I wonder if deportations would make Bill happy.

    Many of them, but not all of them. I think we should allow persons who came here young enough that they never learned how to speak Spanish to stay, but the politicians won't allow that sensible exception without playing politics.

    I actually agree with a few of the other things on Trump's immigration wish-list... The things I may agree with don't get much press, since (probably) most people agree with them. The things getting all the press (the lottery and chain-migration, in particular) are completely miss-characterised by Trump (to the point of dishonesty and fear mongering) and are nothing more than attempts to cut legal immigration (which I'm sure would make Bill happy).

    The diversity lottery and chain migration aren't mischaracterized. The diversity lottery is a random draw slanted in favor of non-Europeans. Chain migration is a real phenomenon that allows one immigrant to eventually bring in a host of immigrants. Neither is good for the United States.

    Cutting legal immigration would of course make me happy. The United States has a big enough population, and legal immigration tends to drive down the wages of U. S. citizens and change the character of our country in ways most of us don't want.

  • @Bill said:
    I've told you some of the ways that I evaluate bias. If you don't believe I can do what I say I can do, that's your problem, not mine.

    This isn't a response to anything anyone said. You don't appear to read or think about posts anymore.

  • Back on topic (:P) I wake up to twitter this morning to learn that Lou Dobbs is asking why US marshals haven't taken top DoJ officials into custody.

    Is it normal for the fringe of a party to agitate for coup-like stuff even as their party controls all sectors of government? Is that a thing under other Trump-style leaders?

Sign In or Register to comment.