[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 55 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/12/publics-priorities-for-u-s-asylum-policy-more-judges-for-cases-safe-conditions-for-migrants/

Public’s Priorities for U.S. Asylum Policy: More Judges for Cases, Safe Conditions for Migrants. Most continue to favor legal status for undocumented immigrants

The American public is broadly critical of the way that the federal government is dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. When it comes to what should be done about the situation, large majorities say it is important to increase the number of judges handling asylum cases and to provide safe and sanitary conditions for asylum seekers.

Public’s top priorities for dealing with asylum seekers: More judges for asylum cases, safe conditions Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say the federal government is doing a very bad (38%) or somewhat bad (27%) job dealing with the increased number of people seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border; just 33% say the government is doing a good job, according to the new survey by Pew Research Center conducted July 22-Aug. 4 among 4,175 adults.

Broad public support for path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. Nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain conditions are met. This is a modest decline from 77% in March 2017, with most of the change occurring among Republicans.
>>
>>445223
Turns out, going near full nazi on people who aren't violent criminals and just want to live peacefully in America is bad policy.
Shocking no one but the boot lickers and Nazis.
>>
>>445242
Yeah the rest of the article reads real bad for making 2020 into an immigration election again.
Maybe this is why he has stopped talking about the wall he couldn’t get built.
>>
>>445223
>>a single poll says a thing therefore everyone is actually okay with letting their country get flooded with illegals.
Quick question, when another poll gets released that says the opposite, will you actually learn your lesson?
>>
>>445262
>will you actually learn your lesson?
NEVER!!!!!!
>>
>>445262
Most reasonable people are educated enough to differentiate real immigration issues from sensationalized ones. There's a specific reason the majority of the GOP base is uneducated boomers. Use the words "flood" and "invasion" and they'll just take your word for it because they don't know any better.
>>
>>445262
>we are racist and trying to murder immigrants for the lols while crying foul
You guys aren't even hiding it anymore
>>
>>445262
>give them a path to escape their shithole countries that are ruined by tyranny and corruption
>they are no longer illegals
>>
>>445262
Trump did everything he could to make 2018 about immigration, with the most inflammatory rhetoric possible, and conservatives lost 40 seats in the house. Please go ahead and try that again with the Presidential election.
>>
>(72%) say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally...This is a modest decline from 77% in March 2017
>DECLINE
once again liberals prove to be retards
>>
>>445293
>a 5% dip in 2 years of nonstop anti-immigrant rhetoric to a point where 3/4ths of the country still supports them staying
could you elaborate on this selfpwn please
>>
Yes open borders good so cool thank you
>>
>>445300
>selfpwn
think harder, anon. IF the number is trending down, that means that there are LESS people that want them here now than when trrump was elected the first time. millennials have a tough time understanding how numbers work. a number is only as important as its relation to other numbers.
>>
>>445305
>accepting asylum = open borders
Why do you hate human rights, anon?
>>
>>445307
>numbers are only important in a relative sense
Fundamentally wrong understanding anon. Frequently numbers are important when compared relative to others, “relative”. They are also important in an “absolute” sense.
Let’s take a basic political example. In a heads up race candidate A is running 95% ahead of candidate B. Let’s say that B increased his support 100%. Thats a massive shift relative to his previous support. In an absolute sense, he is still at only 10% to A’s 90%.
Bottom line: Trump has spent a huge amount of time and political capital to move the numbers....not much. The absolute number vastly outweighs the relative gain.
>trending
Among a group who is literally dying of old age. ggwp
>>
>>445307
assuming that's an actual trend and not a polling error/margin of error, the trendline would anticipate that you can maybe expect 30% support for this issue by election time next year. Do you really think that's a good issue to make the centerpiece of your campaign?
>>
>>445253
Only because the media has a conservative bias and can only decide between open boarders and concentration camps as the only choices. When the Republican aka nazis want the latter, and anything pragmatic but not the former is still branded as the former.
But yeah, try running on that and lose the suburb vote.
>>
>>445309
I already said wide open borders is cool, do you want my address so you can come over and piss on me too
>>
>>445310
>Fundamentally wrong understanding anon.
actually thats you. as a matter of fact, you are so wrong on the issue of numbers that i dont even have to make a counterpoint to prove. i can actually use your own argument to prove that numbers are only as important as their relation to other numbers. how? notice you had to use multiple numbers IN YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE! numbers are only as important as far as their relation for other numbers. good try though.
>Trump has spent a huge amount of time and political capital to move the numbers
now youre confusing campaigning with governing. hes not trying to move the numbers. hes trying to live up to his campaign promises. the numbers are already in his favor. if they werent he peobably would not be president in order for us to have this discussion.

>Among a group who is literally dying of old age
perhaps, but not necessarily. again, think harder, anon. people have been saying conservatives will be dying off for decades, but theres always more to replace them. why? you are failing to consider that people move right as they age. tomorrows conservatives are todays liberals.

>>445312
>the trendline would anticipate that you can maybe expect 30% support for this issue by election time next year.
please elaborate on this
>>
>>445322
>the numbers are already in his favor.
clearly not based on polling data that you just posted.

>please elaborate on this
I'm not really sure what help you need with this. If public support for allowing illegals to stay has decreased by 5% in the last 2 years, how much more would you expect it to change in 1 more year?
>>
>>445242
>going full nazi
So rounding up and detaining people who are in the country illegally on the spot is now a bad thing? What other country has to tolerate people staying in their territory flagrantly illegally?
I get that, yeah, sometimes you have to give them medical help if it's an emergency, but there should be a border agent waiting for that person to be let out of the hospital and guide them to the nearest bus to the border to be let go.
Or sure, let's give them gun permits and driving licenses. They are here ILLEGALLY, WHY ARE YOU MAKING THESE CONCESSIONS?
>>
>>445322
>please elaborate on this
What a brainlet
>>
>>445300
>2 years of nonstop anti-immigrant rethoric
What do you mean? The media is blasting 24/7 about how people should be let in and given houses and licenses no questions asked, and every democratic candidate raised their hand when asked if illegals should be given healthcare
>>
>>445327
>The media
Fox News is the number one news channel in the US, are you implying they're pro-immigration?
>>
>>445324
>clearly not based on polling data that you just posted.
clearly so based on the fact that he is president. thats another problem with the left right now. everything with you is 'theoretical.' look at the reality on the ground. and remember: your numbers are only as important as their relation to other numbers.

