Democrats REFUSE to do their JOB on Immigration

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (56 posts)
  1. RJ Schwartz profile image90
    RJ Schwartzposted 14 months ago

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Tuesday that Democrats would reject legislation to address the crisis at the U.S-Mexico border, where children have been separated from adults after crossing illegally. 

    The Democrats would rather keep immigration as a talking point than ACTUALLY try to fix the system - they don't care at all - playing politics with illegals

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Ralph, see my comments on a similar thread addressed to you.

    2. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I respectfully disagree. Separating the children is extremist, cruel and highly immoral.

      I don't blame the Democrats for refusing to negotiate until Trump bends on that issue. I will blame the Dems if the don't come to the table after it is fixed.

      Let's just hope Trump can find the 1,500 children he has lost.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-ad … ren-2018-5

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image90
        RJ Schwartzposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I guess it's no longer an issue - hearing something is happening in DC on the subject.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          I'm seeing Congress has two plans to vote on, but neither is expected to pass.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        ??  I don't follow.  You disagree that Democrats will reject legislation or that Congress is playing politics with the lives of illegals?

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Congress and Presidents play with all of our lives every day during negotiations. This is nothing new.

          I'm just saying that a zero tolerance separation policy appeared to be a deal killer for the Democrats. I couldn't imagine them agreeing to anything that continues the policy. So there was no point coming to the negotiating table.

          But as RJ says, it doesn't matter now.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I guess I'm not understanding well, for I thought the zero tolerance referred to not allowing illegal entrants to wander the country without impedance, not that it had anything at all to do with separation of children.

            The Democrats appear to have decided that if they feel bad for certain illegals the law won't apply to them - a standard that most certainly is playing politics with the lives of people.

            But I disagree that there was no point in negotiating, for the problem will only grow in the future, once more raising it's ugly head down the road.  Again, sounds like the Dem's are playing politics with the refusal to fix anything.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              That's not my understanding of the policy. My understanding is that any illegal immigrant is automatically charged with a crime, which means the families are automatically separated before being sent back. In some cases parents are being sent back without their children.

              Previously, they were detained and sent back without being charged with a crime, and as a result the families oftentimes weren't separated.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I see.  More a matter of semantics, then, than anything else.  The policy doesn't separate children, merely enforces the law which results in criminals not being able to keep their children with them in jail.

                That's interesting that we are kidnapping children, never to return them.  Is there any evidence/truth to the claim, does it refer to a tiny fraction of true errors, or is it just more wild, unsupportable claims made to incite people to more hatred?

                I don't really have a problem with charging a person committing a crime with committing a crime.  Especially when so many are doing so for the umpteenth time and it is simply impossible to think that they didn't know it was a crime.  Do you?  Does having a child mean a parent should be able to ignore the law?

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  That's a complete warping of my comment -- an attempt to have a sincere and rational conversation that I thought you and I were having -- and not worthy of any other response.

      3. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Oh gawwddd! Pres. Trump has lost 1500 chillldrennn.

        Geesh promisem, did you read your own article - beyond the headline? Did you bother to look into the "lost children" claim - beyond just that article?

        You are welcome to find out for yourself, but the essence of the lost children claim is that those 1500, (or there about), children's sponsors did not return phone calls and mailing efforts to reach them. Also, those 1500 were not all children placed with sponsors during Pres.Trump's tenure. Most date back to the Obama years of 2015 and 2016.

        You will also find that it appears none of those children were children separated from their parents due to refugee or asylum requests during Pres. Trump's time in office.

        You will even find out, (probably with surprise), that many of their sponsors were illegal immigrants themselves, (which could be one reason they didn't respond to communications efforts), and their placement was mandated by Obama administration guidelines.

        Now, are you wondering if all of that is really true? Does your veracity matter enough to you to motivate you to look around and find out, or do you just want to stand on your statement that Trump lost 1500 children?

        Remember, Google is your friend.

        GA

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          I assume from your emotional response and the "you, you, you" that berates the messenger and not the message (again) that you think separating children from their families is a moral thing to do.

          That and the Democrats were the main points of my post.

          I'm sorry I linked an article about the 1,500 children from a website owned by a Republican politician. I'll try to use only the hated liberal MSM in the future.

