One would think that on a forum truly dedicated to fighting ignorance, nonfactual statements and habitual indifference to accuracy from one’s own side of the aisle would draw the same condemnation as when they come from the other side. But that’s not what happens here, is it?
So is the board truly fighting ignorance, or deliberately ignoring its own while simultaneously condemning the other guy for his?
We all know the answer to that one, don’t we?
Wrong as always, luci. But thanks for playing. 
The political threads are not about fighting ignorance, only the science threads really are. The political threads are for promoting Democratic candidates and bills they want passed.
Everyone can see that you omitted a big number of people that benefited, and in the end most of the ones that lost their plans got new ones that were more effective than the “fake” ones they had before.
Everyone can read the previous post I made and they know that I pointed that the insurance companies just did the usual when it was needed to move a few people to new plans with less disruptions.
That it benefited me also is only me saying that. In the end you are only willing to ignore the big picture on that issue and everyone can notice that you are still staling and unwilling to deal with what Trump said.
That is called a Red Herring, learn about it and deal with what Trump said, I already did deal with your grossly incomplete misdirection.
Then I’m glad you agree that Gigobuster was not whining.
Moving on to the next topic of conversation, I think the board takes considerable interest in a fact-based orientation towards policy as well as due assessments of those making such claims. You gave 2 examples from a lo-o-o-o-o-ong time ago, one of which was summarily addressed.
As for the other example, I see that the 2007 quote said, “When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.” Aren’t bills available online now? I see that the admin maintains that the clock starts when a link is posted to bills when they are in their final version. That doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Nor does it seem too different than what was promised.
Still, my main concern is policy. Donald Trump slanders immigrants and parts of the Republican base eat it up, never mind the facts. Immigrants commit less crime than the native born: Trump’s claims fail both literally and even figuratively. They are pure demagoguery, an attempt to persuade majorities that they are beleaguered victims. After all, that’s what demagoguery is, at its base.
Well yes: that’s in the user agreement after all.
What are the percentage of undocumented though that commit crimes? We have 12 million undocumented. In 2014, 86,000 were deported after being convicted of a crime. Over the last ten years, we’ve deported nearly 1 million criminals. Is that a higher percentage than the native population or lower?
All this is nothing but a reiteration of what you already said: that it’s okay for Democrat presidents to lie if you (and now, apparently, a large enough group) benefit from it in some way.
You haven’t even tried to deny your politicians are lying; you’re just claiming it’s okay if they lie as long as you get something you want.
I presume then that your objection to Republican lies is primarily that you don’t feel you personally stand to gain from them, rather than being based on your belief that lies are wrong in the first place…as you would have had us believe in the case of Trump’s comments about the domestic product and unemployment.
Thank you for posing this point as a question. Before starting, do you have any idea what share of those 86,000 and 1 million (your claim- I haven’t checked it) were deported for non-immigration issues? I mean if you are deported because you over-stayed your visa, that’s not the sort of criminal behavior that Trump was implying.
Ok, I just skimmed a so-so report. Frankly the data is difficult to sift through. There’s been a tightening of enforcement over the past decade or so, such that about a third of removals (31.3%) are for wholly immigration related offenses, if I’m reading the pie chart correctly. Even with that burden, Mexican and Salvadoran/Guatemalan men have less than a third of the incarceration rate of native born men 18-39 without a high school diploma.
Wait, what? Most Americans that age possess a high school diploma. That fact is pretty interesting, but it’s not exactly what we want to know. But at the same time… the agriculture industry is highly dependent on uneducated foreign born farm workers. Talk of controlling the border is a little silly absent vigorous efforts to penalize employers that hire undocumented workers (though these efforts are much more rigorous than we had during the early 1980s).
Anyway, I’m pretty confident of the big picture -the nation’s security isn’t exactly at risk from an invasion of rapists- though the particulars of immigration policy are legitimate topics of serious conversation. Not that the nation will have one during silly season.
Nope, never said that! He was quite clearly whinging about the relatively modest so-called “pants on fire lies” (an immature characterization which he took pains to bold and post twice) of Donald Trump, and suggesting Republicans were derelict for supporting him despite those relatively inconsequential lies, while simultaneously handwaving away the many and numerous lies of the Clintons and Obama.
