BLAME GAME

[rodoheel]

That wasn’t my point. My point was that despite the way many Americans have viewed this country, we were nothing special or unique. And the fact that we have been following the same volatile and fluctuating political/ideological course as much of the rest of the world over the past ~10 years should make that obvious to everyone by now, and disprove the historical notions of American exceptionalism.

It should also help people to realize that the idea pushed by Trump and others that we can basically do what we want ton the world stage without worrying about the rest of the world - i.e., America First, and everyone else last - is naive and best and idiotic at worst. The modern world is too interconnected for us to be able to insulate ourselves from the effects of things that happen elsewhere. And not only that, that interconnectedness is an important guarantor of world peace; it gives the countries of the world motivation to work together to maintain the flow of global commerce. Trump's tendency to treat international diplomacy like transactional deal-making in which we're trying to "win" every interaction with a foreign nation (and in doing so ignoring the utility and effects of soft power that have helped make the USA the dominant global power) is going to help drive the US and the world to a place where more countries have incentive to consider being outright hostile to us (and more friendly with our enemies) because we refuse to be friendly or willing partners in anything.

 

[superrific]

because we refuse to be friendly or willing partners in anything.

And to add to an excellent post: live up to our treaty agreements.

 

[ZenMode]

Did you read any of the fine print at all? Three times on those charts, it was explained that the post-2020 numbers include categories of actions that were not included prior to that. Thus, you're not comparing same to same. It's like when people say that MJ wasn't that good in college because he *only* scored 20 a game, without understanding at all that he was playing without a shot clock or three point line (for the most part).

I mean, why is it so hard for you to do even the bare minimum. You spent much longer looking for that chart than it would take to read the notes. And what you have done is make yourself look like an idiot.

I actually followed what was reported by CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. THEY acknowledged and covered the known border crisis, so maybe fix your rectal-cranial inversion.

 

[finesse]

I actually followed what was reported by CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. THEY acknowledged and covered the known border crisis, so maybe fix your rectal-cranial inversion.

And how many people here have been saying they didn't do their jobs in covering anything when the facts we're presenting now are so easy to find? That dog don't hunt.

 

[superrific]

I actually followed what was reported by CNN, ABC, NBC, etc. THEY acknowledged and covered the known border crisis, so maybe fix your rectal-cranial inversion.

Oh fuck off. You posted a chart purporting to demonstrate something that it absolutely does not demonstrate and it says so right on the front of the chart in easy to read text.

That's on you. You, and you alone, are responsible for posting that bullshit. It doesn't matter what those news stations reported (and I have no idea if you're correct about that). Take responsibility for yourself. You posted a lie; you got called out for it; and now you're trying to shift the blame to me, as if it's somehow wrong for me to point out your falsehoods.

You, and you alone, are responsible for your own bullshit. That goes for me and my bullshit, except my bullshit doesn't exist in part because I take responsibility for it (i.e. I don't run with bullshit).

 

[ZenMode]

Oh fuck off. You posted a chart purporting to demonstrate something that it absolutely does not demonstrate and it says so right on the front of the chart in easy to read text.

That's on you. You, and you alone, are responsible for posting that bullshit. It doesn't matter what those news stations reported (and I have no idea if you're correct about that). Take responsibility for yourself. You posted a lie; you got called out for it; and now you're trying to shift the blame to me, as if it's somehow wrong for me to point out your falsehoods.

You, and you alone, are responsible for your own bullshit. That goes for me and my bullshit, except my bullshit doesn't exist in part because I take responsibility for it (i.e. I don't run with bullshit).

How about you compare FY2020, which included the last months of Trump's term, to Biden's FY's and tell me what you find?

Or compare just the Border Patrol actions, for all FYs listed, and tell me what you find.

 

[superrific]

How about you compare FY2020, which included the last months of Trump's term, to Biden's FY's and tell me what you find?

View attachment 8572

You wrote this:

" I don't remember where I found the table, but it showed, I believe, over the last X number of years, the first three years of Biden's term were all higher than all but one of the past years."

The table did not show that. Just admit that you were wrong.

