So, the (Lame Stream – what does that mean? whom does it include?) Media covers the Republican Party’s most popular candidate. And that’s unfair to the Republican Party because … ?
Trump supporters include state legislators and political analysts as well as the unwashed masses. Cite: CNN interviews Trump supporters.
It means Ditto. As you know.
The LSM is any media outlet which doesn’t verify their stories before publishing. It’s the media outlets who’s primary objective is to be the first to break a story rather than being the media outlet that gets the facts correct. It’s the media outlets who spin stories in favor of their favorite political party or terrorist organization. It’s the media outlets who search for “witnesses” who want to tell the story that best backs up the media outlets pre-determined conclusions.
In short, the LSM is a media outlet that acts more like a PR firm than a news agency.
But we’re not going to give out 300 million visas.
Are you serious with this? This makes a very poor estimate of the capabilities of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard.
Because they are embarrassed. :rolleyes: But that is their cross to bear. They should tell their members to stop answering “Trump” in opinion polls, and to stop swarming political blogs with pro-Trump comments. If that happened, then I’d agree that it is unfair for the media to give Trump lots of coverage, other than as an eccentric celebrity. Until then, he is the frontrunner, deserves to be covered as such, and let the chips fall where they may. (Mwahahaha. 
)
I have a problem with that though for a different reason: racism. It tells the world that we’re going to give preferential treatment to Latinos, while keeping Asians and Africans at bay thanks to our two oceans. And the US has a very dark history when it comes to racist treatment of Asians in immigration policy.
Crocodile tears.
Hardly. I’m libertarian on immigration, but what comes with that is support for LAW, whatever that law is. If we’re going to restrict immigration then we need to restrict immigration. If we’re going to have open borders, that’s great too. What we can’t have is immigration law that’s a sham, but a sham that only a privileged constituency can take advantage of, namely Latinos and Asian, African, and European students and business travelers.
Regardless of whether you think my concerns are sincere, a principled liberal would have to agree that a policy that has a racially disproportionate effect is a very bad policy. And our current immigration system is very prejudiced against Africans and Asians and to a lesser extent(but still significant) against non-Cuban Caribbean islanders and South Americans.
So it’s fair to ask: is the end goal open borders, or is the intention to always have a system that is convenient for Mexicans but effectively excludes others? Support for open borders is deceitful if Democrats aren’t up front about it, but moral in that it’s a pro-liberty, racially fair policy. Support for the effects of the current system(most immigrants who sneak in will stay, others will still be excluded) is deceitful and immoral. It’s politically convenient but nothing more.
I already told you I’m not for open borders in some starry-eyed idealist way. I’m out for whatever will help Democrats win elections.