The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[B-Man]

Despite media claims, immigration remains among top concerns for voters

 

 

The debate in Washington over construction of the wall has tended to overshadow (or at least divert) the ongoing debate over illegal immigration in general. While a solid barrier across areas commonly used by border jumpers is an important part of an overall immigration strategy, the wall has become an all or nothing proposition for members of Congress. It’s a fact that was highlighted by Senator Angus King’s laughable claim that “nobody in Congress wants open borders.”

 

This partisan spin falls flat under the least bit of scrutiny. King may technically be an independent, but he caucuses with the Democrats. And there are plenty of people in his caucus who have not only refused to discuss hardening the physical border, but have called for the abolishment of ICE. If you don’t want a barrier of any sort at the border and you want to get rid of the law enforcement personnel that remove illegal aliens, what else are we to call it besides the support of open borders? That’s like saying you’re fighting obesity while guzzling soda and chowing down on chocolate cake.

 

While there may be elected officials who don’t care about border security, that’s not true of the public at large, however. Senior Democrats are still playing this off as something that people just don’t care about, but the most recent polling shows that immigration is actually one of the top priorities on the minds of potential voters. (Associated Press)

 

More at the link:

[Doc Brown]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Disagree. There have been more trafficking arrests under Trump's administration than all 8 years of the past president. That's not a mistake or an accident. It's an issue he personally cares deeply about. He's also put it at the forefront of the conversation every time this topic is brought up - yet it's rarely covered as anything more than "scare tactics" by the media.

 

The amount of trafficking that goes on, which politicians in DC directly profit from, is staggering.

For somebody who is skeptical of everthing how can you be that nieve?  I don't mean this is a personal attack buy you seem to have rose covered glasses to who this guy really is. He's bringing it up as a convenient reason to fill a campaign promise.  I can agree with his actions if it comes to the right policy despite the motives behind the policy.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

For somebody who is skeptical of everthing how can you be that nieve?  I don't mean this is a personal attack buy you seem to have rose covered glasses to who this guy really is. He's bringing it up as a convenient reason to fill a campaign promise.  I can agree with his actions if it comes to the right policy despite the motives behind the policy.

 

I go by evidence. From day one, combating human trafficking has been a primary goal of his administration. I've seen it first hand.

[plenzmd1]

 

10 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

A) Come on... I already disproved your "fact checkers" pages ago. Open your mind and stop with the hyperbole. 

2) It is the Oval Office. These gatekeepers really are ridiculous - like no one will report on it on other networks because they will not!?

iii) They can't keep what he says a secret. What in the world do they think the State of the Union address is going to be about?

a) I never agreed to anything on the fact checker page...are you saying Trump does not lie to the American people consistently? 

 

not sure what you mean by B&C ..but think i agree. CNN and Fox are going to carry live...

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

 

a) I never agreed to anything on the fact checker page...are you saying Trump does not lie to the American people consistently? 

 

not sure what you mean by B&C ..but think i agree. CNN and Fox are going to carry live...

2

I am saying that "Trump cannot tell the truth, about anything" is hyperbole. He also does not  " lie to the American people consistently ". Also ridiculous hyperbole.

He can indeed tell the truth about things (and does... although it may not be what you, the Ds, or the MSM wants to hear), has to keep his mouth shut about others (national security), and seldom tells an outright lie - although he does seem to have learned the political-squish-obfuscation-craft (lawyer speak to some) which is now more than marketing speak (and I am very sad about that). 

[Doc Brown]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I go by evidence. From day one, combating human trafficking has been a primary goal of his administration. I've seen it first hand.

Which is great like I said if it leads to better border security to combat it, but a great passion of his is stretching it as all the evidence throughout his life tells me the only personal issue he cares about is his reputation.

[plenzmd1]

29 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I am saying that "Trump cannot tell the truth, about anything" is hyperbole. He also does not  " lie to the American people consistently ". Also ridiculous hyperbole.