>I'm not really sure what help you need with this.
lol. the help i need is a competent debate partner. youre the one throwing out "30% support for this issue." but you didnt mention your logic for this number or whether it was for or against. it was a sloppy argument and i was polite enough to give you an opportunity to clean it up. take pride in everything you do anon. even posting here.
>>
>>445326
what part of my post do you disagree with and why?
>>
>>445330
hard yikes at all of this, hope you are trolling
>>
>>445329
Fox News isn't the only news channel in the US though, doesn't matter if Fox is the biggest channel if all the other channels are left-leaning
>>
>>445331
The fact that you couldn't figure out simple arithmetic
>>
>>445332
perhaps i am. perhaps not. but if you want to make an argument i will entertain it.

>>445334
great. explain how. make an argument.
>>
>>445333
>Fox News isn't the only news channel in the US though
That's like saying the BBC isn't influential in the UK because there are other channels out there. No matter how you try to bend the facts the most popular news source in the US is a Republican mouth-piece.
>>
>>445336
>great. explain how. make an argument.
If 70% of people accept pro-immigration changes to immigration law, how many are against it?
>>
>>445336
You don't believe in public opinion polling and you don't understand how a concept like trend lines work, what am I supposed to argue with you about?
>>
>>445339
>the most popular news source in the US is a Republican mouth-piece
citation please?
>>
>>445343
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-finishes-2018-as-most-watched-cable-network-hannity-tops-cable-news

Not only is Fox News the most popular news channel, it's the most popular channel OVERALL.
>>
>>445340
> how many are against it?
dont be rhetorical. make an argument. what is your point?

>>445341
>what am I supposed to argue with you about?
i dont now. youre the one making posts. im just suggesting that they be worth your time. your time is valuable, isnt it anon?
>>
>>445345
lol...fair point. i was not clear. im asking for citation that fox is a 'republican mouthpiece.' i accept that it is the highest rated.
>>
>>445330
>clearly so based on the fact that he is president
please elaborate on this
>>
>>445347
You need a citation that Fox News is republican? Lemme stop you right there
>>
>>445349
You forgot to change your name
>>
>>445346
>dont be rhetorical
No one can be this dense. Do you really not see where the 30% figure that other poster made comes from? If 70% of Americans approve of something then it figures that 30% do not approve of it. How did you think this was rhetorical?
>>
>>445351
Honestly 30% is very optimistic, there's usually a decent sized buffer of people who don't have strong feelings either way or aren't sure.
>>
>>445350
Nope. Not him. Just watching your convo.
>>
>>445348
absolutely. anon is saying that there are significantly more americans who are pro immigration than against. (i know the argument is more complex than that, but brevity makes for a better answer) anon is using that fact to say that the odds are not in trumps favor for re election. what i am saying is that the entire argument is moot, because the numbers were no better when he was elected the first time. as a matter of fact the numbers are trending in his favor COMPARED to 2016.

and thats where the 305 comes in. i understand what anon was saying, but i wanted to be sure that he wasnt saying something else before i responded, since i had already addressed that argument.

>>445349
thats not a citation
>>
>>445351
now take that and explain how it is relevant to the debate he and i were having and then you will understand why you are being silly.
>>
too bad the general public doesn't see every beaner walking across the border as an "asylum seeker"
>>
>>445356
you are expecting these "people" to argue in good faith

most americans oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, thats a fact
>>
>>445359
>you are expecting these "people" to argue in good faith
i agree. but there seems to be one anon who is attempting to make an argument. and you never know who is lurking, so theres that.
>>
>>445359
>most americans oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, thats a fact
Only in your head
https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/12/publics-priorities-for-u-s-asylum-policy-more-judges-for-cases-safe-conditions-for-migrants/4-28/
>>
>>445356
>anon is using that fact to say that the odds are not in trumps favor for re election
Not really, just that it's a bad issue to lean on considering most Americans don't seem to agree with the President on it and it already backfired on them in 2018.

People vote for a lot of reasons, someone winning an election (especially with fewer votes than their opposition) is a bad argument that public opinion is on their side.
>>
>>445362
why are you reposting that article which does not contradict what i said?
>>
>>445356
Water is wet. Don’t eat your own shit. The moon isn’t the sun. More at 11.
>>
and on the topic of fox news since no one is providing a source that it is rightwing, here is an article about a study that tracked trump coverage for the first 100 days of office. it says:
>Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.
so fox was mostly antitrump, just not in the mid 90s antitrump like other media. if htere are any other sources about media bias, id like to see them since this one is old.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative
>>
>>445367
That’s because trump is a fucking retard. It’s still republican.
>>
>>445293
>the change was entirely among republicans
>it's still over 2/3 of the country
>>
>>445364
>just that it's a bad issue to lean on considering most Americans don't seem to agree with the President on it
and thats what i was saying about the argument being moot. im of the opinion of 'hey it worked the first time' although recognizing that there are many factors at play. i think immigration is a win for trump as an issue.

>it already backfired on them in 2018
now this i simply disagree with. president always lose seats, its just a matter of how many. usually they lose both houses. trump only lost one. the blue wave that should have come did not. midterms were good for trump relatively speaking.
>>
>>445365
The article states that 72% of Americans agree with the statement that there "Should be way for undocumented immigrants to stay in country legally, if requirements are met". That is in stark contrast to your statement "that most americans oppose illegal immigration and amnesty"
>>
>>445366
>>445368
>fox is still republican
awesome. post sauce please so i can be as educated as you on these issues.
>>
>>445330
>youre the one throwing out "30% support for this issue." but you didnt mention your logic for this number or whether it was for or against
I'll help out here.
It would be 30% against path to citizenship in 2020, versus 70% in favor, if the numbers continue trending the they way they have been. 77% in March 2017 -> 72% now, 70% in 2020.
>>
>>445371
try re-reading that
>>
>>445370
>i think immigration is a win for trump as an issue.
You're entitled to your opinion on this, but it is A) not based on evidence and B) not an argument.

