Pages

Monday, January 30, 2017

Media as the opposition that cannot resist sugar...

Yesterday I limited my political morning viewing to a taping of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's become increasingly difficult to get through any Sunday morning political show these days (especially the round tables), as every interview seems to lead into "gotcha questions" and every discussion revolves around things that are considered "controversial".


On Fox News Sunday, the panel engaged in a discussion surrounding the concept that the current Administration considers the media to be an "opposition Party".  This led to Charles Lane suggesting that just because they are the "opposition" doesn't mean that they have to be "enemies". Other discussions included a sugar vs savory metaphor that suggested that the media will always be attracted to the controversial over the noncontroversial, and that it's up to those politicians to avoid providing any "sugar" if they want the media to report on the "savory" tidbits they offer.

This made me curious as to whether or not they even understand how little credibility that they currently have, much less have any understanding as to why.

The word they should be looking for here is "neutral" and other word they should be looking at is "importance". The idea that there is an acceptance at this point that they are no longer neutral, but should be considered "opposition" is very telling. The fact that they admit that they no longer cover the meat and potatoes, and are easily distracted by the side shows should be alarming to every one. Hard to be any sort of "news media" if your entire concept of the news demands that all that matters is what is considered "confrontational" or "controversial".

The reality is that political journalist are no different than say a sports journalist. Imagine if your typical sports journalist behaved in the same manner as the political journalist? Imagine at the end of the game, if they always interviewed the defensive back who got burned, rather than the wide receiver who caught the game winning pass, because they wanted to ask the "tough question". What if they failed to report on the actual score of the game, and wrote five articles about holding penalty on third down that wasn't called? What if they didn't cover the draft, trades, playoff standings or anything else of substance? How long would they remain sports writers if they spent all their time looking into a player's past or extracurricular behavior rather than judging their performance during the game? Not very long.

In the past week we have seen:
  • Freeze on federal hiring
  • Executive order to start building "the wall"
  • Executive orders to restart two pipeline projects
  • Order to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services to start to unravel the ACA. 
  • Executive action that bans refugees from Syria indefinitely and from six other countries for 120 days.
Reality is that you would almost have to do your own research to even know that these things even happened, much less to get any analysis into the possible positive effects or negative repercussions of actual new policy. This is honest to goodness real life news about real life policies that will effect real life people.

Instead, the media is reporting about inauguration crowd sizes, the protests over the travel ban portion of the executive action on refugees (that has already been reversed), and a threat from the President about a 20% tax on Mexican imports (that isn't even a real proposal). In other words, they are not looking for issues that are potentially "important" anymore, they simply look for issues that are potentially "confrontational" and "controversial". Something that might provide them with the next tough question or gotcha moment.

But sometimes people turn on the local sports radio show to get the scores of the local games, whether or not anyone was hurt or traded, and how the teams might be playing. There is always a place for analysis and opinions about whether or not the latest draft pick was wise, whether the team should make a trade, or change their strategy. But the latter doesn't seem to take on much importance if you are not provided with the former.

61 comments:

KD USSC Nominee is ??? said...

I agree, I have all but stopped watching the Nation News in the evening, bias against the NEW President is in full view.

Wait until he announces his new Supreme Court Justice, omg, better have the duck tape ready and pre-tape the head of your fav Liberal.

caliphate4vr said...

remember, the carpenter, thinks single payer is the best


Pain-level rationing of hip and knee surgery due to cash crisis, admits NHS

KD, ObamaCare gift to my family a 27% Increase in 2017 Alone said...

Well, my Health Care insurance company was forced to provide to those non-payers and my family rate for 2017 just skyrocketed by $178 a month. That is not the promise of the UN-Affordable Care Act of a decrease of $2,500 a year.

The thing is, Obama promised and failed to make good on any of the keys to his plan, but for, the transfer of wealth from my family to the illegals on ObimboCare.

