StefanAVFC Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: It makes for some very grim reading. Quote DAVID MUIR: When people learn of the news of this wall today there are gonna be a lot of people listening to this. And I wanna ask about undocumented immigrants who are here -- in this country. Right now they're protected as so-called dreamers -- the children who were brought here, as you know, by their parents. Should they be worried -- that they could be deported? And is there anything you can say to assure them right now that they'll be allowed to stay? Quote PRESIDENT TRUMP: They shouldn't be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn't be very worried. I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody. We're going to have a very strong border. We're gonna have a very solid border. Where you have great people that are here that have done a good job, they should be far less worried. We'll be coming out with policy on that over the next period of four weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: He has a plan to build a wall and deport illegal immigrants. You didn't hear? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 It's more to do with that it's complete verbal diarrhea. It doesn't make any sense. Quote They shouldn't be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn't be very worried. I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody. We're going to have a very strong border. That string of six sentences makes no sense together. Quote RESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you this ... PRESIDENT TRUMP: We're gonna find out. And -- and, by the way, when I say you're gonna find out. You can never really find, you know, there are gonna be -- no matter what numbers we come up with there are gonna be lots of people that did things that we're not going to find out about. But we will find out because we need a better system where that can't happen. Isn't this just preempting an investigation that finds nothing so he can still say 'THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: Isn't this just preempting an investigation that finds nothing so he can still say 'THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED'. Maybe but more importantly were the other things that he said about dead people voting and the Pew report (why did they write it, then? - erm because they were looking at the voter registration system and its effectiveness and cost) - edit: which would appear to fall in line with what I was saying yesterday about them perhaps mainly relying upon confusing and conflating voter registration accuracy and voter fraud. Edited January 26, 2017 by snowychap Too many capitals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 40 minutes ago, snowychap said: Maybe but more importantly were the other things that he said about dead people voting and The PEW report (why did they write it, then? - erm because they were looking at the voter registration system and its effectiveness and cost) - edit: which would appear to fall in line with what I was saying yesterday about them perhaps mainly relying upon confusing and conflating voter registration accuracy and voter fraud. Not just that, he accused the writer of the report of 'grovelling'. In the report, the author says “We found millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying, but found no evidence that voter fraud resulted”. He didn't get past the first part of the sentence, because the first part confirms something he believes. The second part modifies the first part and negates what he believes, so he ignores it. All Trump literally saw and read was, "We found millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying." He stopped right there and then probably proceeded to cherry pick throughout the rest of the report. In his mind, the report confirmed what he believed because he only modified in his mind and read the portions that did. And I guarantee if that report had been pulled out and he was shown where he was wrong, he'd probably claim the report had been altered to make him look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: He didn't get past the first part of the sentence To be honest, I doubt he has actually read any part of the sentence or the report (rather than having a brief precis framed to support the opinion he holds read to him). Edited January 26, 2017 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: In the report, the author says “We found millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying, but found no evidence that voter fraud resulted”. Not being picky for the sake of it but I don't think that was in the report (I've not been able to find it), I think it was something that one of the authors tweeted: Edit: From what I can see the original report doesn't really talk about evidence either of there being or not being significant voter fraud but rather it talks about the integrity of the (registration) system as something which would help to guard against fraud (either actual fraud or the perception of it) and the brief from 2012 talks about: Quote the perception that they [registration systems] lack integrity or could be susceptible to fraud Edited January 26, 2017 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 15 minutes ago, snowychap said: Not being picky for the sake of it but I don't think that was in the report (I've not been able to find it), I think it was something that one of the authors tweeted: I understand what you're saying, but it's sort of the same thing right? If I produced a report, then commented afterwards (not strictly in the report) "We found x" then it doesn't make it any less legitimate (I know you're not suggesting that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I understand what you're saying, but it's sort of the same thing right? If I produced a report, then commented afterwards (not strictly in the report) "We found x" then it doesn't make it any less legitimate (I know you're not suggesting that) Kind of. I'm not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument about Trump's claims and their legitimacy (at least how little evidence there is in support of them at the moment) at all. If it was to distance the Pew report from claims made by Trump or his supporters about voter fraud then I can see why Mr Becker made the comment that he did but I wonder about the wording 'but found no evidence'. It would appear that the original research only had something to do with voter fraud in as much as it's about the perception of the system and that the integrity of the voter registration systems (and the data therein) can lead to the perception that the elections are susceptible to fraud and that voter fraud is therefore an issue (at least to some significant degree not just the ex judge trying to vote on behalf of her dead husband). The original research was about making the registration system(s) better, more accurate and cheaper. They researched the accuracy of the records on the voter registrations and not, as far as I can see, what proportion of the innaccuracies in the registration lists were converted in to voter fraud. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted January 26, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2017 "This place is packed!" 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 How long until Trump claims he cancelled it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: How long until Trump claims he cancelled it? I suppose he could reasonably claim that actions he has taken have at least prevented one Mexican from coming to the US. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 7 hours ago, Davkaus said: And on top of that, he wants to bring back waterboarding.. He's already arrested three journalists who covered the protests on Friday, and they're being charged with felonies, and could be jailed for 10 years... He's put a gag order on employees of the EPA and USDA (Environment, Agriculture) and National Parks Service. #ScienceMarch is trending now, people are going to fight this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Expect more of this- Quote The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned Quote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era. Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me. Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/?utm_term=.1b9c2288f2cc&wpisrc=nl_most-draw10&wpmm=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 29 minutes ago, maqroll said: He's already arrested three journalists who covered the protests on Friday, and they're being charged with felonies, and could be jailed for 10 years... He's put a gag order on employees of the EPA and USDA (Environment, Agriculture) and National Parks Service. #ScienceMarch is trending now, people are going to fight this. I'm not in any way disputing this, but do you have a link, or some names? I'd like to read more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest?CMP=share_btn_tw Quote our more journalists have been charged with felonies after being arrested while covering the unrest around Donald Trump’s inauguration, meaning that at least six media workers are facing up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted. Matt Hopard. Photograph: Handout A documentary producer, a photojournalist, a live-streamer and a freelance reporter were each charged with the most serious level of offense under Washington DC’s law against rioting, after being caught up in the police action against demonstrators. The Guardian learned of their arrests after reporting on Monday that the journalists Evan Engel of Vocativ and Alex Rubinstein of RT America had also been arrested and charged with felonies while covering the same unrest on Friday morning. All six were arraigned in superior court on Saturday and released to await further hearings in February and March, according to court filings. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said late on Tuesday that charges against journalists who were covering the protests should be dropped. .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: How long until Trump claims he cancelled it? Apparently a 'joint decision'. I'm not sure telling someone that they shouldn't come if they're not willing to get rogered and then having that person decide not to come as they're not too keen on the rogering is a joint decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said: How long until Trump claims he cancelled it? This move by Pena-Nieto should not be underestimated. This is a massive diplomatic meltdown, all thanks to Trump's idiotic bluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted January 26, 2017 Author Share Posted January 26, 2017 Border Control Chief just resigned, ostensibly because he knows how ridiculous Trump's wall plan is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts