Obama Deported More People Per Month Than Trump by following the law
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show and he pointed out that despite the dramatic optics of Trump’s immigration enforcement—raids, detention centers, and aggressive messaging—his administration has deported fewer people per month than Barack Obama did, and only slightly more than Joe Biden during a comparable period.
Obama oversaw the highest deportation numbers, with a peak in 2013 averaging 36,000 deportations per month.
Biden, during his first term, deported over 4.6 million people, though many of those were Title 42 expulsions during the COVID era, which are counted differently.
Trump, in his current term, is averaging around 14,700 deportations per month, well below Obama’s peak and not far above Biden’s monthly average of 12,660 during a similar span.
Zakaria argues that Trump’s approach is more about spectacle than substance—prioritizing fear-inducing visuals over coordinated, lawful enforcement. It’s a fascinating case of perception diverging from reality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … ortations-How many did Obama deport from the interior of the country? Once Trump closed the border, the deportations of border crossers went to near zero because border crossings went to near zero. Obama, on the other hand, did nothing at all to close the door, making it easy to deport huge numbers of border crossers. Even easier as they simply came back again and again so he could catch them multiple times.
Trump, on the other hand, must fight idiot sanctuary cities tooth and toenail to haul off illegal aliens. He must fight riots trying to keep them here. He must fight judges aiding those criminals to evade the law.
Is it any wonder that actual deportations have fallen off? Would it not be better to report the net gain/decrease of illegal aliens in the country rather than how many were deported? Which counts more? Deportation numbers or numbers of illegal aliens living in our country?Ask Stephen Miller, he wants 6,000 per day deported. The point is Obama and Biden did it with civility. They followed the existing laws, without spectacle and theatrics' that Trump and company uses..
Yeah, I know. Biden "deported" illegal aliens...into the interior of our own country, putting them up in 5 star motels. Civil, yes; useful, Hell No!
PP, there is very seldom anything "civil" about arresting and punishing a criminal. That the punishment is to send them home does not change that. As far as it being a spectacle; talk to the rioters making that spectacle. Talk to the mayors making a spectacle, or the judge aiding and abetting a criminal in evading the law.So you are saying that Obama and Biden were not civil in their deportation efforts by actually following the law, Did they use military troops and ICE with gas masks and unmarked cars and no identity? By the way many of those who were unidentifiable were deputized sheriffs..
Very interesting thread, food for thought, and a chance to do some research.
Short or selective memory. First, Trump is closely following the laws. He is being closely scrutinized.
It’s important to recognize that many of the detention centers used during the Trump administration were originally built or expanded under President Obama’s tenure. Obama’s administration oversaw a significant increase in ICE detention capacity, including some facilities criticized at the time for their conditions. This challenges the narrative that immigration enforcement under Obama was uniquely “humane” compared to later administrations.
For example, Obama’s “Secure Communities” program led to widespread deportations, often criticized for detaining undocumented immigrants for prolonged periods. Reports during his terms highlighted overcrowding, poor medical care, and inadequate conditions in some detention facilities. The Obama administration also used expedited removal policies that resulted in quick deportations with limited due process in many cases.
Overcrowding and Conditions in Detention Centers
Report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG), 2016
This report found overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and poor living conditions in some immigration detention facilities during Obama’s administration.
Describes substandard medical care and inadequate oversight in detention centers, leading to worsening health for detainees.
Human Rights Watch
Family Separations and Expedited Removals
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report on family separations under Obama
The ACLU documented cases where families were separated, sometimes inadvertently, due to detention and deportation policies during the Obama years, especially in cases involving unaccompanied minors.
Source: ACLU Report
New York Times, 2014 article on family separations
The article highlights that under Obama, thousands of children were separated from parents due to deportations and border enforcement policies, though the scale was less publicized than later actions.
Secure Communities Program and Increased Deportations
Department of Homeland Security, data and analysis
The Secure Communities program, expanded under Obama, led to significant increases in deportations, often criticized for targeting non-criminal immigrants and causing community distrust.
Overcrowding and Conditions in Detention Centers (Obama Era)
DHS Office of Inspector General Reports
The DHS OIG regularly inspects ICE detention facilities. In 2016, reports highlighted overcrowding and inadequate medical care in some detention centers. You can search for these reports on the official DHS OIG website:
Human Rights Watch – U.S. Immigration Detention
HRW has multiple reports on detention conditions, including during the Obama years, mentioning deaths and substandard medical care. Check:
If you want concrete reports now, I recommend starting at:
DHS OIG reports
ACLU immigration rights page
Human Rights Watch Immigration Detention section"First, Trump is closely following the laws" - You mean the CONVICTED FELON and SEXUAL PREDATOR and bank fraudster? ROFL.