>midterms were good for trump relatively speaking.
The Democrats won the house with the largest midterm vote margin in over 40 years.
>>
>>445370
>midterms were good for trump relatively speaking.
Not in the Senate. A net pickup of two when the opposition is defending over two dozen seats is a disgraceful performance, especially with the Republican midterm advantage in play.

2018 should have been a red wave in the Senate. Republicans won't get that kind of chance again until 2030. 2020, meanwhile, has quite a few Republicans defending seats, with a toxic troll at the top of their ticket.
>>
>>445373
thank you. i wanted to make sure we were on the same page. heres the thing: are those numbers great for trump? no. but relatively speaking they are still better for trump than they were in 2016. thats why i dont think this is great news for dems as everyone here is saying.

also, keep in mind that the new debate this campaign season wont be a matter of 'should they stay or should they go' the way op article says. the left has swung pretty far out there. so the debate now is 'should they get free medicare, and $1000/month and legalize illegal entry and tear down the border or should they go.' most people, i think, reject this. if they do, then those numbers will swing even more in favor for trump.

thank you for taking the time.
>>
>>445375
>A) not based on evidence
again, the fact that trump is your president is the evidence
>B) not an argument
of course its not an argument, precious. those were my thoughts. i literally started the sentence with "i think"

>won the house with the largest midterm vote margin in over 40 years
and failed to take the senate. and that was assisted by a """controversial""" president and incredibly negative coverage.

>>445376
>Not in the Senate.
reps kept the senate. the senate is usually lost. no? you can weed through the hairs trying to score a victory because hypothetically reps should have done better, but thats simply not lining up with the "blue wave" talk ahead of time from the left
>>
>>445322
Wew lad. Your level of reeeeeeee is strong.
>y-y-you had to use multiple numbers in a post about numbers
Well yeah anon. This is not a refutation. Closest to the worst argument I have read today.
>trumps numbers on this topic are good
Trust me I cleaned up your post a ton. However, it’s a simple fact - his numbers on this topic are horrible. See OP.
>people become more conservative with age
This axiom has been disproven.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
People at age 60 basically vote for who they voted for at age 18 or 20.
————
Facts and basic understanding of math are not kind to your argument.
>>
>>445372
Am I talking to you in any other threads?

I gave you my name now give me yours.
>>
>>445378
>the left has swung pretty far out there. so the debate now is 'should they get free medicare, and $1000/month and legalize illegal entry and tear down the border
Literally nobody is saying this. I challenge you to compose 2 or 3 sentences on this topic without moronically strawmanning an opinion.
>>
>>445384
>This is not a refutation.
and this is not an argument. my argument is that numbers are as important as their relation to other numbers. in attempting to prove that wrong, you HAVE to use multiple numbers. which of course proves my point. now i dont want yuo to be angry here. there is nothing wrong with being wrong.

>his numbers on this topic are horrible
and it doesnt matter. see:
>>445330
>>445356
>>445370
>>445378

>People at age 60 basically vote for who they voted for at age 18 or 20.
cool article.thanks for posting. but it doesnt say what you said it does. as a matter of fact, if you re making the argument of generational imprint, then you debunk your own idea of 'conservatives' dying off.
>>
>>445386
>free medicare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMSmoNOZJ9Y
>$1000/month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz3L79mBKD0
>legalize illegal entry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiE2WFMOpcI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Yh4OyQ2xw
>tear down the border
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/15/beto_orourke_i_would_absolutely_take_the_wall_down_in_el_paso.html
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6002743740001/#sp=show-clips

you clearly havent been following the 2020 election
>>
>>445385
look, i dont want to know your faggot name and im certainly not giving you mine. youre supposed to be off finding a source that supports your allegation of fox news bias.
>>
>>445392
I can't tell whether you didn't even bother researching your own sources or if you're purposefully pretending like you don't remember that you said.

1. "Free healthcare" for illegals is not the gibs you're making it sound like, nor is it a bizarre concept. If you get injured or hurt in Canada your healthcare, or at least a percentage of it, is covered by their universal system. The same thing is being proposed here. You already pay for other people's healthcare, anon. Its how private insurance works.

2. Nowhere in any of your sources did anybody propose giving a universal income to people who weren't citizens. You made that shit up.

3. You don't know the difference between legalize and decriminalize. Decriminalize merely means making border crossing a violation, like a speeding or seat belt ticket, rather than a criminal charge. I think you're purposefully conflating the two to support your narrative.

4. Beto claimed he would tear down one section of border in one specific town. I don't know why he would say that or what the greater conversation was because the far-right sources you posted didn't give any context.

Just to be clear, I agree with few to none of these policies. I'm not defending their merits. The only thing I'm defending is fair coverage of them. You lie and misconstrue facts to suit a narrative. I don't think that's necessary for measured debate.
>>
>>445393
Do you sincerely believe Fox News doesn't have a Republican slant?
>>
>>445395
>"Free healthcare" for illegals is not the gibs you're making it sound like
i never made it sound like anything. i said it would be a part of the debate. then i posted half of the dem 202 candidates saying their plans would allow for free medical care for illegals to prove it.
>did anybody propose giving a universal income to people who weren't citizens
andrew yang believes in ubi. i proved that in my post. he also believes in free healthcare for illegals. will his ubi apply for illegals? if he gets the nom then yes that will be a part of the debate.

>You don't know the difference between legalize and decriminalize
now you are quibbling. but fair enough. if changing it to 'decriminalize' makes you feel better than so be it. i will make that change and my point will still stand.

>Beto claimed he would tear down one section of border in one specific town
which is what i said. i said have dems out there saying tear down the border. i proved that. with a video. and another video. and you watched them

>far-right sources you posted didn't give any context.
lol...dude its chris fucking hayes!! hes a literally has a show on msnbc. i found a clip so yuo wouldnt have to watch the whole thing but here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5slDfdz_pg&t=41s

so to recap: my quote (with modification for 'decriminalize' is here:

>the left has swung pretty far out there. so the DEBATE now is 'should they get free medicare, and $1000/month and decriminalize illegal entry and tear down the border

so the debate in 2020 will be about those things. i have proven each one of those things. with links to actual people saying them. are they good or bad policies? well thats why we have the debate. you seem like a nice enough guy. but if youre going to contribute to a politics board you must follow politics.
>>
>>445398
not according to the data ive seen here:
>>445367

do you have data other than feels?
>>
>>445398
There’s no way he d—

>>445400
Holy fucking shit it’s a zoomer
>>
>>445400
Your argument that they are not biased is based on an assumption that a perfectly balanced unbiased new channel would give 50% positive and 50% negative coverage of a President, which is nonsense.