He can indeed tell the truth about things (and does... although it may not be what you, the Ds, or the MSM wants to hear), has to keep his mouth shut about others (national security), and seldom tells an outright lie - although he does seem to have learned the political-squish-obfuscation-craft (lawyer speak to some) which is now more than marketing speak (and I am very sad about that). 

He just lied to the troops on the trip at Christmas on a 10% raise, they had not seen in a decade, it was the largest etc. I mean cmon, those are just facts he flat out lied about. There can be zero debate on that..and I do mean zero.

Now if he can lie to the troops, he can and will lie to anyone.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

He just lied to the troops on the trip at Christmas on a 10% raise, they had not seen in a decade, it was the largest etc. I mean cmon, those are just facts he flat out lied about. There can be zero debate on that..and I do mean zero.

Now if he can lie to the troops, he can and will lie to anyone.

 

WTF is the headbang emoji!?

[outsidethebox]

17 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Which is great like I said if it leads to better border security to combat it, but a great passion of his is stretching it as all the evidence throughout his life tells me the only personal issue he cares about is his reputation.

So your willing to put people in harms way because of your feelings? 

You act like "lieing" is something new in politics when Trump came along. 

I'm sick and tired of the f'n politicians from all parties putting themselves and their party ahead of the country.

There are a lot of bad people who would love to see this country sink. We, as a nation need to keep out those who mean us harm. If that means building a wall, then build the damn wall.

[plenzmd1]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

WTF is the headbang emoji!?

dont understand,,,was the "I got you guys a 10% raise " a factual statement?

[outsidethebox]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

He just lied to the troops on the trip at Christmas on a 10% raise, they had not seen in a decade, it was the largest etc. I mean cmon, those are just facts he flat out lied about. There can be zero debate on that..and I do mean zero.

Now if he can lie to the troops, he can and will lie to anyone.

 

I love when the left rides there high horse.

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

dont understand,,,was the "I got you guys a 10% raise " a factual statement?

Was, you can keep your own doctor a lie when Obama said that?

[Rob's House]

At what point do we debate the merits of the President's proposal rather than sharing our biased opinions of what his ultimate motivations might well have been?

 

The motivation of the Dems is interesting because they can't seem to articulate a reason for their steadfast opposition, but what's more interesting (and relevant) is that they can't articulate a reason for their opposition.

 

It seems to me that a prima fascia case has been made that border security would be enhanced by the wall and that the relative cost is minimal. What's the counterpoint?

[plenzmd1]

Just now, westside said:

I love when the left rides there high horse.

so...was it a factual statement?

[outsidethebox]

1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

so...was it a factual statement?

Did he give a specific date when he said that? You know, you will receive it on March 1st. 

Was a date given?

[Doc Brown]

8 minutes ago, westside said:

So your willing to put people in harms way because of your feelings? 

You act like "lieing" is something new in politics when Trump came along. 

I'm sick and tired of the f'n politicians from all parties putting themselves and their party ahead of the country.

There are a lot of bad people who would love to see this country sink. We, as a nation need to keep out those who mean us harm. If that means building a wall, then build the damn wall.

Only Tom Brady.  I said I think he's doing the righ thing to try and force Congress to get more serious about the border.  The "wall" will never be completed because of the massive amount of lawsuits to come,   I just think it's a ridiculous take that human trafficking is a "personal" issue for Trump as there's too many people on here with rose colored glasses when it comes to Trump.  

Edited January 7, 2019 by Doc Brown

[outsidethebox]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

Only Tom Brady.  I said I think he's doing the righ thing to try and force Congress to get more serious about the border.  The "wall" will never be completed because of the massive amount of lawsuits to come,   I just think it's a ridiculous take that human traffic is a "personal" issue for Trump as there's too many people on here with rose colored glasses when it comes to Trump.  

And vice versa. So many people on here just hate him because he won. 

Feelings need to be put aside when it comes to the security of our great nation.