Here is a complete recitation of facts regarding the number of detention facilities.
- Congress put a floor of 34,000 beds
- Obama added 7,000 to increase the total to 41,000 because of the surge in family and unaccompanied children
- Trump 1.0 added another 7,000 to 48,000 even though he needed 50,000
- Biden reduced beds to the Congressional mandate of 34,000 but then increased them to 41,500. When Biden left office, he had excess capacity.
- Trump 2.0 currently needs 55,000 beds and has plans to build up to 100,000 beds now that his omnibus bill has passed.Simple solution - quit using courts to delay deportations at every opportunity. If they're deported on a reasonable schedule there is no need for vast numbers of beds to keep them in while they wait for their turn - they aren't here any longer.
I’m just very pleased that Trump stopped the flow and is addressing the illegal migrant issue in a lawful and appropriate manner. It may be slower than some Democrats claim their deportation numbers were, but it’s steady and effective. He is doing a great job of removing those who have no legal right to be here. I mean, promises kept!
" the illegal migrant issue in a lawful and appropriate manner. " - if it so lawful, why do courts keep finding many parts of it unconstitutional? No, there is nothing lawful when it comes to Trump and his minions.
He is also removing many people who have a legal right to be here, or used to.
By the time he is done with America, we will be going the way of Russia with its shrinking population and shrinking economy.
Simple solution, let's all move to Russia where our Bill of Rights are banned and there is no need for courts or due process.
It’s important to recognize that many of the detention centers used during the Trump administration were originally built or expanded under President Obama’s tenure. Obama’s administration oversaw a significant increase in ICE detention capacity, including some facilities criticized at the time for their conditions. This challenges the narrative that immigration enforcement under Obama was uniquely “humane” compared to later administrations.
For example, Obama’s “Secure Communities” program led to widespread deportations, often criticized for detaining undocumented immigrants for prolonged periods. Reports during his terms highlighted overcrowding, poor medical care, and inadequate conditions in some detention facilities. The Obama administration also used expedited removal policies that resulted in quick deportations with limited due process in many cases.
Overcrowding and Conditions in Detention Centers
Report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG), 2016
This report found overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and poor living conditions in some immigration detention facilities during Obama’s administration.
Describes substandard medical care and inadequate oversight in detention centers, leading to worsening health for detainees.
Human Rights Watch
Family Separations and Expedited Removals
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report on family separations under Obama
The ACLU documented cases where families were separated, sometimes inadvertently, due to detention and deportation policies during the Obama years, especially in cases involving unaccompanied minors.
Source: ACLU Report
New York Times, 2014 article on family separations
The article highlights that under Obama, thousands of children were separated from parents due to deportations and border enforcement policies, though the scale was less publicized than later actions.
Secure Communities Program and Increased Deportations
Department of Homeland Security, data and analysis
The Secure Communities program, expanded under Obama, led to significant increases in deportations, often criticized for targeting non-criminal immigrants and causing community distrust.
Overcrowding and Conditions in Detention Centers (Obama Era)
DHS Office of Inspector General Reports
The DHS OIG regularly inspects ICE detention facilities. In 2016, reports highlighted overcrowding and inadequate medical care in some detention centers. You can search for these reports on the official DHS OIG website:
Human Rights Watch – U.S. Immigration Detention
HRW has multiple reports on detention conditions, including during the Obama years, mentioning deaths and substandard medical care. Check:
If you want concrete reports now, I recommend starting at:
DHS OIG reports
ACLU immigration rights page
Human Rights Watch Immigration Detention section
biden and obama did it without dealing with rogue judges who challenged every one of their deportation efforts.
I seriously doubt obama or biden could succeed with their deportation efforts if they had to deal with what President Donald Trump has faced from the rogue members of the judiciary.
Federal judges so out of control the SCOTUS had to get involved.
One must wonder why didn't you look it up?
But since you asked. Monthly Interior Deportations:,900
Obama - 12,900/month
Trump 1.0 - 7,400/month 2017 - 2019
Biden - 4,600/month
Trump 2.0 - Too soon for meaningful analysis.