I don’t why people try tactics like this. His words are clearly there for everyone to see.
If you dodge, you get called on it here. You of course can respond. I disagree with the claim that Trump’s inaccuracies are inconsequential to his argument.
Moving on to other matters, Donald Trump’s Presidential webpage doesn’t have an issues section as far as I can tell. It does have an odd Bio page. It reads more like a promo piece for a motivational speaker than for a Presidential candidate. I was disappointed that he didn’t have a Trump campaign store running. I wanted to check out the bling.
Yes Starving Artist. My words are there and regardless of what you claim I entertained your red herring already.
What is missing from you is any reply whatsoever to the lies of Trump. And nevermind that the lies are geared to incite class and race unrest. I guess that will be inconsequential.
Could the incarceration rate be artificially suppressed due to the U.S. deporting many Hispanic criminals rather than incarcerating them?
And even if the crime rate is factually lower than for American citizens of the same age, the fact remains that they are still committing crimes that wouldn’t have been committed had they not been allowed into the country in the first place. We’re stuck with our own criminals. How does the fact that illegal immigrants may (and I stress "may) be committing fewer crimes per capita make the American population any less vulnerable to crime?
The answer of course is that it doesn’t. More crime is more crime, and the fact that illegal immigrants may be committing less of it per capita doesn’t mean that more crime isn’t happening.
We’re stuck with our own criminals. I don’t see any advantage to turning a blind eye and voluntarily subjecting ourselves to even more crime simply because it’s being committed by a group that may cause less crime per capita than our own bad guys.
That’s why I called him on it.
You misunderstand. My point was that Trump’s inaccuracies are inconsequential (and far, far less numerous) when compared to those of Obama and the Clintons.
Wouldn’t mind having some Trump bling my own self.
Doesn’t that logic apply to all immigration and not just illegal? Even if crime from British tourists and Canadian businessmen occurs less frequently then from our own people, it wouldn’t have happened at all had we never allowed them to come in the first place.
Any increase in immigration or population in general, for that matter, will result in increased crime. While it’s true, I’m not sure how useful that observation is when determining policy.
You are correct in that all immigration will result in crime that wouldn’t have been committed had that immigration not occurred. The problem we’re confronted with by virtually unrestricted immigration coming from south of the border is twofold, in that it provides a perfect opportunity for foreign criminals to enter the country unchecked either to seek a richer target population or to flee arrest and imprisonment in their own country.
One of the purposes of the immigration service is to do background checks to try to identify and keep potential immigrants with a criminal history from entering the U.S., and we are not only not doing that but we’re freely allowing criminals who’ve already been deported after having committed crimes here in the U.S. to re-enter over and over again. Thus we face a greater threat of crime from the immigrants currently flooding over our southern border than we do from other populations around the world whose immigrants are vetted by the immigration service before they’re allowed to enter the country legally.
That assessment is based on the relatively few Trump political comments, and the glurge of misinformation that the RW media promulgates. If you’re, for instance, adding Benghazi to the Clinton side of the scale, you’re distorting the comparison by adding RW Media made up lies to the pile.
Also, Obama isn’t a racist, comb-over clown, born with a silver-spoon up his ass. So he’s got that going for him.
Actually I’m speaking of the endless lies of the Clintons, which as I’ve said are so numerous and eagerly slung about as to offend even their own supporters, and those of Obama which I’ve already mentioned.
As usual any time someone mentions concern over increased crime coming from a politically protected group, liberals cry racist. But cognizance of such threats doesn’t make a person racist, it makes them rational.
And many people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Very, very few of them are able through a combination of work, study and intelligence to achieve success undreamed of by their parents. Left-wingers of course often use theirs for cocaine. 
And while I don’t know if Trump’s hair is a comb-over or not, I do know he’s worn it that way for decades and it appears to be thinning naturally. Is it really your opinion that someone’s suitability for the presidency should be determined by the way they wear their hair?
Can hardly wait for his stirring defense of Ted Nugent’s music.
Neither Stranglehold nor Cat Scratch Fever need defense.
However I’m afraid they’re the extent of my knowledge of Mr. Nugent’s music. Being more of a Sinatra kind of guy I didn’t spend much time in the early 70s seeking out music by longhaired wildmen, even if they did eventually reveal themselves to have rational politics.