          That said, yes, I have read many articles about the issue. It is the Trump administration that is claiming what you have shouted on here. The separation "policy" is a combination of laws going back many years. But it is the Trump administration that implemented a zero tolerace policy that has made the problem much bigger.

          The fact that Trump isn't responsible for knowing what happened to them after handing them over to other illegal immigrants is absurd.

          Relax. Breathe deeply. Debate the issue. If you must attack, attack the message and not the messenger.

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I am relaxed promisem, I just really like to use that "oh gawwdd" quip when an appropriate opportunity presents itself. Your claim of lost children did seem appropriate.

            Speaking of taking a breath, perhaps that same sentiment might have been of benefit in addressing my comment.

            For instance, the "you, you, you," wasn't berating the messenger, it was a collective addressing of my comment to a specific person - you. But, had you taken a bit of a breath you would have pointed to what followed those "you(s)" as what was intended to berate the messenger, and the message.

            How do you justify your assumption that because I took issue with your specific statement; "Let's just hope Trump can find the 1,500 children he has lost.", it means that I "think separating children from their families is a moral thing to do."? Are you willing to support your claim?

            You may explain that the separation issue, and the Democrats(?), were the main points of your post, but neither was what I addressed. I noted the specific statement in your post that I was referring to: "Oh gawwddd! Pres. Trump has lost 1500 chillldrennn."

            Sarcasm is rarely as "cute" or effective as its users think, and since I didn't challenge the source of your article - I merely asked if you had read it, your sarcastic, "I'm sorry I linked ..." crack was as misdirected as it was inappropriately used.

            I would be willing to "Debate the issue" with you promisem - the issue that I addressed. Since it was my comment that you took as a challenge to you as a messenger, that would put the ball in your court to provide rebuttal to the points of my challenge, (as you took it). We should start there if it is to be a legitimate discussion, (debate).

            But, to avoid any further mistaken assumptions,  note that although you say, "It is the Trump administration that is claiming what you have shouted on here.", I was not aware of that, and was basing my reply to your post from my own recall of past readings.

            Are you willing? Can you support the contested message, (your message), that Pres. Trump has lost 1500 children? Can you defend that the message wasn't such hyperbole as to deem the messenger worthy of attack?

            GA

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              LOL. Since when is the word "you" not personal?

              My so-called "cracks" were entirely appropriate and sank nearly to the level of the original sarcastic, inaccurate and irrational response.

              The Trump administration has lost 1,500 children. If you think "unable to verify" means they are not lost, then please bone up on rhetoric.

              Try spending some time at your local Children Services agency to see how they track children they place, WHICH INCLUDES VISITING THEM TO VERIFY THEIR LOCATION AND SAFETY.

              Also try reading my original post again and see if you can find the same level of vindictiveness by me directed at RJ -- or any at all. This is all on you. Making this about me is laughable.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Hi promisem, Sorry for this delayed response.

                First, based on your "My so-called "cracks" were entirely appropriate and sank nearly to the level of the original sarcastic, inaccurate and irrational response.", I went back to my original response to check.

                The only sarcasm I could perceive may have been that "Google is your friend" quip. You're right, by my own comment, that was sarcastic and too cute by half. My apologies. It was unnecessary.

                I don't know which part you felt was irrational, but here is to the rest of it.

                You wrote:


                Given the context, that last statement certainly seems to infer, (or boldly declare), that Pres. Trump's cruel and highly immoral actions have lost 1500 children.

                Did I misunderstand your intent? Was that not a shot at Pres. Trump? Were you not implying this issue is directly Pres. Trump's fault?

                Since a segment of your linked article explained this "lost" determination to not be Pres. Trump's fault, but a result of a confluence of circumstances, and that at the time of the original report, the determination of "lost children" was an explanation of failed communications, was it irrational to ask if you had read your own link? I would have found enough explanatory contradictions to make me wary of making such a bold statement as yours.

                Look at what we are talking about: non-English speaking minors placed with relatives as distant as uncles or cousins, or even just responsible folks that agree to become guardians; in not infrequent cases, some of those folks are illegals themselves. In the climate of the times, the news is full of stories about illegals doing there best to stay under the government's radar. Like not reapplying for food stamps because they don't want to call attention to their illegal status.