Apples and Oranges---
While Fareed Zakaria's numbers are technically accurate in a narrow bureaucratic sense, his argument misses the larger context and misrepresents the core distinction between the Trump, Obama, and Biden administrations on immigration: intent, policy goals, and enforcement philosophy. Yes, Barack Obama deported more people overall, particularly early in his presidency when he sought to appease moderate voters by proving he would enforce the law. But crucially, his administration also implemented the DACA program and pursued prosecutorial discretion, focusing on "felons, not families."
Trump's administration, by contrast, adopted a fundamentally different posture, made interior enforcement a priority, ended catch-and-release, expanded the definition of who could be deported, and began the Remain in Mexico policy that deterred hundreds of thousands from crossing in the first place. Many of Trump's policies created a deterrent effect that likely prevented crossings before deportation was even necessary, something the raw monthly deportation numbers can't capture.
Meanwhile, Biden’s use of Title 42 as a pandemic measure is not equivalent to standard deportation; it’s a health statute allowing rapid expulsions without due process, and the administration fought to end it in court. Zakaria reduces Trump’s strategy to mere optics, but it was rooted in an enforcement-first doctrine that, regardless of monthly deportation stats, aimed to regain control over an overwhelmed immigration system. The substance of Trump’s approach is not found in raw deportation averages but in its deterrence philosophy, operational reach, and the message that the U.S. would no longer be a free pass for illegal entry. His monthly border crossings show his strategy is working. The invite has been rescinded, the party has been canceled, so to speak.Here is the main point that you missed.
Zakaria argues that Trump’s approach is more about spectacle than substance—prioritizing fear-inducing visuals over coordinated, lawful enforcement. It’s a fascinating case of perception diverging from reality.
When Trump takes 2,000 marines and stick them in 1 square mile area to control a protest, something is wrong with this picture. It is spectacle and theatrics. The marines said it was the most boring duty they have ever had. They didn't even have quarters for them to sleep. .They were federal troops there to guard federal properties but they ended up controlling protestors and making matters worse.. The national guard was put there without the approval of the governor.With all due respect, this comment overlooks the most important point entirely: President Trump deployed 2,000 Marines to protect federal property, not to suppress protests, and certainly not for theatrics. The purpose was clear and lawful: to prevent the vandalism and destruction of federal buildings, which are national assets funded by taxpayers and critical to civic order.
To frame this action as “spectacle” misses both the legal context and the leadership principle behind it. The Marines were sent under presidential authority to deter further attacks on federal institutions, a measured response to previous incidents where federal courthouses, monuments, and offices were vandalized in cities across the country. They were not sent to crack down on peaceful protests. In fact, their rules of engagement made clear that they were not to intervene unless attacked.
Ironically, the claim that “it was the most boring duty they ever had” supports the success of the mission. No Marines were hurt. No federal buildings were destroyed. No unlawful clashes occurred. That’s not spectacle, that’s effective deterrence. That is the federal government saying, “You have the right to protest, but you do not have the right to destroy.” Setting boundaries is not authoritarian; it’s responsible governance.
And let's clear up the National Guard issue. If the deployment happened without the governor's approval, it was likely done under the Insurrection Act or other existing federal authority, which has long allowed presidents to act when federal interests are under threat, particularly in places where local officials refuse to act or lose control. In this case, President Trump was sending a message not to intimidate protestors, but to restore respect for the rule of law.
This was not about creating fear-inducing visuals; it was about reasserting a basic truth: there is a line between protest and destruction, and federal property will not be surrendered to mob rule or political hesitation. President Trump did what leaders are elected to do: protect the integrity of government institutions and ensure stability when others won’t.
Zakaria’s claim that this is a “case of perception diverging from reality” is ironic, because it’s precisely that kind of media framing that creates a false narrative. The reality is this: the deployment worked, it was legal, and it sent a necessary message, not one of fear, but of order.
May I ask, do you have an opinion on what might have happened to several federal buildings if they hadn't been guarded? Even with troops present, protestors were aggressively attempting to breach federal property. Are you suggesting it would have been more appropriate to stand down and allow them to enter, and potentially vandalize or destroy those sites?
You’ve shared your thoughts on January 6th. So let me ask you this: Why should the protesters in Los Angeles be viewed any differently than those who entered the Capitol? Is the attempt to overrun and damage federal buildings only wrong under certain political circumstances, or should we apply the same standard consistently?There is a lot to unpack here, so here is a time line of what actually happened on a daily basis.. The other link is why 700 marines where sent to protect one building in Los Angeles. It sure looks like a lot of spectacle and theatrics to me. Not only that, but it looks scary to the civilian population..
