The facts about Trump’s policy of separating families at the border

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Border protection is all about dog-whistling. It's about keeping the focus on what a great job the government is doing at protecting you from those scary foreigners.

[Al Swearegen]

Most people are decent people and will not seek to harm others even if given the chance. Most people wont steal, murder, or rape. Therefore why have a police force. It has no real function and its real purpose is purely a dog whistle to the scary citizens and a form of government oppression.

In other words your premise is ridiculous

[Al Swearegen]

The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.

I cited more sources than just the ACLU.

Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.

So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?

You got a problem with factcheck.org too?  Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?

I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?

The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".

You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.

An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.

So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.

I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.

So I looked into FactCheck.org. Definitely left leaning and tied to Obama through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge of which he is a board member


Other organizations and programs of the Foundation

Annenberg Challenge: In 1993, the largest gift to public education was made by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a $500 million grant named the Annenberg Challenge. The grant was designed to unite the resources throughout the United States and ideas of those committed to increasing the effectiveness of public schooling. Recognizing that no single gift could improve all schools, the Challenge served as a catalyst to energize and support educational reform efforts across the country.

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University: AISR was established at Brown University in 1993 through an anonymous gift of $5 million. Several months later, a $50-million gift – part of Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500-million Challenge to the Nation to improve public education in America – enabled the fledgling Institute to expand the scope of its work. In appreciation of the Ambassador's gift, AISR was renamed in his honor. AISR adopted its current mission in 1998: “To develop, share, and act on knowledge that improves the conditions and outcomes of schooling in America, especially in urban communities and in schools serving disadvantaged children.“

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania developed FactCheck.org. Factcheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.

So YUP that is NOT "Middle of the road" it is Left.


The Chicago Tribune? Well let's look at the viewership of Chicago Tribune and who their readership is

https://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois

https://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-results/state-by-state/

But hang on that is for ALL of Illinois NOT JUST Chicago. Maybe Chicago was not very Democrat. Maybe only the rest of Illinois was and the numbers were mainly outside of Chicago?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg/187px-Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg.png

Yikes! Where is Chicago?

https://www.ezilon.com/maps/united-states/illinois-geographical-maps.html

So....the Chicago Tribune is likely there to serve its readership who are solidly Liberal. You can pretty much guarantee they are left leaning.

I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.

Are you going to provide the balance or are you sticking to heavily left leaning for your unbiased information?

I am thinking you would be looking at maybe

* A Conservative not for profit like Judicial Watch
* A local newspaper in a heavily Conservative Demographic county
* A Large Far Right or very Conservative online News publication
* maybe another group like Turning point

and such

Then you will come a bit closer to non-bias if that is what you are looking for?

[El]

The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.

I cited more sources than just the ACLU.

Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.

So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?

You got a problem with factcheck.org too?  Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?

I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?

The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".

You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.

An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.

So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.

I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.

So I looked into FactCheck.org. Definitely left leaning and tied to Obama through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge of which he is a board member


Other organizations and programs of the Foundation

Annenberg Challenge: In 1993, the largest gift to public education was made by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a $500 million grant named the Annenberg Challenge. The grant was designed to unite the resources throughout the United States and ideas of those committed to increasing the effectiveness of public schooling. Recognizing that no single gift could improve all schools, the Challenge served as a catalyst to energize and support educational reform efforts across the country.

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University: AISR was established at Brown University in 1993 through an anonymous gift of $5 million. Several months later, a $50-million gift – part of Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500-million Challenge to the Nation to improve public education in America – enabled the fledgling Institute to expand the scope of its work. In appreciation of the Ambassador's gift, AISR was renamed in his honor. AISR adopted its current mission in 1998: “To develop, share, and act on knowledge that improves the conditions and outcomes of schooling in America, especially in urban communities and in schools serving disadvantaged children.“

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania developed FactCheck.org. Factcheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.

So YUP that is NOT "Middle of the road" it is Left.


The Chicago Tribune? Well let's look at the viewership of Chicago Tribune and who their readership is

https://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois

https://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-results/state-by-state/

But hang on that is for ALL of Illinois NOT JUST Chicago. Maybe Chicago was not very Democrat. Maybe only the rest of Illinois was and the numbers were mainly outside of Chicago?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg/187px-Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg.png

Yikes! Where is Chicago?

https://www.ezilon.com/maps/united-states/illinois-geographical-maps.html

So....the Chicago Tribune is likely there to serve its readership who are solidly Liberal. You can pretty much guarantee they are left leaning.