                I can see where folks in that situation might not be too quick to answer a government inquiry, particularly after running across an anecdote, or two, of resettlement sponsors actually getting targeted for attention because of their involvement.

                Then, there were some - what I think are - mitigating explanations by a pro-immigrant activist directly in the midst of this issue. Jennifer Podkul, director of policy at Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit based in Washington, DC

                Sarah Kliff
                Let me start with a really basic question. Did the United States lose 1,500 migrant children?
                *Notice this interviewer said United States, not Pres. Trump

                Jennifer Podkul
                No.

                When a child is in that program, the government tries to find an adult who is willing to provide care and custody instead of having that child linger in a federal facility. It looks for different categories of people, starting with parents or legal guardians and, if they’re not available, an extended family member. They do a background check on that person.

                After 2014 [when there was a wave of unaccompanied minors entering the United States], the government adjusted a lot of policies around reunification. There was concern about kids being reunified to someone who wasn’t appropriate.

                Now, HHS has a policy that when they reunify a child with a sponsor in the United States, they call the phone number that the sponsor submitted to the government 30 days afterward. This was their answer to the question of how many of those children were they not able to get in touch with, with that one phone call.

                The idea behind those calls was child safety, not about keeping track of kids.

                Sarah Kliff
                What are some of the reasons that families might not answer these phone calls? Is it just the fact that everybody misses call, or something deeper going on?

                Jennifer Podkul
                A lot of these families may have a pay-as-you-go phone number. I definitely had times when I couldn’t get ahold of a client for weeks, then they’d get a new number, and we’d pick up right where we left off.

                Right now, under this administration, there is a climate of fear. Parents and families that are undocumented might be scared to pick up the phone. The administration has specifically targeted sponsors of unaccompanied minors. They did raids against them last year

                Sarah Kliff
                Are there some good reasons why we wouldn’t want the government to be tracking this particular population closely?

                Jennifer Podkul
                We do worry about criminalization of this population and the idea of monitoring them like they are criminals. That is not good for them.


                Now, a caveat. I did cherry-pick those excerpts because they pertain to our discussion. There were other comments less supportive of both Pres. Trump's policies, and the Resettlement program in general.

                Then a final bit. Regarding the same Resettlement program, from a Politico article;
                "Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, at the April hearing with Wagner noted a past report about HHS (during the Obama administration) failing to place children with people who would care for them, citing a case of Guatemalan minors who ended up with human traffickers."

                Again, I am confident you probably also found this information. Do you still want to stand with the claim that "Let's just hope Trump can find the 1,500 children he has lost.

                Some closing points. I could find no "vindictiveness" in my reply to you. But, my response was "all about you" because of your past tendency to post similar misleading statements, and since I have also engaged you on these previous occasions, maybe that is why you thought this response was vindictive. But that's on you. I don't have anything to be vindictive about.

                You were right on a couple points. "You" is personal, but in this case I didn't intend it as a negative personal - just a specific address to a specific person, and, my statement about most of the kids coming from Obama years was not verified. I don't know if it was accurate or not, I made it up - but I told you that. I told you you would have to check for yourself to see if my statements were true.

                ps. Bold and italics are usually used to emphasize something. All caps is shouting. Was it your intent to hurt my feelings by SHOUTING at me. :-)

                GA

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "From October to December 2017, ORR [Office of Refugee Resettlement] attempted to reach 7,635 UAC [unaccompanied alien children] and their sponsors. Of this number, ORR reached and received agreement to participate in the safety and well-being call from approximately 86 percent of sponsors. ... ORR was unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC."

          - Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary of Administration for Children and Families for the Department of HHS

          Please blast him with an email and tell him to use Google to get his facts straight.

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            "Please blast him with an email and tell him to use Google to get his facts straight."

            Is that more sarcasm promisem? Why should I do that when this point - that you apparently "Googled," is one of the points I made in my original reply. You simply found the specific text of the general point.

            To achieve the rebuttal you think this accomplishes, you now need to trace backwards from Mr. Wagner's comment to sources and comments that would show it is Pres. Trump's actions that "lost" the children. It would serve you even better if you can find that the "lost" children would not have had the opportunity to become lost, if it weren't for Pres. Trump's policies. The inference of your original post was that it was Pres. Trump's "Zero Tolerance" policy that caused the problem wasn't it?

