Random Political comments...

Mueller is worth an estimated $15 million, can you get that rich and connected by being pious? lol. He's a dang lawyer one of many crooked professions who knows all about shady deals,so not quite ready to annoint him angel status.

Why is it the beginning of the end for President Trump? Give me your hard facts, not your happenstance. It's 7 months already.

 

As I have pointed out to you time and time again per this link
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/56022...ortations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration

"Many critics of the Obama administration who want more immigrants expelled from the country point to the removals/returns distinction in order to argue that Obama is inflating his record on enforcement. After all, the total of removals plus returns is lower under Obama than it was under Bush.
But this argument is both overly simplistic and needlessly confusing. The story of the Obama administration on immigration enforcement is that more people than ever are being expelled from the country in a way that prevents them from returning to the US legally or illegally — even though net unauthorized migration has been low and the unauthorized population of the country is down from its 2006 peak.

That's a perfectly suitable definition of "deportation." The government simply can't return more people than are trying to come in to begin with — so returns are partly dependent on the state of the economy. Removals, on the other hand, tell the story of the deliberate policy choices made over the last decade that are having lasting consequences for the people being expelled.

"Removals have much harsher consequences than returns
PEOPLE WHO ARE RETURNED ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FORMAL CONSEQUENCES

Unauthorized immigrants who are removed from the country are ineligible to apply to re-enter legally for a period of years. If they try to come back to the US illegally and succeed (as of 1996) their removal order is "reinstated" and they can be deported again without another trial.

People who are returned, by contrast, are not subject to formal consequences — they can turn back around and try again, or they can apply to re-enter the country legally.

Some critics took issue with that characterization — and the dispute here hinges on the fact that there's no longer any official definition of "deportation." The terminology has changed as policy has changed, and that's creating some confusion today as to what should count as a deportation.

THERE'S NO LONGER AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF 'DEPORTATION'

Currently, the federal government uses two different terms for when it apprehends an unauthorized immigrant and expels him or her from the country. There are "removals," which involve a formal court order. And then there are "returns," which do not. In my article, I used "deportations" to refer to removals only — for reasons explained below.

This distinction matters a fair bit. The Obama administration is on pace for more removals than any president in history. But there have been far fewer returns under Obama than under George W. Bush (chart via The Federalist,* which counts both "removals" and "returns" as "deportations"):



So if you think that measuring returns plus removals is the best way to judge enforcement, then it looks like Obama is less tough than Bush. But there's a strong argument that removals are the appropriate metric to use in this debate. Here's why.

Deportation' is no longer an official legal term
"Deportation" was an official legal term before 1996 — any time the government removed someone from inside the country who was in the US unlawfully, that was considered a deportation.

The Bush administration started the trend of putting a heavier emphasis on removals
During the Bush administration, the thriving economy drew a lot of unauthorized migration. Many of these people were apprehended at the border. Still, many slipped through and the unauthorized population grew significantly.

CRITICS CALLED RETURNS "CATCH-AND-RELEASE" — SO BUSH RAMPED UP REMOVALS

At the time, many critics derided the Bush administration's returns as a "catch-and-release" system — the administration was turning away people at the border who would then come back and try again.

So, in response, the Bush administration decided to ramp up the number of formal orders of removal (and criminal charges) for people who would previously have been returned, says Theresa Brown of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who was a Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security official at the time.

Bush officials figured that relying more heavily on removals would deter people from repeatedly trying to cross the border. This system has persisted under Obama, and is now part of what's called the Consequence Delivery System.

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/56022...ortations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration

Bliss, you are so stuck on the idea that Obama was soft on immigration, a liar, and whatever other negative adjective you want to throw out there you just cannot admit the truth on numerous topics. Face it Bliss, politics is RARELY straight forward and does not lend itself to easy answers and labels, to quote one of my favorite movies, "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad" and NUMEROUS facts support the narrative that Obama was an EXCEPTIONAL president on many different levels, including immigration.

Holder did not decline to prosecute sanctuary cities, this article provide more clarity and context http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

 

http://www.vocativ.com/298019/youth-football-participation-is-plummeting/ This is what will eventually lead to the death of football at all levels, and perhaps the rise of flag football, not as exciting, but much safer.