Also, those numbers only cover the actual "news journalism" segment of Fox's programming, and ignores all of the commentary features which are all right wing (Tucker, Hannity, Fox and Friends, etc)
>>
>>445402
>Your argument that they are not biased is based on an assumption that a perfectly balanced unbiased new channel would give 50% positive and 50% negative coverage of a President, which is nonsense.
pure strawman. i never made such an argument.

> those numbers only cover the actual "news journalism" segment of Fox's programming
so show me a better source. thats all im asking. does anyone have one?
>>
>>445403
>so show me a better source. thats all im asking. does anyone have one?
You're begging the question and refusing to concede something common sense out of a bad faith effort to stall your argument. Do you honestly believe Tucker, Hannity etc are not heavily conservative-leaning programming?

>pure strawman. i never made such an argument.
Not sure what else this was supposed to mean:
>>445367
>so fox was mostly antitrump, just not in the mid 90s antitrump like other media.
>>
>>445402
>ignores all of the commentary features which are all right wing
oh wow i cant believe i missed this
sheperd smith is a leftist i THINK. the 5 has a mixed panel albeit heavy on the righties. tucker is an independent. he routinely praises warren and yang among others, calls out tech companies, capitalism, military industrial complex, etc. you dont actually watch fox news, do you ?
>>
>>445325
>Everyone Trump puts in his concentration camp is illegal
The worst lie from the American Nazis, almost everyone he's capturing at the boarder to put in his concentration camps are seeking asylum, to make it worse they are crossing because Trump has shut down or greatly crippled the legal boarder crossings

>But mum laws!
There was a time when segregation was legal and protesting it was criminalized at the time.
Or slavery was legal and freeing slaves was criminalized at the time.
Or the holocaust was legal and the hiding of Jews was criminalized at the time.
Legality makes a shitty guide to morality. But feel free being on the wrong side of history. Again.
>>
>>445404
>stall your argument.
again. the only data ive seen points to fox news being least biased. i even provided source here:
>>445367 (You)
so my question is: are there any other sources i can rely on? and no your feelings do not count as a source. 'well you prove fox news isnt biased!' is also not a source. if its common sense then it should be easy to prove. do you have an argument or do you not?
>Not sure what else this was supposed to mean
its me reporting the data accurately for those who dont want to click the link. fox news had antitrimp stories t 52(?) the others mid 90s according to that study. thats not an argument, thats a summation of the study i posted.
>>
>>445408
I agree there shouldn't be concentration camps, they should just be sent back to the mexican border
On the topic of laws, what are you saying? That every state should just be a free-for-all with no limitations or restrictions on who should come in? These people were not FORCED into the US, and they should be made to leave as soon as they are detected
>le wrong side of history
I thought you were arguing in good faith.
>>
>>445401
not an argument
as usual
>>
>>445223
People do not understand that the american electoral system gives more voting power to christian whites than any other group of people and they are getting more and more conservative every day
>>
>>445223
Reminder: These polls are taken in major metropolitian cities and aren't reflective of the majority of Americans views.
>>445266
Most people are educated enough to know the difference between illegal and legal immigration, yet here we are in your brainlet thread.
>>
>>445420
BULLETIN:

This guy believes Fox News isn't a Republican news outlet.
>>
>>445435
>The namefag that brigades this board 24/7 gets destroyed and has to argue semantics like in every thread.
Shocker. This is how every thread ends, now. Someone makes a thread that's barely /news/ related and it comes down to arguing sources to prove your stupid uneducated biases.
>>
Why do self-hating Americans come to this board?
Serious question. What is it about /news/ that makes them flock here? There are dozens of sites filled with people exactly like them, but they come here instead to argue about how their country should just remove boarders and destroy itself.

This is obviously not what the poll is saying, but fuck it, facts are only convenient if it says the thing you're thinking, amirite?
>>
>>445438
This is reddit the board, nothing but cocksuckers from r/politics.
>>
>>445438
Damn I almost fell asleep how many times are you going to use those same strawmen Boomer-kun?
>>
>>445442
Oh, and if you call them out on it they'll accuse you of being from the_zognald.

You'd find better conversations from someone who huffs Jenkem.
>>
Reality
>people want a legitimate way to citizenship that doesn't take a decade and 100k

Democrats
>/Pol/ BTFO'd impeach Drumft Americans want open borders amnesty for everyone

Liberalism is a mental disorder
>>
>>445435
>This guy believes Fox News isn't a Republican news outlet.

id like everyone to pay close attention to this.
anon said that fox is a "republican mouth piece" here:
>>445339
so i asked anon to provide a source here:
>>445343
>>445347
no anon posted source so i posted what i had here:
>>445367
now anons want to debate here:
>>445398
>>445402
>>445404
but theres the problem. its a problem you will find often when engaging liberals. and that problem is that they have no argument. if they had sources they could post them along with an argument. but they dont have sources so they cannot. if they actually watched fox news then they argue from their anecdotal experience. but they dont actually watch any news so they cannot. since they cannot argue their pov with any logic or data, all they can do is take the position of "oh oh ohh, so youre saying fox news ISNT rightwing mouthpiece!?" but thats not an argument. im merely asking for evidence to accompany THEIR claim. its just deflection. the left often cannot form arguments so all they can do is make assertions. then when you ask for data to support their claims they try to make you prove them wrong instead of making a case for their beliefs. see, if they can keep you making arguments then they never have to make one and they just get to take shots from the sidelines while contributing nothing to the discussion. shameful behaviour.
>>
>>445462
conversation goes like this
>lib: x!
>con/ind: source?
>lib: oh so youre saying -x!?
>con/ind: uh no just asking for evidence of your claim of x
>lib: oh so you dont believe x! REEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>445262
Well, you just let me know IF there is another poll saying that. Then I'll give you my answer. Hypotheticals mean shit to me.
>>
>>445434
Reminder: major metropolitan cities are where the majority of Americans live. That's pretty much why they're known as "major" metropolitan cities.
>>
>>445464
A source? Proving what, that Fox News is popular or that it's known outlet for conservative ideas?