I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.

Are you going to provide the balance or are you sticking to heavily left leaning for your unbiased information?

I am thinking you would be looking at maybe

* A Conservative not for profit like Judicial Watch
* A local newspaper in a heavily Conservative Demographic county
* A Large Far Right or very Conservative online News publication
* maybe another group like Turning point

and such

Then you will come a bit closer to non-bias if that is what you are looking for?

I was using this:  http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/

Perhaps you should send them an email with your critique.

What do you think of the chart as an alternative?

[Al Swearegen]

Sure, but it is regardless of your methods to be balanced you weren't. Even were some of the sources were "middle of the road" which you cited the as -though they weren't) you would still not have balance. Youd have 3 or 4 left leaning and one or two neutral and none right leaning. That is not balance. But now worse is those neutral were left leaning and worse still you had no idea.

So...are you going to be balanced or is this simply your Progressively aligned opinion backed by Liberal taljing points. It is okay if this is the case.

Well to be honest I have only seen and read from maybe 50-60% of these publications. Mostly they are accurate portrayed.

There are only a couple which are seriously and ridiculously placed. Time. Slightly Conservative and Minimal Partisan Bias? That is a joke. I get too that they may have been long ago and resting on laurels and such but they seriously are neither. They are definitely left leaning and they are hardly propagandists for the left but they are likely around the position that CNN occupies on the chart. Does that mean they are as Liberal and biased as CNN? Hell no! CNN is nowhere close to Slightly Biased and reasonable Fact Checkers.


Same with New York Times and Washington Post. Though with these two they are harder to define because they lack consistency. Whilst they clearly are pandering to the Democrats and Liberals as much as Fox News does Trump and the Conservative base, sometimes at seemingly random occasions to write sometimes complete out of the political box so to speak. Almost redemptive to restore some credibility. (something I have seen Huffington Post do too) So some shift down and left but not overly. CNBC would likely align with them because CNBC doesn't do this redemptive checking and are more consistently less biased or propagandist.

Buzzfeed, Daily Kos and Vox are Hyper Partisan and Propagandists

Wall Street Journal should be skews Conservative. Drudge should move a little Left. Blaze should be a little right.

AP skews Liberal but is not non-factual.

Dailywire and Daily Caller and Breitbart should be lifted to where Federalist is and OAN should be where American Conservative is.

This is my interpretation.

PS I get my info from Youtube including pieces from CNN, MSNBC and Fox,  Associated Press, News.com.au, MSN, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Reddit, Twitter and Quora

[odeon]

And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?

You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.

You lot are a sad bunch.

[Jack]

Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.

[Al Swearegen]

And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?

You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.

You lot are a sad bunch.

How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?

Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?

Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?

You are pretty sad Odeon.

[Icequeen]

I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.

Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...



Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... 

[Gopher Gary]

Can't get more clear than that. 

[Al Swearegen]

I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.

Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...



Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... 

Now what and whom was this directed at?

a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?

ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.

So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.

[odeon]

And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?

You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.

You lot are a sad bunch.

How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?

Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?

Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?

You are pretty sad Odeon.

You're not making much sense, Al. I guess it goes with the territory, trying to defend the indefensible. And that's just sad, too.

[odeon]

I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.

Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...



Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... 

Now what and whom was this directed at?

a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?

ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.

So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.

[Al Swearegen]

And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?

You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.

You lot are a sad bunch.

How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?

Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?

Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?

You are pretty sad Odeon.

You're not making much sense, Al. I guess it goes with the territory, trying to defend the indefensible. And that's just sad, too.

What is not defensible.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009916650622251009

But has the news given her or her family shit recently? Could she be giving a middle finger to them?

In the same way people go out of their way to give the middle finger to her family?



It seems quite a defensible position. I have no idea if it is true or not but to say "No, no, no she definitely meant it some other way and I base this off nothing in particular but my own bias and hatred of everything Trump and irrespective to being told explicitly otherwise by probably the closest person in the world to her", is pretty fucking indefensible.

[Icequeen]

Now what and whom was this directed at?

a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?

ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.

So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.

Learn to ignore me Al, it's easier.