I am glad to see this President has ordered a full vetting of every single person on ObamaCare that receives money from the US Tax Payer and make god damn sure they are a Legal American.

opie said...

Pain-level rationing of hip and knee surgery due to cash crisis, admits NHS

Tell us how GB's travails will occur here? You used them as an example why the ACA would fail and start rationing care. You sure haven't learned much about predictions since you are about 0-30 so far. LOL

caliphate4vr said...

Fatty you couldn't get treated in the UK

Four in five NHS trusts are restricting surgery for obese patients - and one has banned ALL routine ops for those deemed too fat

Roger Amick said...

My Medicare Kaiser Permanente senior advantage is $160/month. Max out of pocket $4,400.

That's what you get if you have a properly managed single payer system.

If they privatize it, with my pre existing condition, it would sky rocket.

opie said...

Anonymous caliphate4vr said...
Fatty you couldn't get treated in the UK

Problem is drunkard I don't live there and the probability of that occurring here is dependent on assholes like you maintaining the congress My guess, zero and none. LOL

caliphate4vr said...

Daily Beast editor: Non-Cosmopolitan Rural Voters For Trump are the ‘Real Problem’

KD, Easy to show HB is wrong said...

That's what you get if you have a properly managed single payer system." ACLU Barbie

you are wrong, very wrong, but you don't know enough for me to explain it and how wrong you are.

Let me give you a hint, before going on Medicare, did you have a life time of payroll deductions?

Myballs said...

The left has become all hysteria, all hypocrisy, all the time. And they wonder why they've lost over a thousand seats nationwide, along with the presidency, both houses of congress, and 2/3 governorships.

Roger Amick said...

I have a serious question for you CH.

How much longer can the Republicans outside of the White House, continue to support the erratic and impulsive behavior out of loyalty? If they finally just can't take it anymore, what will they do?

Commonsense said...

If they privatize it, with my pre existing condition, it would sky rocket.

Hey genius, what you're in is a premium support of a private health plan.

I dare you to go strictly medicare to get the "benefits" of a single payer system like Great Britain has.

KD said...

How much longer can the Republicans outside of the White House, continue to support the erratic and impulsive behavior out of loyalty?
ACLU Barbie


Answer, the Republicans Elites never have/had supported the President, that is why their voice means so little, did you see Schummer crying, omg, it was bad acting and a even weaker script.

rrb said...

This made me curious as to whether or not they even understand how little credibility that they currently have, much less have any understanding as to why.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

especially charles lane. he was stephen glass' boss at the new republic.

'nuff said.

C.H. Truth said...

That's not a serious question Roger.

It would be like me asking you...

How long can the Democrats pretend to be more angry about what happened today than they were about what happened yesterday which was worse than what happened the day before which was way worse than what happened the day before that?

What are they going to do when they run out energy and there is no longer any headroom left on the outrage scale?


I got news for you Roger. Trump will be Trump for the next four (and likely eight) years. The Democrats better come up with a strategy that is more than just getting up in front of the camera, acting outraged, and pretending that whatever it is that Trump did today is the last straw, and the total destruction of the very fiber of human existence is just around the corner.

Myballs said...

What erratic impulsive behavior? Everything he is doing he spent the entire campaign telling us he would do it.

You may not like the policies, but it's precisely what he ran on and the country voted for.

caliphate4vr said...

I got news for you Roger. Trump will be Trump for the next four (and likely eight) years. The Democrats better come up with a strategy that is more than just getting up in front of the camera, acting outraged, and pretending that whatever it is that Trump did today is the last straw, and the total destruction of the very fiber of human existence is just around the corner.

They can always cry like Chucky did

rrb said...

How much longer can the Republicans outside of the White House, continue to support the erratic and impulsive behavior out of loyalty?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

around about 8 years.

myballs laid it out for you, alky:

"Anonymous Myballs said...
The left has become all hysteria, all hypocrisy, all the time. And they wonder why they've lost over a thousand seats nationwide, along with the presidency, both houses of congress, and 2/3 governorships."

your dear leader's greatest legacy is the almost total destruction of your party.

you clowns haven't been this politically weak in 100 years. and you're worried about how long the GOP will support trump?