Also, if you don't understand what was different about FY2020 than all other years, I don't know what to say. Just admit you were wrong. I know how much you hate doing it, but you will eventually and the only question is how much you embarrass yourself along the way.

 

[ZenMode]

You wrote this:

" I don't remember where I found the table, but it showed, I believe, over the last X number of years, the first three years of Biden's term were all higher than all but one of the past years."

The table did not show that. Just admit that you were wrong.

Also, if you don't understand what was different about FY2020 than all other years, I don't know what to say. Just admit you were wrong. I know how much you hate doing it, but you will eventually and the only question is how much you embarrass yourself along the way.

All I did was reference the wrong data. The table shows, if you look at Border Patrol actions, the same end result.

 

[superrific]

All I did was reference the wrong data. The table shows, if you look at Border Patrol actions, the same end result.

You truly are something. You read footnote 1, apparently. But not footnote 2. Which says the same thing as footnote 1. And renders your claim invalid in exactly the same way.

As I predicted, you will embarrass yourself along the way.

 

[heelinhell]

They don't vote on their economic self-interest. They vote against that interest routinely. Maybe that's because they don't understand things, in part because they don't pay attention, but the FO is coming after the FA.

If Trump doesn't exempt supply chain movements from his tariff order, he will likely decimate the American car industry in the short term and perhaps permanently. Hey all you autoworkers, yeah you, the guys who won a major contract in part because Biden had your backs -- you ready for your hometowns to be Flintified? Gonna be fun hanging out with your MAGA homies in the unemployment line.

A 25% tariff on a product every time it crosses the border would probably double the price of a new automobile. Maybe a little less than that. Nonetheless, it will make American cars completely unaffordable to Americans and uncompetitive abroad (even before accounting for the retaliatory tariffs).

They knew this. It was explained to them many times. The ones who voted for Trump were not doing so out of economic self-interest.

I watched a tv reporter who attended Trump's inauguration day rally, and the news anchor asked him to assess the enthusiasm in the crowd. The reporter said the crowd went wild when Trump spoke about the border plans and claiming that genders will be officially limited to male and female.
Then the reporter expressed some surprise that when he spoke to inflation and other economic issues, Trump received only an occasional golf clap.

I think the reporter's observation captures the quintessence of this election

 

[Icky Mettle]

I watched a tv reporter who attended Trump's inauguration day rally, and the news anchor asked him to assess the enthusiasm in the crowd. The reporter said the crowd went wild when Trump spoke about the border plans and claiming that genders will be officially limited to male and female.
Then the reporter expressed some surprise that when he spoke to inflation and other economic issues, Trump received only an occasional golf clap.

I think the reporter's observation captures the quintessence of this election

I think the enthusiastic Trump voters voted for him based on things like prejudices toward transgendered people. I think many less enthusiastic Trump voters voted for him based on some belief that he would have answers for inflation that Biden did not and, by extension, that Kamala would not. It is those voters who may have made a difference.

 

[Calheel]

I watched a tv reporter who attended Trump's inauguration day rally, and the news anchor asked him to assess the enthusiasm in the crowd. The reporter said the crowd went wild when Trump spoke about the border plans and claiming that genders will be officially limited to male and female.
Then the reporter expressed some surprise that when he spoke to inflation and other economic issues, Trump received only an occasional golf clap.

I think the reporter's observation captures the quintessence of this election

Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the type of people who go to Trump rallies and the 10% of the voting electorate that can swing in a given election. The rally goers were not voting about inflation. The 10% swing voters? A significant chunk of those people were -- especially the male latino voters.

 

[ZenMode]

You truly are something. You read footnote 1, apparently. But not footnote 2. Which says the same thing as footnote 1. And renders your claim invalid in exactly the same way.

As I predicted, you will embarrass yourself along the way.

An encounter is an encounter, whether it's labeled Title 8 or Title 42. It would be INACCURATE to not include Title 42 in the total, but including those numbers doesn't skew anything.

 

[superrific]

An encounter is an encounter, whether it's labeled Title 8 or Title 42. It would be INACCURATE to not include Title 42 in the total.