            GA

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I'll keep it simple.

              1. "Unable to verify" from Trump means they can't find them because they don't know where to go to see if they are still even alive. That's what Childrens Services agencies do with children they place with sponsors.

              2. All 1,500 were taken last year and not by Obama as you claim.

              3. Yes, they were taken as part of the zero tolerance policy because that's what happens as part of the policy. This is not rocket science.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Who had control of those kids?  Government (as in detention), relatives, welfare system, foster care system or other?

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Good questions. I can only find "sponsors" defined as "guardians, relatives or other adults". No other details.

              2. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                No promisem, the children at issue, were not from those separated by the recent Zero Tolerance policy.

                I excerpted a pro-child immigrant activist's explanation of this in a previous response to you, but even beyond that I don't see how you can make that claim. The children of this issue were from a 2017 report. The Zero Tolerance policy wasn't implemented until just a short while ago - in 2018.

                And another "No" is your declaration about "That's what Childrens Services agencies do with children they place with sponsors" - at least as applies in the instance of the issue under discussion. That activist I mentioned previously, also addressed this in the previous response I mentioned previously.

                Ha! I get 10 cents for every variation of "previous" posted from dictionary.com as part of their previous "Explore Writing" contest. The "Rocket Science" contest is next week. The target word then will be variations of "deduction."

                GA.

      4. Live to Learn profile image82
        Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        It appears to me that blaming democrats addresses only half the problem. Congress refuses to do its job. Probably since it is a political minefield.

        But, did you ever speak out against the separating of families before Trump? I read that 70,000 children were separated in 2014. Why do you think it wasn't newsworthy until now?

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Irrelevant. I didn't say it's only newsworthy now. I was simply responding to the post by RJ.

          However, it is more newsworthy now because Trump made it that way with his zero tolerance policy and because the Trump administration admitted it can't find 1,500 children it took away at the end of last year.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Is the problem that the kids were put in the hands of relatives or other people that have then kidnapped them?  That would seem a VERY strong reason to keep them under direct, immediate control of the government!

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I would respond in kind but I really don't follow what you are trying to say.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Did the kids disappear from a detention camp or from somewhere else?  Were they given to relatives, relatives that have now disappeared with the kids rather than see them deported with their parents?  Did the foster care system "lose" them?  Have they been trafficked by people who assumed their care?

                We keep hearing that they are "lost", but somebody knows where they are unless they snuck out of a detention center somehow and took to the streets - unlikely for a preschooler.  Who is that "somebody" that was responsible for them and knows their whereabouts?

      5. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Where was all this concern for children at the boarder in 2014?  If you weren't worried about it then when Barrack Obama was president, why worry about it now?  Can you say double standards and hypocrites? Remember, we owe illegal immigrants NOTHING.  It is the parents of these children who are the problem.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          You just " Sunk the nail " ..............where was the even the Hubpage left in 2008 -- 2016 on immigration progress WITH , by the way , a legislative majority ? 

          The same place they all are today here ,  swimming in the "deep end" . Political Hypocrisy ,  " If the shoe fits- wear it "?

    3. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      This problem at the boarder isn't new.  It's happened for years.  It is getting so much attention now because the mainstream democrat controlled media needs something to distract attention from the revelations in the IG report.  The hearings and revelations of the IG report would the headline if it weren't for this manufactured issue.  There are no depths the Democrats won't sink to protect, and draw attention away from, their extreme corruption.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Absolutely right , dodge ,deflect ,twist,  turn ................squirming legislation is all the left is capable of for decades ;    the right ?   We are gonna hold them responsible for this too ........come on Nov mid - terms ,  out with the old in with the new !

      2. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Nice try. This issue erupted in April. The IG report just came out.

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          The eventual release of the IG report has been known for months.  I don't think it was until recent that the boarder issue dominated the news cycle.  Check the amount of coverage the boarder issue received prior to the release of the IG report, and the coverage of it since the IG report was released.  Since its release, the media coverage of the boarder issue has dominated the news cycle.  These hearings and IG report are very damning to the Democrats, FBI and more.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I agree the release of the report has been known for months. But we had no idea what was in it.

            I also agree with what I think might be your underlying point about politicians trying to distract the public from other issues. Both sides use that tactic quite a bit.

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              "Both sides use that tactic quite a bit."

