14 years and counting...

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Seems perfectly reasonable it isn't headline news anyway. There has been nothing new to report for about 2 weeks and has become stale news. Many reached the boarder, some tried to cross anyway, I think it is reasonable to believe without the presence of troops there would have been more chaos than there was.
I'm not sure where you are getting at by asking if the president was lying? Are you suggesting there was no caravan? Or that the caravan doesn't have intentions of entering? There is more than enough to prove all that is true, so what was he lying about then?
The facts are still there, that thousands of immigrants traveled in a caravan with intentions of crossing the boarder. Currently they are stopped at the boarder without any significant events to take over headline news on a daily basis like there was for several weeks prior. While currently officials in Tijuana are reporting concerns that many of us had about such a large group traveling together to begin with but were laughed at for bringing it up.

so then why all the hysteria that they couldn't be processed and it was going to cause a chaotic scene and it was all the fault of the democrats???

it was the politics of fear. you can't honestly believe it was a coincidence that this was front page/tweet news leading up to the mid terms, and the second the last election was called, CRICKETS. 

I'm not saying it wasn't exploited for political gain. But I don't think there is anything suspicious about it not being headline news still. It was heavily reported for 2 weeks after the election, it didnt stop the night of.
Why aren't the California fires headline news still, it was the worst in the state's history, why did those news reports suddenly stop over night?
Its because there isnt anything new to report. What would you like the headline news to say about the caravan? There havent been any significant changes in 2 weeks worth reporting on.

It was not heavily covered for two weeks after the election. That's false. The coverage AND Trump's own comments and hysterical tweets dramatically stopped after the dems took the house. Things picked up again right before the special election in a red state. 

This was billed not just as an immigration issue--it was billed, by the president no less as an I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N !! Think about what that means. If we lived in a normal time in a normal country and we had a normal president who came across the airwaves to warn the country and an imminent INVASION. Think about the hysteria that would cause. Words matter, especially when uttered by the most important person on the face of the planet. 

Also worth noting that you're apparently cool and gloss over the fact that the president used the military as a political prop to win a midterm election (and failed in doing so).

The election was November 6 I believe. I just checked and the articles I saw report the caravan arriving on November 14. It was headline news for at least several days after the arrival. So yes, it was headline news for at least 10-12 days, if not 2 weeks after the election.
I haven't disagreed with any of the political use of this. I only disagree with those who say this is suddenly odd that it is not a story anymore. Election or not, I think the coverage is normal. The news would have covered it with or without an election, and stopped covering when when they did.
Now how the politicians reacted would likely influenced by the election. But I don't know if there has been a larger migrant force in history to the US, of course it was going to be covered. And can you tell me one thing that has changed in the last 2 weeks? I can;t so that's why it is no longer headline news.

No you're wrong. Fox had reporters embedded in the invader's caravan leading up to the election. They broadcasted shows directly from the border leading up to the election. Trump had his head of homeland security down there before the election. Trump was talking and tweeting about it nonstop right up to the election. It was WALL TO WALL coverage. Immediately after the election? Yeah, not so much....until we got to the days leading up to the MS special election a few weeks later. After that? Not so much. 

Here is some light reading regarding the news coverage before and after the midterms:



https://www.thewrap.com/migrant-caravan-coverage-drops-sharply-after-midterms

.https://qz.com/1467663/the-media-coverage-of-the-migrant-caravan-nearly-stopped-after-the-us-midterms/

.https://www.politico.com/media/newsletters/morning-media/2018/11/12/2018-election-continues-caravan-coverage-fades-fox-news-civil-war-boycott-001647

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/caravan-has-all-vanished-cable-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2dc9035cd844

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Migrant-Caravan-Coverage-Plummeted-After-Midterms-13393188.php

https://www.apnews.com/417018f53fee4482af315948dc7313b9

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Trump-hardly-mentions-caravan-after-election-13400405.php

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/media/obama-trump-caravan/index.html

https://theweek.com/articles/807694/press-needs-stop-letting-trump-lead-around-by-nose

No doubt the Baffoon who Mace loves knew exactly what he was doing trying to divide this country...

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

my2hands said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Seems perfectly reasonable it isn't headline news anyway. There has been nothing new to report for about 2 weeks and has become stale news. Many reached the boarder, some tried to cross anyway, I think it is reasonable to believe without the presence of troops there would have been more chaos than there was.
I'm not sure where you are getting at by asking if the president was lying? Are you suggesting there was no caravan? Or that the caravan doesn't have intentions of entering? There is more than enough to prove all that is true, so what was he lying about then?
The facts are still there, that thousands of immigrants traveled in a caravan with intentions of crossing the boarder. Currently they are stopped at the boarder without any significant events to take over headline news on a daily basis like there was for several weeks prior. While currently officials in Tijuana are reporting concerns that many of us had about such a large group traveling together to begin with but were laughed at for bringing it up.

so then why all the hysteria that they couldn't be processed and it was going to cause a chaotic scene and it was all the fault of the democrats???

it was the politics of fear. you can't honestly believe it was a coincidence that this was front page/tweet news leading up to the mid terms, and the second the last election was called, CRICKETS. 