 

I agree about Brady. Lol

[plenzmd1]

Just now, Rob's House said:

At what point do we debate the merits of the President's proposal rather than sharing our biased opinions of what his ultimate motivations might well have been?

 

The motivation of the Dems is interesting because they can't seem to articulate a reason for their steadfast opposition, but what's more interesting (and relevant) is that they can't articulate a reason for their opposition.

 

It seems to me that a prima fascia case has been made that border security would be enhanced by the wall and that the relative cost is minimal. What's the counterpoint?

i hate to admit, but I like this post. ?

 

I agree, and have continually..this is a political ploy by both parties. They both suck and are scum suckers, including the POTUS. I don't think you have seen many of us anti-Trump folks say we are against a wall.. I am not sure if it will help or not, but i don't think it can hurt in either case, and for $20B get it done.

 

For $5B and only a political win,  and being in the same place next year ...screw it.No kinda pregnant here. BUild the wall and fight for full funding, not a talking point of I got wall funding( for 1/3 of a wall at best)

5 minutes ago, westside said:

Did he give a specific date when he said that? You know, you will receive it on March 1st. 

Was a date given?

oh..yes. I do believe the Military Times is not the MSM or a liberal mouth piece

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/27/in-iraq-visit-trump-makes-false-claim-about-military-pay-again/

[reddogblitz]

On 1/6/2019 at 11:12 AM, B-Man said:

If Democrats are really that concerned about federal employees being paid all they have to do is allocate funding for the wall. It is the simplest and easiest route to put these folks back to work.

 

Be careful B-Man. 

 

Is this really a precedent that we want to set?  The prez can hold 800,000 government workers, their families, and all the supplier of said government work jobs and their families hostage over what the president and congress disagree on?

 

How would you feel if the next D prez that comes along says "I will not sign a funding extension until it includes Medicare for All?"

 

I can see both sides of this wall thing.  Wouldn't bother me either way.  However, the idea that a precedent will be set that a president can hold American citizens hostage to black mail congress into passing what (S)he wants gives me chills.  If Trump gets away with this, future presidents will as well and I don't think we want to go there.

Edited January 7, 2019 by reddogblitz

[outsidethebox]

18 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

i hate to admit, but I like this post. ?

 

I agree, and have continually..this is a political ploy by both parties. They both suck and are scum suckers, including the POTUS. I don't think you have seen many of us anti-Trump folks say we are against a wall.. I am not sure if it will help or not, but i don't think it can hurt in either case, and for $20B get it done.

 

For $5B and only a political win,  and being in the same place next year ...screw it.No kinda pregnant here. BUild the wall and fight for full funding, not a talking point of I got wall funding( for 1/3 of a wall at best)

oh..yes. I do believe the Military Times is not the MSM or a liberal mouth piece

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/12/27/in-iraq-visit-trump-makes-false-claim-about-military-pay-again/

Unless I missed it, All I read was it would be approved in 2019. No specific date was given. 

 

So this is the line in sand your willing to take? Oppose border security over that? Really?

 

What's the difference between what your doing and a little kid holding his breath until he gets his way? 

9 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Be careful B-Man. 

 

Is this really a precedent that we want to set?  The prez can hold 800,000 government workers, their families, and all the supplier of said government work jobs and their families hostage over what the president and congress disagree on?

 

How would you feel if the next D prez that comes along says "I will not sign a funding extension until it includes Medicare for All?"

 

I can see both sides of this wall thing.  Wouldn't bother me either way.  However, the idea that a precedent will be set that a president can hold American citizens hostage to black mail congress into passing what (S)he wants gives me chills.  If Trump gets away with this, future presidents will as well and I don't think we want to go there.

How do you feel about impeaching a president because your candidate lost?

[Koko78]

35 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

It seems to me that a prima fascia case has been made that border security would be enhanced by the wall and that the relative cost is minimal. What's the counterpoint?

 

The counterpoint is twofold: 1.) Orange Man Bad; and 2.) ***** you, that's why.