Both are absurdly common knowledge. Watch this shit.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+most+popular+news+channel+in+america

Want two? Gotcha covered!

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+political+orientation+of+fox+news
>>
>>445468
>Both are absurdly common knowledge.
so it should be absurdly easy to prove that knowledge factual
>>
>>445285
>>the president's political party lost control of part of the legislature in the first mid-term after the presidential election, which is what tends to happen, and this means that people are okay with the great 21st century beaner flood because some poll taken from the inhabitants of a cucked metropolis says so.
Fascinating.
>>
>>445474
Oh hey look at the links. Did you see them or are you sealioning like a fucking retard?
>>
>>445390
>numbers are as important as their relation to other numbers
Nope they are also important in an absolute sense. I explained this to you.
>it’s better than 2016
Nope, republicans who voted for trump in ‘16 will still vote for him. He has more support for his policies among his base - which pups have been his base regardless. The American public and voters in an absolute sense remain against him, and you.
>cool article
Thanks. And it says what I think it says. Boomers and silents are the R base. Fact. Old people die. Fact. Voting habits do not Chang with age - see article. Fact.
The R base is literally dying off and the new voters are not conservative. Fact.
Whatever straw you chose to cling to is irrelevant. The trumpian agenda is literally dying and losing in both a relative and absolutsense.
>maybe the Rs will shift their agenda
Maybe. But the policy issues they currently promote are losing.
>>
>>445393
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg
Fox - Barely touches the yellow bar on the far right hand side.
>>
>>445374
Maybe make an argument because your debate opponent was correct.
>>
>>445223
Expect rising crime rates
>>
>>445508
I don't think he knows what 'amnesty means...
>>
>>445510
Ahhh you are arguing “path to citizenship” vs “amnesty”. Isn’t what Reagan did referred to as amnesty in common debate? It was also a “path to citizenship”.
>>
>>445509
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/two-charts-demolish-the-notion-that-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/%3FoutputType%3Damp
Nope.
>>
>>445474
Anon, we're talking about common knowledge that would have been extremely easy to learn about through a simple Google search. This isn't some esoteric fact that would have been difficult to uncover. Anyway...

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fox-news-media-bias - Leans Right

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/ - Strongly Right biased

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-biased-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8 - Most biased
>>
>>445514
Stop trying to be a sesquipedalian, you numbnut.
>>
>>445516
Good morning Big Jim.
That is a big word!
>>
>>445516
>sesquipedalian
Wow, what an apt word for its meaning.
>>
>>445516
I'll be as polysyllabic as I fucking want.
>>
>>445520
Ninnyhammer, that's your name for today.
>>
>>445522
Peeled rubber. That's yours.
>>
>>445518
I got a big dick to back that up with. Where do you want my viscous disrespect?
>>
So let’s review the COPE in this thread:
>numbers don’t matter
Wrong.
>Fox is not conservative
Wrong.
>path to citizenship isn’t amnesty
Sorta, but not really, anyway OP didn’t say amnesty
>>
>>445523
Corpulent jobbernowl!
>>
>>445481
there was no relevant data in those links

>>445502
>I explained this to you
oh you tried. and you failed. now youre left with assertions.
>The American public and voters in an absolute sense remain against him
less so than in 2016. which op source provides evidence of. RELATIVITY remember anon?
> The trumpian agenda is literally dying
your argument is that people vote the way did when they were younger. and there are young people voting for trump today. its cyclical
>the policy issues they currently promote are losing
they lost all the way to the presidency and retaining the senate. facts not feels anon

>>445503
>>445514
thanks ill check these out
>>
>>445588
this guy is trolling and you're all taking the bait.

>Fox News is liberal media.

You can't possibly be this retarded. Adfontes isn't a source (unless it proved you right).

Nice bait, faggot.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fox-news-media-bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

https://www.nber.org/papers/w12169

>This one uses data to confirm that Fox News and Breitbart are the MOST biased news sources.

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-biased-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8

And I just want to quote you one more time and I want to tag >>445464, an equally retarded faggot in the process.

>but theres the problem. its a problem you will find often when engaging liberals. and that problem is that they have no argument. if they had sources they could post them along with an argument. but they dont have sources so they cannot.

*laughter intensifies*

Get BTFO'd, faggot.
>>
>>445514
I did not see this response. Literally all the same links and it took me 5 seconds.

>>445588
stop pretending you're not retarded. Use duckduckgo if google is too liberal for you, mongoloid.
>>
FACT: Anyone that would try to argue that Fox News does not have a right wing bias is either trolling or too stupid to be worth conversing with, and it doesn't really matter which it is.
>>
>>445616
>Overall, the only two media organizations Republicans surveyed said weren't biased were Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

So Republicans?
>>
>>445588
>you tried. and you failed. now youre left with assertions.
Nope. I provided a source for my claim. Saying “nuh uh” is not a refutation. So I am left with a assertion supported by facts.
>you are a bit clueless aren’t you. Who do you think republicans voted for in ‘16? That they slightly moved on immigration issues while the rest and most importantly independents didn’t move is what is important. The president has been hammering this issue it should have moved independents to his side. He tried and has failed.
>we dun good by holding the senate
Riiiiight. You lost the house in a wave election anon, and one in which the president harped on this particular topic.
You know what, never mind. You are right this is a winning issue for you lot. Shooting up brown people en mass is winning you elections. Tweet at the president and tell him to pour everything into bashing migrants. It’s working, you are winning, don’t change a thing.

Let’s reconvene in November to see how this works out for you.
>>
>>445649
>all these unfounded assertions

10/10 bait. Can't wait for 2020 to get here so we can witness an even greater left-wing meltdown.
>>
>>445652
>I know I have lost the argument. Let’s just ignore the evidence presented and say it’s unfounded
>trump is winning by losing!
kek must be some of that 4d basket weaving.
>>
>>445654
>I know I have lost the debate
LoL
For the record, that's not the anon you were arguing with. Greentexting is not an argument. And a debate is not something to be "won." Just shows how liberals view debate, which explains why they're so disingenuous.
>>
I held off on replying to this thread earlier, mostly because it was the usual pile of shit. Not saying that's a bad thing, it's kinda why I lurk on this board, witnessing shitty arguments from whatever side.