              I agree with you 100 percent.

        2. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "Nice try " ?   ........isn't that called "selective outrage " because it sure  is a near perfect  and a direct example of  the democrat's  selective memory .

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Since I have voted mostly Republican throughout my life, as I have said before, I assume you are talking about someone else.

            You might want to delete your post and write it again in response to that other person's comment.

    4. Sychophantastic profile image86
      Sychophantasticposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      What job is there to do?? All these families being separated at the border - all these mothers being separated from their children? LIBERAL FANTASIES!! What you're seeing on television are actors, being paid for by George Soros, to portray immigrants. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!! This "crisis" is just another concocted, fake news, story created by liberals and the liberal media.

  2. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 14 months ago

    Want to know where fifteen hundred kids have gone , perhaps some responsible illegals will walk the trails back through the deserts and begin retrieving those left behind .  In the canyons , the arroyos , along the barbed wire fences in the safe houses and barns with the drug mules and gang members .

  3. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14092999.jpg

    It's all so simple.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Mike, you mentioned the other day your relatives came through immigration the legal way. I asked you if they were in fear for their lives and the lives of their children while they were waiting to be approved. Did you ever answer the question? Or is this another query you want to ignore?

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        No, but what does that have to do about anything?  I wish you knew what you were asking or even talking about on this topic.  I DO know if you come across the boarder at an authorized crossing seeking asylum, a person merely has to fill out form I-589.  They then have 14 days to provide documentation to prove their case at a court hearing.  Did you know that Catholic Charities helps thousands of people seeking asylum get through this court process every year?  So, if you're afraid, you come through a legal entry point and claim asylum.  Then you're in the country legally.  Now, if you try to SNEAK across the boarder and avoid the process, you get arrested.   Do you know anything about the immigration process?   I do get tired of educating you on issues. I hope someday you can impress me with what you know rather than what you have no idea about.  Snarkey comments don't make anyone seem intelligent.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Ignoring questions doesn't make you appear intelligent either, Mike. You don't get to simply opine on subjects without getting questioned on them. You brought up your family's legal entry into the US pertaining to the illegals who wish to enter as well. If you don't see the relevance of my question then I think I see the problem. You just want to complain and not be questioned as to why.


          It makes a huge difference when people are under duress than when they are waiting in a peaceful setting. If you can't see that then we have no further use in conversing on the subject.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Randy,  what do you know about the Ukraine?  They are fighting a war against the second larges military in the world,  Over 10,000 people have died and their are more than 2 million people displaced because of this very active war.  Guess how I know about seeking asylum?  Yes, I've helped Ukrainians legally enter the U.S. and seek asylum. Considering the situation in the Ukraine...why aren't there a huge amount of Ukrainians coming into the United States illegally?  "It makes a huge difference when people are under duress than when they are waiting in a peaceful setting."  What are you talking about?  What has that got to do with anything?  Seriously.  It's simple.  You go to a legal entry point, get help from Catholic charities to fill out the form and when appearing two weeks later in court.  What about this don't you understand?  There's no reason to try and sneak into the country illegally.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              You should channel that anger about the Ukraine towards your president as he's buddying up to Putin and asking for Russian to be allowed back in the G7 summit. And if the Ukraine was right across the Rio Grande I'll wager there would be some trying to flee here as well.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Randy, Trump has done more to help the Ukraine in a year and a half than Obama ever did.  Trump has sold weapons to the Ukraine Obama refused, Trump has provided capital, helped with military training and more.  Obama did absolutely nothing.  Obama watched the invasion of the Ukraine like it was a Tom Hanks movie.  He may have had popcorn and iced tea as he watched the news reports.  It wouldn't surprise me.

              2. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Dodge , twist ,turn , deflect .......................

  4. Sychophantastic profile image86
    Sychophantasticposted 14 months ago

    Not a single thing the U.S. has done has stemmed the tide from murderers and rapists and gang members coming across our border, so President Trump has rightfully done what he should, create a deterrent - take away their children. Come across our border with children, you are breaking the law and unfit to be a parent since you're a law breaker anyway. However, if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't enter our country illegally. We don't have open borders.

    People seem to forget, there's a process for entering our country legally and becoming a citizen. Guess what? When you do it that way, you aren't separated from your children.