 

I must say, l have never seen an author, from Vox no less, dance around the issue of fudged numbers.
How many times did l read "THERE'S NO LONGER AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF 'DEPORTATION'
Of course there isn't, lol. What were past Governments thinking!

Then there was the..

"..and the dispute here hinges on the fact that there's no longer any official definition of "deportation." The terminology has changed as policy has changed, and that's creating some confusion today as to what should count as a deportation..."
"...Currently, the federal government uses two different terms for when it apprehends an unauthorized immigrant and expels him or her from the country. There are "removals," which involve a formal court order. And then there are "returns," which do not. In my article, I used "deportations" to refer to removals only — for reasons explained below.

This distinction matters a fair bit. The Obama administration is on pace for more removals than any president in history. But there have been far fewer returns under Obama than under George W. Bush...."

Again...all this fuzzy math.
and now, the 'Deportation" label is moot - we have a new name, ie: "Consequences Delivery System", blah blah.
That's what Dara said.

Now, if she's going to say aallll that, they should stop saying Obama was the 'Deporter in Chief".
Because he really was not.

Thus, you can believe what you want to believe and l will believe my eyes. Not a Vox report that tried to clarify her comments and added all kinds of "what is deportation really aanywaaay?. It's like the comment...'what does race really matter anyway'.

 

Ok, then lets use "forcible removals" per the Newsweek article below, I have given you link after link after link as well as Trump himself agreeing with the numbers below Bliss, we cant ALL be wrong and you are the only one with the truth....

http://www.newsweek.com/illegal-immigration-undocumented-migrants-obama-trump-585726

For a Democrat, Obama took a fairly tough stance, particularly early in his presidency, toward undocumented immigrants. In March 2014, Janet Murguía, president of the National Council on La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, called Obama “the deporter-in-chief.”

It was a criticism that activists leveled at Obama throughout his presidency. From 2009 to 2016, his administration oversaw the forcible removal of more than 3 million undocumented immigrants—most of whom were sent back to Mexico. Neither Bill Clinton, nor George W. Bush, Obama’s two predecessors, came close in reaching his tally over their two terms.

 

It's not going anywhere. It still packs out stadiums, with waiting lists of ten years for some teams, it's expanded into overseas markets, and people watch more games than ever because of fantasy football and gambling. The largest U.S TV audience is still the Superbowl. (with it taking the top 4 spots)

Most watched broadcasts
No. Show Viewership (millions)
1 Super Bowl XLIX 120.7
2 Super Bowl LI 117.5
3 Super Bowl XLVIII 112.2
4 Super Bowl 50 111.9

 

Ahem..It's who you're saying is right. Trump? He got it from her ---> a leader of the Hispanic community who feels one deportation is one too many. C'mon Loki.
Then there's also you...a pure Obama fan.


It's ok...l was like you once, lol.
We can definitely agree to disagree on this one. I think he was lax, you think he was the most strict. Cheers.

 

Yes I agree! I'm not suggesting anything is happening to Football any time soon. Even if I'm right (and I could be wrong!), it would go in this fashion:

1) Today parents of 8 year olds aren't letting them join Football youth leagues very often because they don't want their children to get brain damage
2) Because of point 1, in 2025 or so, you'd see far fewer players looking to join college football teams
3) Because of point 2, the pool of talented college football players to be drafted is notably more shallow in 2030.
4) Because the talent pool is getting smaller and shallower, the audience becomes less interested

2030 is a long way away, though. Tons of things can happen between now and 2030, too. I'm just saying this is a serious problem for the NFL long term. I have a couple friends who have young kids, and they're in the same boat as me: no way we're letting our children choose Football as their sport of choice.

 

Now you know darn well its not just me and Trump saying that (how do you know Trump got his numbers from her?, link please), i have lost count of how many CREDIBLE news sources I have quoted over our many arguments covering multiple threads to back me up on this. And while I have been and remain a staunch Obama supporter, I have been fair in my criticism as well as praise of both him and his administration over the years, not sure you can say the same about Trump so far.