It was overkill given that mayor Bass had everything under control using local law enforcement. Sending in 2,000 National Guard Troops in full battle gear was not only theatrics, but using an insurrection act law of 1878 was also overkill. It took place in a one square mile area. Why 2,000 troops? This has Stephen Miller's fingerprints all over it.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-ice- … =122688437
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-marines-m … p_catchallThe timeline clearly shows that violence broke out within the first hour of the incident and quickly spread to a federal building. Meanwhile, the mayor was publicly claiming everything was peaceful, even as her own police officers were being assaulted and struggling to contain a protest that had spiraled out of control. It wasn’t until hours later that President Trump gave the order to deploy the National Guard to the area where the rioting was taking place. According to the timeline, rioters then turned their aggression toward the National Guard. Eventually, the Marines were sent in, hoping to prevent further destruction of federal property.
From my perspective, the president acted responsibly given the situation. I understand others may see it differently, but to me, it’s hard to argue against taking action to protect lives and property. It reminds me a lot of January 6th, when many people expected Trump to send in the National Guard or military to handle the violent protest. I’m not sure why anyone would feel differently about deploying troops in L.A. under similar conditions.
All you have to do is watch some of the footage on YouTube, violence broke out the moment ICE began detaining migrants in that parking lot, and it continued long after troops arrived. The facts are there for anyone willing to look.I live 30 miles from Los Angeles. What you see in the footage is not the same thing that was shown on local news as it actually occurred. Those are out of context clips. This link will take you behind the scenes. It provides a sense of reality from those workers and businesses that wee impacted by those raids.
https://lapublicpress.org/2025/06/fear- … ufacturer/I won’t dispute your knowledge of the situation, especially being so close to it. Proximity often gives a clearer lens than national coverage. That said, I do think it’s important to acknowledge that there was considerable damage during the LA protests, and several officers were injured as a result. This wasn’t just isolated or minor unrest. Businesses were looted, vehicles were burned, and some city infrastructure was vandalized. According to LAPD reports at the time, dozens of officers sustained injuries, and over 500 people were arrested in a matter of days.
Given that level of chaos, I honestly feel President Trump was right to send in the National Guard, specifically to protect federal properties. They weren’t deployed to police neighborhoods or escalate tensions in residential areas. Their mission was limited and focused on safeguarding federal assets and sending a clear message: destruction of property and violence won’t be tolerated, no matter the cause.
It’s easy to get caught up in edited clips that distort the full picture, but there’s no denying that those working in the city, store owners, delivery drivers, and even law enforcement, were deeply affected. The destruction left a long-term impact, not just on property but on morale and community stability. So while I respect the insight you're offering, I also think it’s fair to say there were very real reasons behind the Guard's limited deployment, and those reasons go beyond headlines or political optics.
I also believe he didn’t want a repeat of the so-called “Summer of Love” and regretted not acting more swiftly during the months of out-of-control riots that swept across the nation.
He UNNECESSARILY deployed only 700 Marines. The legality of which is still tied up in court. It was 4000 National Guard that were deployed, again for no good reason. It was just a huge waste of taxpayer dollars so that he could "LOOK" strong.
Did the protestors in LA break-in en mass to federal buildings, destroying the interiors, threatening to hang people? NO, not even close. Did even the few rioters try to overthrow the gov't? NO, not even close.
Around 2,000 people were arrested from MAGA's assault on our Capital and insurrection. Talk about a false equivalency."Did the protestors in LA break-in en mass to federal buildings, destroying the interiors, threatening to hang people? NO, not even close. Did even the few rioters try to overthrow the gov't? NO, not even close."
And....that is because thousands of National Guard Troops were deployed along with 700 Marines.
It kept the peace. It was necessary.
Once again the incompetence of democrat leadership has been put on display.Actually, that’s not what happened.
The Los Angeles ICE protests began on June 6, largely peaceful, though—yes—there were some isolated incidents of vandalism and scuffles between demonstrators and law enforcement. But let’s be clear:
No federal buildings were breached
No interiors were destroyed
No protestors threatened to hang government officials or overturn the government
As for the military: the National Guard and Marines were not deployed until early June 8, nearly two full days after the protests began.
