This is defending concentration camps. It's also factually incorrect, it's not an Obama policy. You are directly parroting a GOP talking point that was transmitted to you through right wing corporate media. Do you see how that hurts your credibility when you try to paraphrase the George Carlin bit about media consolidation later?

Absolutely not. You should have moral outrage yourself. Politics is not a self-esteem exercise, it effects human beings.

Yeah give me some credit then and guess where I'm going with this, then. You're so ****ing deep in the right wing propaganda machine you can't even imagine what it's like to get out.

Cool, like what? What other rationales are making the media try to drum up anti-Trump sentiment by reporting on migrant deaths in the concentration camps we built for no ****ing reason.

OK but what were the words he wrote above the graph?

Re: immigration

I read this Vox article the other day.

My recollection is that there was a lot of discussion, early in the Trump administration, about how border crossings had gone down, and whether or not that was a result of people being dissuaded from immigrating due to his rhetoric (n.b. this is relevant to whether that data represents Trump being lenient on immigration, which I think is a poor way of interpreting that data)

But then the numbers went back up, but the current situation is something different, both from the trend in early 2017 and also from what was happening in the early 2000s.

lol I think I finally see why these guys think "source for this claim" is such an effective rhetorical technique:

It works on them.


Absolute meltdown into addressing weird hypotheticals and character attacks instead of just, you know, linking one of the many many headlines he has seen that informed him about the high immigration levels.

Whether immigration levels are unprecedented is not an opinion, it is a fact!

2005 is the distant past? (and it wasn't historically high either - immigration rates are just low since the recession)

The bolded is just idiotic.

Ok it appears I stand corrected on whether it was an Obama policy or not. But it isn't your claim that Obama is some immigration hero or that he didn't lock up families perhaps without separating them?
The claim is that you are being manipulated by the media into this outrage. Not just you but a large segment of the population and I will give Trump his blame too there because he is every bit complicit.
No you'll need to go ahead and tell me because the leftists that I know understand that the media is by and large controlled by pro-corporate forces.
For now I'll need to just stick with what I said--that I think most of the immigration stuff is theater designed to rile up both the left and the right for the purposes of division and of reinvigorating the two-party system but that that doesn't mean that there aren't horror stories.

If I just said, "yeah, immigration has been a crisis for a long time" the Trumpkins would all agree. So, yeah, despite the US growing to be the dominant country in the world during a pretty constant run of huge amounts of immigration it's still always a crisis. Because crisis just means too many Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexicans, or Central Americans people are coming period.

I agree with your sentiment in general but I linked the Vox article because I think it does speak to there being an actual crisis given our current policy. Albeit, a crisis that could simply be fixed by adopting your views on the border, i.e. by just letting them come in. Which in my view would be much, much better than what we are doing.

But I feel like the different inflections were giving to "crisis" might make it so people are talking past each other a bit?

This is part of my issue with your posting btw.

I linked to data that supports the claim I made. One person pointed out why that was wrong, another made character claims and assumptions despite a linked reputable source

Fly,
I've seen you say that Twitter has no problem with white-supremacy and then post stuff about how you don't understand when someone says the media is corporate. You have contradictory views here.
Another time I've seen you say there are no leftists in the media (which I agree with). So then what does that make the media? Like you don't actually think that MSNBC is fundamentally different from Fox?
Do you think there is only "right-wing media" and then normal "non-right-wing media" that isn't left wing either?
----
So when the media responds with outrage to Trump regarding immigration--shouldn't that lead you to believe that the outrage is the point?

Hopefully you can follow that because I admit it isn't perfectly clear there--but the point is that there is no "right-wing media" that is separate from the media at large, and that they are all in fact owned by only a handful of companies.

Here is a projection for 2019 compared to recent years. As you can see 2017 was an outlier in the low side, believed to be due to wariness how things would play out.

I see trump supporters and detractors love to focus on 2017 Data to spin their narratives, and I find both equally dishonest.

I'm pretty sure the Trumpkins will say the "crisis" is that most of the people crossing are bad hombres and gang members one second and then say that it's whole families and pregnant women the next. I don't think anyone is talking past each other about this. When one of them says "Oh my God this is a crisis, we need to get these people out of concentration camps and into schools, housing and jobs ASAP!" I'll wonder if we've been talking past each other.

No. The Deporter in Chief label came from Obama's left, so I have no idea what you're talking about "heroes" for, maybe tone down the cult of personality view of politics?

But he didn't lock up families together, he gave them court dates. Family separation is a Trump policy.

Yeah I understand, and what I'm telling you is that you're reading off Tucker Carlson talking points and telling me not to be mad about government misconduct. You don't get to the be the anti-establishment rebel if you're doing that. You're a bootlicker.

Correct! Like in 2018, when they all went along with the GOP's fearmongering about the Dreaded Caravan. You're so close to getting it.

Yeah man you're not an objective third party here, you are the right that has gotten riled up about the god dang Messicans and the lying media trying to drum up outrage over a few dead migrants.

I don't mean Trump supporters in general, I mean people in this thread. There's definitely plenty of people who only use "crisis" only to indicate their antipathy towards immigrants. But I don't think coordi, luckbox, or Kelhus are among them, just based on things they've said in other conversations.

Thank you for helping out the white supremacists with data, well named, this is definitely how liberals can show the dirty uncivil left how to win friends and influence people. Now that you've linked Kelhus that Vox article we're probably what, 2, 3 posts away from him voting for Beto?

Again the current conversation is about how the media is UNFAIR to Trump on immigration. That's the issue. coordi Luckbox and Kelhus are agreed that the answer is "yes".

Which side are you on?

You call me an person who parrots Tucker (who I don't watch). And I'll call you a person who parrots The Atlantic --which I'll admit is some slick propaganda. Both of those are mainstream narratives just in different directions. The point is to understand where those narratives are coming from and what the purpose is behind them and to not see Tucker or The Atlantic as fundamentally different.
I agree there is plenty to be upset about irt government and it is probably true that I've gotten cynical about not getting upset about specific things because I see the whole system as something to be upset about. (And more to understand at this point because outrage doesn't take you very far).
You have no idea what my views on immigration are.

I'm not alleging that the media is unfair to Trump on immigration. I'm alleging that what we see is mostly theater and that Trump is a part of it. I think Obama would have been treated differently than Trump but "fairness" isn't really an issue there.

OK and this is actually a great example. You probably don't watch Tucker, I believe that. But you still came right back with the "Obama policy too" line, which doesn't even make sense. Even if that was true(and it's not, we didn't have family separation or the degree of pre-hearing detention that we have now), how is that a defense of the policy? That's just an accusation that liberals are hypocrites, but it's not a defense of the policy being good.

But back to the Atlantic, oh yes, you don't read that either:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...o-much/583252/

A cover story by David Frum advocating for stricter immigration policy does not seem to line up real good with my views!

Yeah, I do. Because there's 2 posters in here openly defending Trump from mainstream media smearing on immigration and you're agreeing with them instead of disagreeing with them.

Licking boots and owning libs are very odd pastimes for someone who isn't on the right. And again, you all glossed over it, maybe because it was buried in a link:


My side has the popular support here. Your side is boosted by elites who do **** like put Tucker Carlson on TV to spread Great Replacement ****.

The issue here is that you are talking about immigration and I'm talking about the media. I'll have to figure out how the bridge that divide. And I've read plenty of Atlantic articles.

No you don't. If I'm allowed to be racist, I like Mexicans better than Anglos and speak Spanish rather well. Obviously you haven't looked at the immigration thread where I've defended all things immigration. You are showing again your propensity to pigeonhole your opposition as bigots and you really should stop and I'm saying that as someone who respects you and your posting.
But I'm not going to be passing up an opportunity here to talk about media manipulation.

OK but you're talking about the media's coverage of immigration and you wrote,
Those 3 sentences, by themselves, make you a bad person, you get that right? You're so eager to buff your own ego as the above-it-all cool kid that you gloss over ****ing toddler jails.

The Atlantic, and this is a big struggle for conservatives to understand because your media is so ideologically consistent, does publish a lot of different views. So I'll link this older article from one of their left-most writers:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-point/572104/

Yeah, and there's fertile ground to cover there, like how every major news channel completely dropped their coverage of The Dreaded Caravan Invasion literally the day after the election. But that ain't your complaint, was it?

You are right. It isn't a defense of the policy and I'm not trying to defend the policy and I am trying to call the media hypocrites. But I'm not trying to call them hypocrites because I think they are being unfair to Trump. I'm trying to call them hypocrites because I think this whole thing is theater.
However from what I understand Obama did actually cage children. link here . What the extent of it is I don't know. So there at least is some element of truth to the hypocrisy allegation especially when we look at the deportation numbers. But even if there was no hypocrisy that wouldn't change my thoughts that this is theater, it would just make it a little harder to show.

Obviously the term "horror stories" has different meanings for you that it does for me. But because I haven't been outraged enough apparently I'm a bad person.
lol. Get real, for real.
You still are trying to hold up the Atlantic as some sort of journalism that is separate from the right-wing media. They are the same. The Atlantic is corporate controlled right wing media.
Thanks for making my points for me. Yeah. That is my "complaint" too. Literally the definition of media manipulated theater.
Why do you think the media helped get Trump elected then went after him so hard after the election? (if you do think that, idk. Because that is part of the theater too).

It seems pretty reasonable to me to be outraged about the family separations, and other bits of policy suggested by Stephen Miller.

I think you lean a bit too hard on your conspiratorial takes about media.

Go back to after September 11th when DHS and TSA were created and "national security" became a big deal.
There was absolutely zero push to do anything about security then and that is partly how we knew that the war on terror was a joke and that the TSA was "security theater".
What I'm alleging now is that just like Bush II, Trump also has zero plans to actually do anything regarding immigration or to build a wall. And I'm ok with that because again, I speak Spanish and like horchata and Mexicans. So again, pointing out that theater exists doesn't make me opposed to or in favor of anything. I am not trying to make normative statements in this forum or about politics in general. The best we can do is describe what is actually happening.

The issue is that "outraged" is what they want you to feel.
They wouldn't be doing it otherwise and I've looked at the most recent Atlantic piece Fly posted before--"the cruelty is the point". And I agree. Cruelty --》outrage. It literally is the point. It is what I've been trying to say here perhaps not very well obviously.
Your issues are you are stuck in the two-party mentality where Trump is seen as fundamentally different from the media that created him. I can't see him that way so I have to treat things a little more abstractly. It doesn't mean I don't have a heart.

OK and this is back with what I was saying, he has already done things, very bad things. The toddler jails? Ringing a bell?

You're so close, so very close, but no potato.

(right wing media wants you to be compliant and conspiratorial and distrustful, and it ****ing worked)