Today I'd like to interject with this: there's no such thing as a debate on the internet. There might be sources for positions, but nobody will respect anyone here any more or less for their requesting or providing sources. Every fucking time I see someone nattering about whether or not someone else has a source, it's a shit-show. They're not going to change their views just because they're wrong, and it's self-congratulating to think that any point is *effectively* proven just because a valid source of information is provided. As much as I cringe at the namefaggery, they're here to use insults for entertainment, which is about all this board is good for.

Reddit spacing aside, I'd ask the prior participants in this thread to think carefully about whatever emotions they felt while reading and replying. Was it worth it? Did anything change? What's the Socratic method for, anyway? Does it ever pay to just ask questions? Do people learn? I don't give a fuck, it usually feels better to just plainly state whatever is closest to the truth and then back it up with the quickest insult that comes to mind. Fuck all you guys, I'm going back to lurking now.
>>
>>445658
>Every fucking time I see someone nattering about whether or not someone else has a source, it's a shit-show.
Only because shiteaters refuse to provide sources for their claims.
>>
>>445658
You think these spergs know what Socratic method is? Doesn’t matter if they believe your source: anyone reading along is more important than than the shit lord you’re debating with. So post your source, call them retarded, get needled about the semantics of definition since they can’t create a legitimate argument about the meat of an argument, and let the thread spiral away from any academic intent as you bafflingly are brigades with unproductive shit flinging over those definitions. Never forget to remind them that they are faggots for treating academic discussion toddlers fighting over the last toy. One thing though: when you know you are the retard gracefully admit that you were in fact the retarded faggot this time.
>>
>>445718
Also my gramma is shit bc I’m phoneposting while driving. Yes I’m gay
>>
If you care about Veterans, Americans, & black, white, and Hispanic children, why don't you put our babies first?
Why are the needs of illegal aliens so important that our children have to suffer & struggle to get by?
>>
>>445735
You're assuming I can actually get a woman to have sex with me and have my child so that I can care about their well-being. Well I'll have you know that I'm a lonely, miserable person who doesn't give a damn what happens to the brats of this country. Get off my lawn!
>>
>>445749
Now THIS is white power!
>>
>>445223
It always bothers me that people can make these claims and pretend as if they actually represent the beliefs of any significant portion of the population. 5,000 people is nowhere near enough to make these claims. It's gonna be funny come 2020.
>>
>>445434
>i-i-i don’t know how polling works
The post.
>>
>>445753
Wew lad. 5k is plenty, actually a relatively small margin of error.
>>
>>445753
Is there not a single conservative in the goddamn world who's taken a statistics class?
>>
>>445766
>>445763
yawn, you're all so tiring and predictable. You're why the dems suck balls, you know. It's like you're trying to make the country conservative.
Yang2020
>>
>>445776
>You'll never win the election if you continue to call me out on my embarrassing ignorance!
>>
>>445776
>it’s predictable that people who are not retarded will call me retarded
Well, yes.
>>
>>445611
>Fox News is liberal media.
strawman. no one is saying this. i challenge you to highlight a post where anyone did.
>your sources...
...are shit. 3 of the 5 were already presented hours before. 1 of the 5 is wiki (i have decided to hold you to a higher standard than my teenage niece). and the last is a study that is based on the premise that fox is rightwing, and therefore makes no attempt to actually prove that it is a "republican mouthpiece." as for the rest of your post? well the namefag (as usual) has the least to contribute to the thread:

>*laughter intensifies*
not an argument
>Get BTFO'd
not an argument
>faggot
not an argument

>>445612
>retarded
not an argument
>mongoloid
not an argument
>>
>>445649
>I provided a source for my claim
you are confused. anon talked about numbers here:
>>445300
>5% dip
i made a point about anons misunderstanding of numbers here
>>445307
>a number is only as important as its relation to other numbers
anon attempted a rebuttal here
>>445310
>95%...100%...10%...90%
which i crushed here
>>445322
> IN YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE! numbers are only as important as far as their relation for other numbers
anons rebuttal was here
>>445384
>Closest to the worst argument I have read today
and
>>445502
>I explained this to you
and
>>445649
>Nope

as i have detailed, NONE OF THESE ARE ARGUMENTS. if anon would like to converse then anon can form a rebuttal to my argument here and move forward

>>445649
>you are a bit clueless aren’t you. Who do you think republicans voted for in ‘16? That they slightly moved on immigration issues while the rest and most importantly independents didn’t move is what is important. The president has been hammering this issue it should have moved independents to his side. He tried and has failed.
not sure who you are quoting here, so i will politely ignore this part. it has no bearaing on anything as ar as i can tell. if you would like to take the time to clean this up, i will take the time to read it

>You lost the house in a wave election anon
wrong. a wave election takes both houses by definition. here you are wrong factually.

>Let’s reconvene in November to see how this works out for you.
i will cap this post and we can do exactly that.
>>
>>445850
>>445852
have sex
>>
>>445855
never!
>>
How can I die peacefully, sooner than the average person, in a calm and serene way, so I don't have to witness any more of this Invasion by these Incan and Aztec Savages?
>>
>>445850
Your Republicans are PERMISSIVES
Because THEY PERMIT THE INVASION
>>
You Republicans might as well just hold the door open for this invasion to happen because you want to be nice to the poor little south americans
>>
>>445395
>If you get injured or hurt in Canada your healthcare, or at least a percentage of it, is covered by their universal system.

Only if you're a citizen. Tourists and illegals still have to pay in full and at prices that are out the ass. Don't believe me? This is why Jackie Chan can't go back to Vancouver anymore. He didn't pay his hospital bill the last time he was here.
>>
>>445852
What a thought provoking (see: hollow and pedantic) piece of prose.

I do look forward to reading more excellently stylized copes and about how Fox News is socialist.
>>
>>445860
not a republican. registered independent. voted for both parties.
#1 issue: immigration
#2 issue: war
>>
>>445852
Also this
>>445855
>>
The only feasible way to actually end illegal immigration is to go after and prosecute the businesses that knowingly hire them to the point where the risk is too great for them to employ illegals. If they can't earn a living here they will stop coming.