LOL.

don't look now skippy, but you have bigger fish to fry than worrying about how trump and the GOP will get along.

you act like you have some actual political power.

all you have are snatch hats and soros $$$. go sit in the fucking corner and shut up like bannon told you to.

the adults are in charge now!!!

LOL.

rrb said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
What erratic impulsive behavior? Everything he is doing he spent the entire campaign telling us he would do it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


precisely. trump is governing exactly as he campaigned. and all the left can do is dress like a bearded clam and ask uncle georgie to pick up the tab for their "spontaneous" tantrums.



you're talking to someone who has the political prognostication skills of a potted plant.

Commonsense said...

precisely. trump is governing exactly as he campaigned. and all the left can do is dress like a bearded clam and ask uncle georgie to pick up the tab for their "spontaneous" tantrums.

That's not erratic that's consistency.

Now if you want real examples of morbid psychosis, just look what happen to the liberal minds after November 8.

I don't think they will ever recover. Even after intense institutionalization.

Roger Amick said...

The question was from a comment by conservative Bill Kristol. He said that the Republicans are very worried about the erratic and impulsive behavior by your BFF. So, if you were really informed truth seeker, you would give an honest answer, instead of a childish insult,ala rrb.

Hook, line and sinker. You've been had, again. When you come up for air, give an honest Coldheartedtruth response. They are increasingly rare.

KD said...

you don't like answers ACLU Barbie, you even had to steal the question.

Tell us again how you believe after your wife in you paid in over $750,OOO dollars over your working lives and still have to pay in and additional $160 a month and cap for out of pocket expenses per year of $4,400 that you believe this is what we should all have.

No Thanks.

KD said...

ACLU Barbie, how big of a supporter of Trump Was Krystal during his bid for the Nomination and after he won that how big was he on President Trump defeating little loser hillbilly?

I assume he had to had been Yuge, to be so concerned now about President Trump, Right?

Loretta Russo said...

Bill Kristol, lmao.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
The question was from a comment by conservative Bill Kristol.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

oh, you mean the original never trumper and granddaddy of the never trump movement?

THAT bill kristol???

roger, you have the political awareness of a two year old.

any criticism of trump coming from bill kristol is a fucking joke.

Roger Amick said...

William "Bill" Kristol (born December 23, 1952) is an American neoconservative[1] political analyst and commentator. He is the founder and editor at large[2] of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and a political commentator on several networks.

Kristol is associated with a number of prominent conservative think tanks. He was chairman of the New Citizenship Project from 1997 to 2005. In 1997, he co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Robert Kagan. He is a member of the board of trustees for the free-market Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a member of the Policy Advisory Board for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. He is also one of the three board members of Keep America Safe, a think tank co-founded by Liz Cheney and Debra Burlingame, and serves on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel and the Susan B. Anthony List.[3]

rrb said...



i know who bill kristol is, alky.

and i didn't even need to wiki his ass.

grow up.

Roger Amick said...

For many principled conservatives, the rise of Donald Trump has proved to be a rude awakening. Their coalition is much less principled, and much more open to manipulative populism, misogynistic vulgarities, and xenophobic appeals than they imagined. As talk radio host Tony Beam put it on the day Ted Cruz dropped out of the GOP primary, making Trump the presumptive nominee, “I have to face the fact that maybe that is who we are. You've probably seen the numbers. 6 or 7 out of 10 Republicans—I think it's been consistently 6 out of 10 agree that we ought to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States. And so maybe this whole thing is a collective voice saying to me, you think this is not who we are? Yeah, it is. Wake up, dude.”

Unfortunately, the rude awakenings keep coming.