I'm not saying it wasn't exploited for political gain. But I don't think there is anything suspicious about it not being headline news still. It was heavily reported for 2 weeks after the election, it didnt stop the night of.
Why aren't the California fires headline news still, it was the worst in the state's history, why did those news reports suddenly stop over night?
Its because there isnt anything new to report. What would you like the headline news to say about the caravan? There havent been any significant changes in 2 weeks worth reporting on.

Because what passes for news is really just TV programming whose only purpose is to draw ratings to generate ad revenue and has very little interest in actually delivering real news.... you mean that news? Lol

Did you hear that Kevin Hart made some comments in poor taste 5 years ago??? Oddly, that seemed to overshadow the story that global greenhouse gas emissions are going up like a runaway freight train 

So you've decided to go full Trump in terms of the news media, eh? FAKE NEWS!!!!!!

I questioned "the news" LONG before this clown came along... and will long after he is gone

I know. What I was really trying to say is that you've gone way too extreme in your views about it. Come back to the grey area man.

josevolution said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Seems perfectly reasonable it isn't headline news anyway. There has been nothing new to report for about 2 weeks and has become stale news. Many reached the boarder, some tried to cross anyway, I think it is reasonable to believe without the presence of troops there would have been more chaos than there was.
I'm not sure where you are getting at by asking if the president was lying? Are you suggesting there was no caravan? Or that the caravan doesn't have intentions of entering? There is more than enough to prove all that is true, so what was he lying about then?
The facts are still there, that thousands of immigrants traveled in a caravan with intentions of crossing the boarder. Currently they are stopped at the boarder without any significant events to take over headline news on a daily basis like there was for several weeks prior. While currently officials in Tijuana are reporting concerns that many of us had about such a large group traveling together to begin with but were laughed at for bringing it up.

so then why all the hysteria that they couldn't be processed and it was going to cause a chaotic scene and it was all the fault of the democrats???

it was the politics of fear. you can't honestly believe it was a coincidence that this was front page/tweet news leading up to the mid terms, and the second the last election was called, CRICKETS. 

I'm not saying it wasn't exploited for political gain. But I don't think there is anything suspicious about it not being headline news still. It was heavily reported for 2 weeks after the election, it didnt stop the night of.
Why aren't the California fires headline news still, it was the worst in the state's history, why did those news reports suddenly stop over night?
Its because there isnt anything new to report. What would you like the headline news to say about the caravan? There havent been any significant changes in 2 weeks worth reporting on.

It was not heavily covered for two weeks after the election. That's false. The coverage AND Trump's own comments and hysterical tweets dramatically stopped after the dems took the house. Things picked up again right before the special election in a red state. 

This was billed not just as an immigration issue--it was billed, by the president no less as an I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N !! Think about what that means. If we lived in a normal time in a normal country and we had a normal president who came across the airwaves to warn the country and an imminent INVASION. Think about the hysteria that would cause. Words matter, especially when uttered by the most important person on the face of the planet. 

Also worth noting that you're apparently cool and gloss over the fact that the president used the military as a political prop to win a midterm election (and failed in doing so).

The election was November 6 I believe. I just checked and the articles I saw report the caravan arriving on November 14. It was headline news for at least several days after the arrival. So yes, it was headline news for at least 10-12 days, if not 2 weeks after the election.
I haven't disagreed with any of the political use of this. I only disagree with those who say this is suddenly odd that it is not a story anymore. Election or not, I think the coverage is normal. The news would have covered it with or without an election, and stopped covering when when they did.
Now how the politicians reacted would likely influenced by the election. But I don't know if there has been a larger migrant force in history to the US, of course it was going to be covered. And can you tell me one thing that has changed in the last 2 weeks? I can;t so that's why it is no longer headline news.

No you're wrong. Fox had reporters embedded in the invader's caravan leading up to the election. They broadcasted shows directly from the border leading up to the election. Trump had his head of homeland security down there before the election. Trump was talking and tweeting about it nonstop right up to the election. It was WALL TO WALL coverage. Immediately after the election? Yeah, not so much....until we got to the days leading up to the MS special election a few weeks later. After that? Not so much. 

Here is some light reading regarding the news coverage before and after the midterms:



https://www.thewrap.com/migrant-caravan-coverage-drops-sharply-after-midterms

.https://qz.com/1467663/the-media-coverage-of-the-migrant-caravan-nearly-stopped-after-the-us-midterms/

.https://www.politico.com/media/newsletters/morning-media/2018/11/12/2018-election-continues-caravan-coverage-fades-fox-news-civil-war-boycott-001647

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/caravan-has-all-vanished-cable-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2dc9035cd844

https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/Migrant-Caravan-Coverage-Plummeted-After-Midterms-13393188.php

https://www.apnews.com/417018f53fee4482af315948dc7313b9

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Trump-hardly-mentions-caravan-after-election-13400405.php

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/media/obama-trump-caravan/index.html

https://theweek.com/articles/807694/press-needs-stop-letting-trump-lead-around-by-nose

No doubt the Baffoon who Mace loves knew exactly what he was doing trying to divide this country...