Unfortunately neither party is actually going to do this because it would completely tank the economy, and Trump and the Republicans aren't actually interested in addressing this problem other than using it as a wedge against 70 IQ voters.
>>
>>445864
and not an argument in sight. tip of the hat anon. youre the goat.
>>
>>445850
Fox news -IS- liberal media - this so called right wing media is the same as a moderate democrat media outlet. Fox news is controlled by Zionists - jews to be more precise - they are just controlled opposition in order to necessitate the polarization of the American public so we just fight each other constantly
>>
Stupid people
You must all be either blacks or browns.
>>
>>445867
Tax them more heavily for each violation. Koch brothers are at fault. They are the most powerful lobbies in the party and if memory serves hey want open borders.
>>
>>445869
*DEEP INHALE*
>>
>>445852
>a wave election takes both houses by definition. here you are wrong factually
You have a source for this opinion of yours?
>>
>>445415
They shouldn't be sent back either, they are legally allowed to apply for amnesty and due process that entails, some might be turned back, some might be accepted, but yours and Trumps way of either putting them in concentration camps or sending them all back is wrong.
Hence why you're on the wrong side of history.
>>
>>445882
>Hence why you're on the wrong side of history.

Not the other anon but I think you're deeply delusional if you think anyone's going to remember this in 10 years much less in history.
>>
>>445878
>You have a source for this opinion of yours?
its my opinion as you said. so the source is me. is this a joke?
>>
>>445885
>t. Nazi trying to whitewash this stain on America already.
If Trump doesn't matter to destroy America people will look back at this and wonder how the fuck this all happened and be horrified and what he did.
>>
Meanwhile Trump's personal cover up man, Barr is finding a way to wage war on organized labor.
As part of his quest to help Donald Trump break the immigration system, Barr is trying a new approach: decertifying the union of the judges who handle immigration law cases.

It's no secret that Trump hates following any laws when it comes to immigration. He's jailed babies. He's ignored asylum laws. His slapdash border actions have jammed the immigration courts so full there's now a backlog of almost 877,000 cases.

Trump's proposed solution: to bust the union that protects immigration law judges who process those cases. Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) asking it to address whether the judges' labor union, the National Association of Immigration Judges, should be decertified.

That the immigration law judges are members of a union may seem surprising, since they are judges. However, they are actually employees of the DOJ, even though they sit as judges in immigration cases.

With that, it's odd that the DOJ's assertion is that the judges' union shouldn't exist because they are more properly considered management rather than employees. However, that's a peculiar stance for Attorney General William Barr to take, given how much he's been flexing his muscles to control those judges.

Barr has issued a series of rules designed to undercut the authority of immigration law judges. He rewrote rules about when people can seek asylum, closing the door on most asylum claims based on family relationships. He's also expanded his authority to issue decisions and bind immigration judges to his opinions, rather than allowing them to decide cases as they see fit. In short, he's been treating them like employees, not independent decision-makers.
>>
But he's mad that the union members have been outspoken about how Trump and Barr's actions are destroying the immigration process. The union has condemned the administration's absurd demand that judges complete 700 cases annually. They pointed out that the backlog of cases and the persistent lack of resources for judges has the effect of trampling due process rights of immigrants.

Of course, Trump famously mocked the idea of due process and is irked that the United States has immigration judges in the first place.

The judges' union isn't taking this lying down. The head of the union fired back and said immigration judges are trial court judges who make decisions on individual cases and "we do not set policies, and we don't manage staff." The union has also argued that immigration judges need to be independent of the DOJ so they could be a genuinely independent court.

Barr's goal, on the other hand, is to destroy their independence utterly. However, that may be the very thing that saves the union. It's awful tough, when you're ruling your employees with an iron fist, to argue that they're really management.
>>
>>445878
Well let me ask you this instead. If Trump had lost the House in a wave election during 2018 as you have said would it also mean that Obama had lost the house in a wave election during 2010? After all from what I understand Obama lost more seats during his first term than Trump had. I therefore disagree with your claim because despite that loss Obama remained an extremely popular president even after his second term. Mid-terms don't really have no coloration to Presidential elections.
>>
>>445891
Trump would have lost more seats if Republicans didn't rig the system with massive voter suppression and gerrymandering.
>>
>>445888
>If Trump doesn't matter to destroy America people will look back at this and wonder how the fuck this all happened and be horrified and what he did.

Honestly if you want to talk about all the terrible shit that America did, then it really started well before Trump. This has happened under both the Democrat and the Republican turns at governance. Guess what happened to those stain on American history? People forgot those too. Don't pretend this started happening on Trump's watch. Those concentration camps have existed for a decade. What make you thing this particular people will remember? This is just business as usual.
>>
>>445766
What is the population of the United States?
>>
>>445892
I'm not going to argue with you on whether or not your assertion of fraud is true. I believe that is another topic entirely. I'm simply looking at what I know which is historically it is normal for a President to lose house seats after being elected even if you are a extremely popular president like Obama. Unadjusted for other factors of the numbers do not indicate a "wave" of any sort. The reason why I will not take those into account is that both sides, Democrats and Republicans will inevitably come in after the fact with excuses of why they didn't do as well as they anticipated. For every claim of wrong doing against one party there's another against the other. These all just feel like excuses to me. I'm just going to look at the raw data.
>>
>>445893
>bigger fish to fry
Typical alt right argument.
>>
>>445900
>bigger fish to fry

At which point did I mention anything about bigger fishes? I am just telling you the truth. You claim that this will have an impact on future where people would look at history books and point to this as defining moments of America as a nation. I argue that no. This shit won't be remember because the filthy casuals forget. Normal people aren't fucking autistic like you and me. They have the attention span of gnats and as soon as things fall out of the new cycles, out of sight out of mind. That's why no one remembers that before Trump used these concentration camps, Obama used them and before Obama, Bush did. As much as we want them to remember, they won't. That is simply the truth of the matter.
>>
there are no concentration camps but we should make some for the people who believe there are
>>
>>445893
Your shitty attempt at normalizing atrocities is as empty and hollow as your skull.