    What do these immigrants offer our country anyway? They're coming in here illegally with their children so that they can live high off the hog getting services from our government. The Democrats are amazing - offer as much welfare as they can and advocate for open borders so illegal immigrants can get that welfare.

    Unbelievable.

  5. Readmikenow profile image96
    Readmikenowposted 14 months ago

    All the left has on this issue is fake news and their double standards from ignoring it when this was happening during the Obama administration.


    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/14095214.jpg

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      As has become the norm, the goal is to raise an emotional response and not to present truth or fact.  If a false impression can be generated that accomplishes that goal it has been a successful effort.

      There are many ways to lie, but any effort to produce a belief that a falsehood is true is a lie even if particulars are true.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Presented these facts to a liberal relative and they refused to believe me or even look at the information I provided.  It's the fingers in their ears as they hum that drives me crazy.  They want their reality and don't care about truth or facts.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, a great many liberals live in a fantasy world, a world where the people of the US have unlimited resources and wealth, where we can give to the world with never a negative result to our people or the country.

          It isn't true, of course, but it is the fantasy that is forever being presented as factual.

        2. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Really? Are conservatives this stupid?

          So first, I certainly understand that the girl in question does not represent the crisis in question. The choice of photograph was a bad one and the story being portrayed with her picture is not representative of the actual situation with this one, particular girl.

          However, the right-wing effort to discredit the point of the story because this one photograph is not representative is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. There's certainly a case of intellectual dishonesty in the photograph, but it pales in comparison to trying to discredit the entire issue because one photo is incorrect.

          Let's say you're writing an article on car crashes for TIME magazine and you put a picture of a smashed car on the front cover. Somebody then finds out the vehicle wasn't involved in a car crash, but smashed some other way. Do you actually believe that negates the entire point about car crashes, texting while driving, drunk driving, and all the other things that cause car crashes? Apparently so.

          Sure, this one child isn't an example. If the child in question was actually separated from their parents, would that have changed your opinion about the issue? Of course not.

          And I'm even supportive of anything close to open borders. I'm not supportive, in any way, of illegal immigration. AND, I think the Democrats/liberals are on the wrong side of the immigration debate. That said, discrediting one side's argument, drawing a conclusion from, that photograph is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that makes debate impossible.

          1. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I believe this photo is one example of many of Fake news being portrayed to discredit President Trump and those in his administration.  Many media outlets have had to apologize for the stories they've run.  Time magazine should apologize, ABC has had to apologize

            https://wnep.com/2018/06/20/abc-apologi … al-report/

            CNN has had to retract many stories.

            https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ … ism-287914

            This should not happen with "professional" journalists. 

            This issue has gone on for a long time.  I always hear crickets when I ask why this wasn't an issue for them during the Obama administration.

            Can you figure out how to win a debate WITHOUT discrediting your opponents position?  How does this happen?

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              How many times have you seen Fox News apologize for a fake story, Mike. Hannity is yet to apologize for the Seth Rich murder story he turned into a conspiracy which had no factual basis. He simply said he wasn't going to report on it anymore.

              Perhaps it was because Rich's family threatened a law suit?

            2. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              One sure-fire way to win a debate is to discredit your opponent's position. If you have a position that's not credible, why shouldn't it be discredited? Why should I go out of my way to argue with anyone making intellectually dishonest arguments? If you want to argue that it's fine to separate mothers from children in order to stop illegal immigration, then go ahead and make that argument. I can't really discredit that argument. I can only argue whether I agree with it or not.

              The idea of "professional" journalism is kind of a joke. I personally find most journalism to be terrible, particularly local journalism. The reason for that, mostly, is that the people are so poorly paid that they don't get the best writers. Journalists, in general, are poorly trained in valid research methods and writing techniques. I do expect TIME and CNN and other major organizations to get things right (the TIME cover is a near unforgivable error that ends up deflecting a valid point).

              Here's a simple question: do you think children should be separated from their mothers/fathers and put in separate detention centers when their parents cross the border illegally?

              Here's another question: if a family is trying to escape persecution from a repressive government in another country, should the U.S. welcome them or send them back where they came from?

              This all said: I do agree with Wildnerness's point: the U.S. does not have unlimited resources and we have to decide how to use what we have and make hard decisions.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)