For years, Breitbart.com, the web magazine of the populist right founded by the late Andrew Breitbart, has published laughably shoddy journalism, like the smearing of Juan Carlos Vera and the claim that a drunken President Lyndon Johnson boarded a plane and then accidentally dropped nuclear weapons on the United States.


Many conservatives have nevertheless regarded the site as part of their movement.

This primary season, the site has been aggressively pro-Trump. And here’s what Breitbart.com’s front page looked like late Sunday evening and early Monday morning:


That isn’t an anti-Semitic dog whistle—it’s a human whistle. You’d have to be deaf to miss it. And no, it doesn’t matter that the author of the article is himself Jewish.

(It isn’t clear whether or not he wrote the headline.)

Red State's Ben Howe reacted with understandable disgust:


If that bigoted, deeply irresponsible headline remains atop the site Monday morning, a lot of conservatives will react with similar disgust, some publicly, many others privately. As they do so, they might reflect on all the bygone events suggesting that the people who run Breitbart.com would be like poison for movement conservatism––and their coalition’s prospects in the months ahead, as parts of the “alt-right” that Breitbart.com panders to will keep embarrassing Republicans by advocating on behalf of their nominee with ugly anti-Semitic tropes.

Bannon replaced General Kelly. A bigot on the National Intelligence Agency.

C.H. Truth said...

The question was from a comment by conservative Bill Kristol. He said that the Republicans are very worried about the erratic and impulsive behavior by your BFF.

Bill Kristol is the founding member of the Never Trump movement, Roger. He probably was ahead of even Red State founder Erick Erickson as being one of the conservatives who were wild-eyed in their hatred of Trump.

Bill Kristol is the person who is "very worried" has been "very worried" and will continue to be "very worried" about Trump. Those he associates with will likely agree with him.

But with all due respect Roger...

Just because Bill says it's so... doesn't mean it's so.

I know you are part of the eight percent that still believes "everything" you are told by the media, but for the rest of us... you "proving" something with a quote from a "never Trump conservative" or a "Trump is the anti-Christ liberal" media member is very, very tiresome.

Please stop being so impulsive and compulsive about your everlasting fawning love for media opinion...

KD, RRB take your boot of ACLU Barbie's neck said...

ACLU Barbie, I was fun, but damn you are stupid.


So you first steal a question from Krystal, then you get it answered , you don't like the answer , you being unaware he never has nor will support President Trump.


What is next ?

Oh we know, you think paying into a system for your entire working life , then still paying in more to a tune of $160 a year and having a $4,400 yearly out of pocket cap is the DEAL of a Life time.

rrb said...




here's your link, alky,

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/breitbarts-anti-semitic-attack-on-bill-kristol/482862/


rrb said...



MAY 16, 2016 - the date of the latest alky-ism.

LOL.

Roger Amick said...

I figured it out. Our esteemed host and President Trump share a psychological disorder.

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

Commonsense said...

Wow, talk about projection.

I don't know why he puts up with you.

rrb said...



Roger Amick said...
I figured it out. Our esteemed host and President Trump share a psychological disorder.

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


you diagnosed the previous president. not CH. but you're right about one thing - he is our host. and you should start showing some respect and gratitude for his hospitality.

no wonder he blocked you on facebook.

you are an asshole on stilts.



C.H. Truth said...

Roger is upset... because he apparently didn't realize that Bill Kristol and Red State both represent anti-Trump journalism. Apparently he thought that the idea that Bill Kristol and Red State were not on board with Donald Trump, that it would automatically convince other conservatives. That comes from the erroneous thinking that everyone is as "influenced" by the media as he is, and that the rest of us were as uninformed about where Kristol and Red State has stood since the beginning of this whole thing.

So he has to take it out by calling other people names.

rrb said...



It begins: $85 billion in regulations face the ax, $5.7 billion this week

On the heels of President Trump's new executive order to kill two regulations for every one he institutes, Congress this week stands ready to kill a handful of former President Obama's "midnight regulations" that were set to cost businesses and consumers $5.7 billion.