You did this. You and yours. It won't last. And neither will you.
>>
>>446015
>normalizing atrocities
?
>>
>>445242
you libs would love for Trump to quit talking about illegal immigaration. ....but guess what......he's not and he is going to win in a landslide.
>>
>>446023
he means brown skinned people cannot be criminals if they illegally cross the border. Putting criminals in jails is an atrocity in his eyes.
>>
>>446015
>Your shitty attempt at normalizing atrocities

Attempts? I attempted nothing. This shit's been normal for decades. This isn't news. The only reason you only heard about it now is because the guy doing has triggered the shit out of you.

>You did this. You and yours.

Whose side do you even assume I am on? I've criticized both sides in my posts. This is the problem with you and yours. Anyone who doesn't toe your line 100% is somehow extremist. The fact of the matter is that this is a systemic issue that happen no matter who is in charge. Voting against Trump wouldn't stop these places from existing. All that happens is you'll just stop hearing on TV but business will go on.
>>
>>445891
>Obama had lost the house in a wave election during 2010?
Absolutely 2010 was a red wave. See how easy being intellectually honest is?
I am the one who you are replying to and I take issue with what I quoted.
>wave must take both houses
I asked you for your source on this. This is just your opinion. I made no claims about correlation between midterms and second term elections and I made no claims about wave elections and future popularity.
Cheers.
>>
>>446084
>See how easy being intellectually honest is?
im always entertained at wrong people being smug. you are talking to two of us at the moment. by my eye, i think that was anons first post in the conversation you and i were having

>>446084
>>wave must take both houses
>I asked you for your source on this. This is just your opinion.
there is no textbook definition for 'wave' so of course its my opinion. i address that here:
>>445887
>>
Build that wall
>>
>>445274
>ur a racist hitler fascist nazi, you dont want open borders
damn. .. . .. really got him with the one two buckle my shoe. its like you fags are aware that you've been spouting bullshit insults at the right for your entire lives and the moment something sort of seems like it could possibly be construed as acknowledging of the baseless insults, you go 'woah thats crazy'. CIVIL WAR NOW.
>>
>>446096
I don’t think you realize you are speaking to multiple people anon.
How answering a question being smug?
>>
>>446107
>How answering a question being smug?
saying 'see how easy it is to be intellectually honest?' thats a bit smug in my opinion. and before anyone asks, no i dont have a source for that opininion! its just an opinion.
>>
>>446111
Nice trips.
It was meant as a call out against the pretzel logic I see all over this site. However, it’s not my place to tell you how to read it - merely giving you my intent.
>>
>>446149
Fair enough. It was how I read it. But that is not to say that's how you meant it. And good day.
>>
how about to become a citizen you must spend 4 years working in a peace corp doing economic development in south america, south america becomes a better place, and they decide not to immigrate after all
>>
>>446084
>Absolutely 2010 was a red wave. See how easy being intellectually honest is?

I on the other hand disagree. 2010 was not a red wave and by that definition neither was 2016 a blue wave. As the other anon mentioned there is no definitive definition for "waves". I observe nothing aside from the standard "newly elected president loses congress" syndrome that happen every cycle. I believe my beliefs are consistent though our outlook differs.

>I asked you for your source on this. This is just your opinion. I made no claims about correlation between midterms and second term elections and I made no claims about wave elections and future popularity.

I have no sources for you because I was not the anon who mentioned that a wave must take both houses. Which was also why I refrained from commenting on it. I believe that anon should be >>446096
>>
OP is a cock gobbling faggot, but those cats are cute.
>>
>>446616
Thanks anon. I am not gay but I can find someone for you.
They are actually cheetahs.
>>
>>445902
>Taking it literally and strawmaning
As expected of an alt-righter
>>
>>445512
It's comical to pretend that you can accurately assess the collective behavior of a group which is by it's very nature undocumented, untracked, and an unknown.
>>
>>446625
>I dismiss your data and choose to believe what my fee fees tell me
>>
>>446630
Your link doesn't work for me and I'm totally anti-border. I'm just saying that the entire premise is illogical when no certain accounting of the number of undocumented immigrants or their locations exists.
>>
>>446625
People estimate the number of bears in the United States and they don't have to report to the census.
>>
>>446638
Key word being estimate. Last I checked we don't perform wild eDNA assays for human ethnic sub-populations. We really don't even know how accurate our population models are for wild species.
>>
>>446642
Just because a data set is imperfect or incomplete doesn't mean it's rational to just dismiss it out of hand and believe whatever you want. The best data available suggests that illegals immigrants commit less crime than citizens. If there's some basis for believing otherwise, go ahead and post it.
>>
>>446625
>crime rates of population groups are unknowable
That’s incorrect anon. Estimates come with margins of error. In this case if the margins of error were completely polarized you could still make the same point.
>I don’t understand
Bottom line: immigrants commit less crime than natives, and this is knowable.
>>
>>445242
Reddit awaits
>>
>>445313
>the media has a conservative bias
are you talking about fox news and small time youtube channels?
Because
>CNN
>MSNBC
>ABC
>various newspaper outlets (NYT, LAT, HuffPo, etc.)
are the mainstream news sources, and while Fox is bigger than them individually, they're still reaching more people.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see what you mean.
>>
>>446677
Illegal immigrants have a 100% crime rate.
>>
>>446624
>Taking it literally and strawmaning

Please explain how I was strawmaning. Also if I was not supposed to take it literally how was your statement supposed to be interpreted figuratively?
>>
>>445223
Yeah, /pol/llurds are pretty damn stupid.
>>
>>447080
This is a very disingenuous and purposefully obtuse way to approach this data. Everyone who has been paying attention to the conversation knows that the president specifically talks about violent crime/drugs/rapes in reference to illegal immigrants.
>>
>>447080
In the same way every American who has jaywalked or broken a traffic law has a 100% crime rate. Misdemeanors all.
>>
>>447383
>Everyone who has been paying attention to the conversation knows that the president can't accurately quote a number to save his life
>they also know that trump hires commit felonies at higher rates than undocumented immigrants
>>
>>447378
It's the fact that you think it's not.
>>
>>447421
Have any of Trump’s illegal hires committed a crime? Inquiring minds want to know.
>>
>>447568
Please elaborate and explain yourself in a way I can understand.
>>
>>447577
Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous... you really need a list?
>>
>>447794
Those are US citizens...I think. Crappy ones for sure but still native US citizens.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.