Here is an interesting article detailing how difficult this issue can be Bliss...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eportation-statistics/?utm_term=.57dbf79c5c4f


"This confusion enables political spin, too. If you want to portray Obama as weak on enforcement, use the removal numbers, which, compared to his predecessors, are lower. If you want to make Obama look tougher on enforcement, combine the return and removal numbers (like George W. Bush apparently did) or use the now meaningless “deportation”; both moves would conflate return and removal — and boost the overall number of expulsions.

But don’t expect these nuances to make it into political discourse anytime soon. Way back in 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit described immigration law as “second in complexity only to the internal revenue code.” It would appear little has changed."

Here are the official numbers from the Department of Homeland Security website, do you think they would publish lies for all to see?

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/table39
Table 39. Aliens Removed Or Returned: Fiscal Years 1892 To 2015
Year Removals1 Returns2
2015 333,341 129,122
2014 407,075 163,245
2013 434,015 178,691
2012 416,324 230,360
2011 386,020 322,098
2010 381,738 474,195
2009 391,341 582,596

 

Well there's a point in a child's life that he makes his own decisions. Most parents aren't keeping their kids from Youth football because there is no real concussion threat.

I'm definitively not personally disagreeing with your fear, l totally get you..l'm merely stating these parents out here aren't dissuaded by those fears that aren't present at the grade-school level. And as a child rises through the football ranks, it's hard to look at it objectively through the safety factor by the time he's college age.
A couple of players have quit for the reasons we are discussing but most haven't.

 

Kansas gym BANS its TVs showing CNN and Fox News because members keep arguing and fighting over politics

A Kansas gym has removed all cable news networks from its television monitors after members started quarreling with one another over US politics.

The removal of networks like Fox News and CNN has angered several members of Element Fitness in Lenexa, who have called it a 'ridciulous' act.

Longtime gym member, Judith Zillner, whose father served in the military, told Fox 4: 'That's not what my dad fought for at all.'

'I don't like to be obstructed in my own great environment, that I'm paying for,' gym member Leslie Gutierrez said.

She and Zillner both agree that while working out, people should be able to tolerate news and opinion that doesn't match their own views.

'If there's four televisions sets, surely one of them will have something you like. And you shouldn't get to say the other three can't have what the other people like,' Zillner said.

 

That's really a shame, but I'd add that I think it's so weird that the debate in recent years has been framed as "Fox v CNN," as if CNN is the liberal alternative to Fox's conservatism. It's not! MSNBC is definitely quite liberal, and I do think can be compared to Fox. But CNN is... much less liberal than MSNBC, if it's liberal at all, so I'd define it as "centrist."

Now, "centrist" doesn't necessarily mean "good," because the quality of news is dependent on more things than just whether it's conservative or liberal. But It's just weird to see because CNN is way less liberal than MSNBC, so you'd figure MSNBC would make a better target if the goal was to show a "Conservative v. Liberal" news network war.

 

LOL. Rachel Maddow just exquisitely blasted Fred Trump, Don's papa, as a former Klan member.



Now it all makes sense. Expect a twitter storm to follow in the morning.

 

Come on, give Trump a chance!

#GiveTrumpAChance

 

This isn't new news. This info was released almost 2 years ago in Jan 2016. Does Rachel think she just 'exposed' Fred Trump?

Also...this article questions the arrest..

Washington Post pushes unsubstantiated story that Trump's father attended 'KKK march'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...mps-father-attended-kkk-march/article/2631608

 

Yet you still voted for him good to know lol
Why are you here again?

 

Didn't vote for him. Certainly didn't vote for Fred. Don't you have a black girlfriend? Why are you here again?

 

Because I don't need to date ww to support bm/ww relationships
I'm not a Republican, it doesn't have to effect me directly in order for me to support it. Btw I have over 20 years worth of receipts homie I've actually posted pics of me and my exes on here. Much more than I can say for most including you homie

 

You dont support WW..fuckoutta here. Anytime a WW expresses discrimination or there's a story on rape, you question it. You think you invented victimhood. You didn't, and you sure as hell don't own it. Lol.

20 years, huh. Want a medal? I've got over a decade on you. And a marriage. Pics don't mean shit. Your desires and support lies with BW, romantically and otherwise. You have the nerve to question everyone else but not yourself.