What's more, the moves will put into action a series of cuts to burdensome regulations, many in the financial and environmental industries, that will save the country tens of billions of dollars.

"The Obama administration was busy during its 'midnight' period for regulation, breaking records for December regulatory output, and publishing $157 billion in regulations," according to a new report from the regulatory watchdog American Action Forum.

[...]

And if Trump gets very aggressive, a total of $85 billion in regulations could be repealed this spring.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-begins-85-billion-in-regulations-face-the-ax-5.7-billion-this-week/article/2613342



BOOM!!! right alky?

LOL.


Roger Amick said...

The claim of 8% comes from Breitbart.
The truth is not debatable.

Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low

by Art Swift
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

32% say they have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust
14% of Republicans express trust, down from 32% last year
Confidence drops among younger and older Americans
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year.

Americans' Trust in the Mass Media

Gallup began asking this question in 1972, and on a yearly basis since 1997. Over the history of the entire trend, Americans' trust and confidence hit its highest point in 1976, at 72%, in the wake of widely lauded examples of investigative journalism regarding Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. After staying in the low to mid-50s through the late 1990s and into the early years of the new century, Americans' trust in the media has fallen slowly and steadily. It has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.

Republicans Fuel Drop in Media Trust

While it is clear Americans' trust in the media has been eroding over time, the election campaign may be the reason that it has fallen so sharply this year. With many Republican leaders and conservative pundits saying Hillary Clinton has received overly positive media attention, while Donald Trump has been receiving unfair or negative attention, this may be the prime reason their relatively low trust in the media has evaporated even more. It is also possible that Republicans think less of the media as a result of Trump's sharp criticisms of the press. Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14% from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years.

rrb said...



the daily beast fell for 'fake news' in reporting on the quebec mosque shooting:


Editor’s note: This piece originally stated that Reuters reported the names of the assailants. However, the information came from a Reuters parody social-media account. We regret the error and have deleted the information.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/29/shooting-reported-at-quebec-city-mosque.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl



but 8% of the daily beast readership still believes their original report, right rog?



rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
The claim of 8% comes from Breitbart.
The truth is not debatable.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

no, it actually comes from the gallup poll breakdown. if you bothered to look at it you would know this.



13. In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, T.V. and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

2016 Sept. 7 - 11

Great deal 8%


C.H. Truth said...

The claim comes from Gallup Roger:

http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/195575/Confidence_in_Mass_Media_160914%20.pdf

In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media -- such as newspapers, T.V. and radio -- when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?

Great deal - 8%
Fair amount - 24%
Not very much - 41%
None at all - 27%


It's only debatable if you don't bother to actually research it on your own.

KD, said...

ACLU Barbie is UPSET.

It has been going on since SOARS>

However, it had gotten so bad the Morning of Nov 9th , 2016, he said he was leaving the USA.

Yet, like all liberals , he threw the tantrum and still is in the USA .

I have never seen a single poster here that is a Conservative or Indy say they were going to leave the USA .

Effeminate , emotional and childish = ACLU Barbie

Roger Amick said...

Statement from Kevin Lewis, Spokesperson to Former President Barack Obama:

President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy--not just during an election but every day.

Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials ¡s exactly what we expect to see
when American values are at stake.

With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.

This is why we miss this man.

rrb said...

he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy--not just during an election but every day.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

this from the asshole who used to prop up that paragon of voter fraud and corruption, ACORN.

LOL.

good one rog!

Roger Amick said...

Great deal and fair amount total to 32%.

It is exclusively created by the successful propaganda campaign against the free press.

KD said...

Sometimes it is best to review what ACLU Barbie Said, and why she is so upset today.

"Roger Amick said...
That was 12 years ago. It was just an impulse. Not based on the numbers.

It's like you today. The numbers are all showing that unless there is a dramatic event, Hillary Clinton will be elected by a significant amount. The popular vote won't be as bad as Goldwater, but the ECV will not be close.