It doesn't matter whether inaccurate or not. You were posting a chart purporting to show that the crossings were the highest in many years. Those were your words. But the chart literally does not allow comparisons between anything post-2020 and pre-2020 because the categories contain different things. So it did not support your case AT ALL. It made clear on its face that it doesn't support your case. It was pointed out to you, and you corrected the error as to footnote 1 but repeated the error as to footnote 2 -- right below it!

If it were me, and I was making mistakes that ten year olds wouldn't make, I would be mortified and I would do some serious soul searching as to what happened. I guess that's where you and I differ, perhaps.

 

[ZenMode]

It doesn't matter whether inaccurate or not. You were posting a chart purporting to show that the crossings were the highest in many years. Those were your words. But the chart literally does not allow comparisons between anything post-2020 and pre-2020 because the categories contain different things. So it did not support your case AT ALL. It made clear on its face that it doesn't support your case. It was pointed out to you, and you corrected the error as to footnote 1 but repeated the error as to footnote 2 -- right below it!

If it were me, and I was making mistakes that ten year olds wouldn't make, I would be mortified and I would do some serious soul searching as to what happened. I guess that's where you and I differ, perhaps.

The only way you could believe that the numbers are significantly off is if you believe that title 42 significantly increased people coming to the border.

All that title 42 did, was give us excuse to turn people away that would have otherwise come to the border. No relevant number of people would come to the border because of title 42. That makes no sense at all.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Lol

 

[superrific]

The only way you could believe that the numbers are significantly off is if you believe that title 42 significantly increased people coming to the border.
All that title 42 did, was give us excuse to term people away that would have otherwise come to the border. No relevant number of people would come to the border because of title 42. That makes no sense at all.

I'm done with your bullshit. You purported to justify a factual claim based on a chart that does not support the claim. Now you're resting your position on a concomitant claim (your first sentence) that has no factual support. Are you going to give us a chart on that too? Or are you going to rest with your guesswork?

Here's how a reasonable person would have addressed this situation. That person would add a brief paragraph along the lines of:

Strictly speaking, this chart is comparing different things pre- and post-2020. It's my understanding that the addition of Title 42 expulsions do not substantially affect the bottom line numbers, though I could be wrong about that. I don't have time to dive deeper in the data (or you don't know where to find better data).

After it was pointed out, you could have said, "Good catch. I don't know if Title 42 changes the overall picture."

But instead you chose to insult me for asserting an obvious truth, and have insisted that you were right all along when in fact you were wrong all the time and are now tacitly admitting it.

 

[ZenMode]

I'm done with your bullshit. You purported to justify a factual claim based on a chart that does not support the claim. Now you're resting your position on a concomitant claim (your first sentence) that has no factual support. Are you going to give us a chart on that too? Or are you going to rest with your guesswork?

Here's how a reasonable person would have addressed this situation. That person would add a brief paragraph along the lines of:

Strictly speaking, this chart is comparing different things pre- and post-2020. It's my understanding that the addition of Title 42 expulsions do not substantially affect the bottom line numbers, though I could be wrong about that. I don't have time to dive deeper in the data (or you don't know where to find better data).

After it was pointed out, you could have said, "Good catch. I don't know if Title 42 changes the overall picture."

But instead you chose to insult me for asserting an obvious truth, and have insisted that you were right all along when in fact you were wrong all the time and are now tacitly admitting it.

Again, unless you believe that title 42 drove people to the border in huge numbers, there's no reason to believe they would be significantly different than shown.

My biggest mistake was assuming that you had a valid point with your criticism of the data. I should have looked at your claim more closely before responding.

As far as your complaint about insults... What goes around comes around.

 

[finesse]

I still believe that it is the overall number here, not the totals of who has come and gone. As the link I posted earlier pointed out, we have fewer that in 2007 and it's only fluctuated a million or so for the last dozen years. There are things that need addressing but the idea of some dramatic change at the border that creates a national emergency is absolute garbage.

 

[Yosef]

It's not as complicated as people are trying to make it. Voters didn't pull up percentages/numbers/graphs/venn diagrams (lol) to make their choices. Biden/Harris represented the country going radicalized left and the voters voice said no, not yet. Grocery store prices and far left agendas lost this election.