I have never once said I love him. 
I never defended him on this topic.
I just said I don't think news coverage is that strange. Things only stay headline news for so long.
 Maybe it was drug out a few extra days for the election, sure, but all in all, not that different from the norm.

mace1229 said:

Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all.
I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things. 

If you’d vote for Trump again (as bad as once is) after knowing what you should know now... then you don’t have to ‘guess’ when you make your last statement.

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all.
I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things. 

I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist. 

I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous. 

honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?

Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband.
The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million.
I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding.
I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all.
I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things. 

I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist. 

I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous. 

honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?

Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband.
The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million.
I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding.
I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.

Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.

Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.

Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all.
I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things. 

I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist. 

I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous. 

honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?

Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband.
The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million.
I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding.
I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.

Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.

Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.

Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?

She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information. 

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

Generalizations are probably my biggest pet peeve in politics. Was just reading through the Alexadria thread, and just because someone doesn't like her views apparently means we are afraid of women. Of course it could have nothing to do with her views, the fact she wants free handouts and her strategy is to "just pay for it." Couldn't be that at all.
I don't like Trump, I think he is an embarassment. But give me the choice between him and HiIlary and I'd do it again. I trust her even less than I do him. Thats my opinion of them both. But I guess that makes me qualify for a whole list of negative things. 

I do agree with you on the generalizations point. It bugs the fuck out of me that as soon as you disagree with a woman or a minority you are sexist or a racist. 

I get labelled as a libtard on here, but the second I have occasionally quesitoned a woman in politics, all of a sudden I'm "afraid of strong women". it's preposterous. 

honest question: why do you trust trump more than hillary? is it because he is such an embarassment and says what he wants that you believe he's telling the truth?

Has Trump done anything unexpected so far? I think he's been pretty predictable. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, Carly Fiorina was one of my top picks in 2016, but Hilary reminds me of a used car salesman, just like her husband.
The Clinton Foundation for one. She broke her agreement about accepting foreign donations, and some of the highest paid employees were those close to her and campaign. There are some questionable accusations of donors out there. To be fair I think Goodwill is a scam too, a non-profit should not have a CEO paid over half a million.
I don't care about her content of the emails, but the way it was played out I had a problem with it. All along she thought she was above the law, and she was right. Joking about wiping the memory and destroying the server. Who goes on national TV and jokes about destroying evidence like that, especially when they actually did it? Ivanka using private email was a really dumb thing to do, but it doesn't compare. She didn't have her own server that no one else had access to and that she physically destroyed to prevent anyone from reading said emails. Thats where I have the problem. She was ordered to hand them over during an investigation, and instead destroyed it. Anyone else on this earth that would be grounds for dismissal, if not jail time. I can promise you if I had some work related emails that I hid and destroyed when questioned about, I'd be leaving work that day and probably escorted by law enforcement. The way that was played out left a bad taste in my mouth about what else can she get away with? Now I said I'm not as concerned about the content, and I'm not, but it does make you wonder what she was hiding. You don't go through that trouble and risk over yoga and wedding plans. But we'll probably never know what she was hiding.
I've said I don't like Trump, and I don't. But to me he seems like a dirty old perv and Hillary is the slimy used cars salesman. I didn't have very good options to chose from. But for politics, I'll chose the dirty old man over the slimy used car salesman. I wouldn't want to socialize with either though.

Except that the dirty old perv has been shown to be an actual crook, and the slimy used car salesman has not.

Not that that makes any difference to his supporters.

Questionable donations and breaking the law, yes destroying evidence during an FBI investigation is breaking the law, doesn't qualify for that? I can acknowledge I don't like Trump. Why is the left so afraid to say Hilary was a poor candidate too and has a questionable record?

She has been thoroughly investigated and has not been found to have committed any crimes. Your personal opinion of whether she committed any crimes is not relevant, particularly when you’re operating on faulty information. 

So destroying evidence, and admitting to it, during an FBI investigation has not been founded and has no merit? I am not allowed to take those facts into consideration?

mace1229 said:

To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.

James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

To answer HFD's question further, the length the FBI and others went to to try and get Hilary elected is scary to me. The texts with high level FBI agents attempting to sway the election, to even small things like instructions to not call it an "investigation" because it sounds bad. I don't like any of that, talk about meddling in elections, it is happening right here in front of us but we're only worried about the other side of the world.

James Comey is thought to have been highly responsible for her losing. So no, the FBI did not try to help her get elected. 

That's one thing that I can;t understand. It is more than clear he and many others did want her to win. The only thing I can think of is maybe he was looking after himself and thought there'd be consequences for dismissing it the way he did, or he underestimated the impact it would have. Those are my 2 guesses anyway.