Trump will leave behind, a deeply divided Republican party. On top of that, the changing demographics are, yes, going to keep the White House and probably the Senate this time. And if Clinton is successful in destroying the terrorists, and the economy in good shape, even the house will change too. Yes, this is just speculation, but the odds are in my favor.

The 2020 census is a wild card. But if the Republican party loses control in a lot of state legislatures, the Gerrymandering of 2010 will be reversed.

All that will be caused by Donald J Trump llc.
August 27, 2016 at 12:27 AM "

C.H. Truth said...

It is exclusively created by the successful propaganda campaign against the free press.

Sure Roger... only 8 percent have a great deal of faith in the media, because the other 92% got suckered by a "propaganda campaign".

Or perhaps the other 92% is mature enough to think for themselves.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Great deal and fair amount total to 32%.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


thank you captain obvious for showing us that you've mastered rudimentary arithmetic.

what's undeniable is that "great deal" was it's own category which did, in fact, come in at 8%.

you what exactly was your point?

KD said...

Remember a time when the Outgoing President left office and respectfully let the new President work to put in place what WE THE PEOPLE voted for and that Elections and winning mattered?

rrb said...

Or perhaps the other 92% is mature enough to think for themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

which is exactly why i watch so much MSDNC.

i mean besides the comic relief, it's my go-to source to learn what lies, hysterics, and fabrications the left will be telling on any given day.

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunkard

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the drunken sycophant.

caliphate4vr said...

Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

“The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University who once worked for energy giant BP, also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

The controversy began in mid-January when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

The report buried the fact that the temperature increase detected by NOAA was 0.01 degrees Celsius. In other words, one-hundredth of a degree – a figure well within the scientific method’s margin of error and one many scientists thus dismissed as meaningless.

KD said...

Cali, you know you need to duct tape Opiums Head first, so it does not splatter on his screen.

Roger Amick said...

60 Minutes did a story about Syrian refugees who wanted to enter the United States.
The process takes a year or more. The video shows how it is done. It extra vesting.

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=OpMi0ZxD0Uw

rrb said...



get this -

my local NPR affiliate - WAMC was just broadcasting their "roundtable."

it's an assortment of garden variety liberal asshats and loons, and a member of the roundtable is a professor of journalism at SUNY Albany.

she just told the audience that she is convinced that if trump sends national guard into chicago it will not be to quell the horrific violence, but to seize rahm emanuel and his staff, and have them thrown into prison a la russia's putin and the way he treats his political enemies.

this is a SUNY professor of journalism here folks.

suddenly that 8% number seems low to me.

rrb said...

Roger Amick said...
60 Minutes did a story about Syrian refugees who wanted to enter the United States.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

yup, i watched it. and yes, it takes a very long time. but not long enough. let them migrate to saudi arabia, pakistan, or even north korea for chrissakes. let them detonate themselves somewhere else.

rrb said...



Most Support Temporary Ban on Newcomers from Terrorist Havens

Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.

These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from "the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/january_2017/most_support_temporary_ban_on_newcomers_from_terrorist_havens


i suppose that if i lived behind walls and fences and gates, and had armed security with me wherever i went, i'd be in favor of letting these "refugees" in too.

but since i don't have any of those luxuries, let those fuckers stay right where they are.

rrb said...



my visits to starbucks just dropped from "very rarely" to "never again.":


Starbucks to hire 10,000 refugees over next 5 years

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Starbucks-to-hire-10-000-refugees-over-next-5-10893649.php



KD said...

I agree, I have will never again give them my hard earned dollars .

We should start with all banks having to report to President Trump the accounts they hold for Illegals in the USA.

After all we under write those banks.

There is so much that Obama has fucked up it will take years to in-fuck it.

KD said...

A deeper question, why is it those able aged smart hard working illegals make a stand in their own country and compete against the USA.

IF, as fake tears Schumker believes they are the greatest people to ever walk this earth. Did little chuckie schumker ever cry for the people killed in SHITcago?

Got Tape?