So the absence of mass violence or an insurrection wasn’t because troops were already there “keeping the peace”—it was because, for the most part, protestors exercised restraint, even amid anger over aggressive ICE actions.
So no, this wasn’t about Democratic incompetence. Instead, It was about Trump trying to cause a volatile situation with his storm troopers. Despite a few bad actors—the protest did not descend into chaos, certainly nothing close to the coup attempt Jan 6.
If anything, it shows that people can protest government policy without trying to burn the whole thing down."So the absence of mass violence or an insurrection wasn’t because troops were already there “keeping the peace”—it was because, for the most part, protestors exercised restraint, even amid anger over aggressive ICE actions."
I think this is absolutely 100% wrong.
If the troops had NOT been there would have been NO restraint exorcised by protesters. Nobody would have been there to stop them.
Have you ever heard of an event called the George Floyd riots? THAT is an example of supreme democrat leader incompetence.
President Donald Trump's actions prevented a repeat of that event.
"No federal buildings were breached
No interiors were destroyed"
This is because there were thousands of National Guard troops and Marines preventing this from happening.
Again, it is a sign of democrat leader incompetence.You can think that, but it is not wrong.
And what did you not understand about "As for the military: the National Guard and Marines were not deployed until early June 8, nearly two full days after the protests began." Are you saying the rioting started only AFTER the troops showed, lol.No, I am saying that the rioting did not escalate in any way because of thousands of National Guard troops and Marines.
Their presence kept the rioters from getting any worse.
It's quite obvious.
The recent riots in Los Angeles are hard to ignore or call anything else but violent riots. The facts are hard to dispute. But I see some fine, it's easy to dispute the carnage that occurred in response to federal ICE raids, which caused significant damage and unrest throughout the city. What began as protests quicklywithin hours, escalated into violent confrontations involving fireworks, tear gas, Molotov cocktails, and clashes with law enforcement. Over 23 businesses, including Apple, T-Mobile, and Adidas, were looted or vandalized. Public buildings such as the LAPD headquarters, U.S. Courthouse, and the Los Angeles Times building suffered broken windows and extensive graffiti. Protesters set fires and destroyed property, including five Waymo self-driving vehicles, each valued at roughly $150,000. More than 561 arrests were made, with some individuals facing serious charges like attempted murder and assaulting officers. The city’s response came with a hefty price tag—LAPD overtime alone cost nearly $17 million, and citywide cleanup and fire department responses added over $1.7 million more. In total, Los Angeles officials estimate municipal costs exceeded $32 million.
Importantly, all of this destruction took place before a single National Guard troop had arrived.. Mayor Karen Bass responded by declaring a state of emergency and imposing a curfew, while Governor Newsom criticized the federal deployment as unconstitutional. These were the same officials who downplayed the severity of the situation and allowed the chaos to escalate. In contrast, President Trump acted decisively to protect ICE officers and federal property when others failed to do so."all of this destruction took place before a single National Guard troop had arrived"
And...it stopped once they arrived.
President Donald Trump had to do what the California governor and LA mayor could not, be a leader. Protect citizens and property.
Between these riots and the wildfires, it is difficult to think of the LA mayor and California governor as anything other than incompetent.Calling what happened in Los Angeles in June a “riot” is the height of hyperbole. If that qualifies as a riot, then the word has lost all meaning. Let’s be clear: over 200,000 people protested peacefully across the city, and by LAPD’s own numbers, fewer than 0.3% engaged in any violent or destructive acts.
Labeling the entire protest movement a “riot” isn’t just misleading—it’s pure political theater.
Now let’s compare a few key facts:
• Damage & Cost: LA protests over eight days resulted in ~$32 million in public costs. In contrast, the Capitol insurrection lasted just eight hours and led to an estimated $2.7 billion in costs to the public—including damage, emergency deployment, and increased security.
• Law Enforcement Injuries: LA: 10 officers injured over eight days. Capitol: 141 officers injured in less than one day—many severely and some dying where the violence of the insurrection was a factor.
• Scale: LA: 200,000 peaceful protesters, with a few hundred agitators. Capitol: 10,000 protestors on site, 2,000 rioters breached the building to disrupt a constitutional process.
And as for Trump’s “decisive” action? He deployed federal force in Los Angeles against immigration protesters within hours. But on January 6, as his own supporters attacked police and stormed the Capitol, he waited hours to respond—and only reluctantly. Why the delay? Why the silence?
So pardon me if I don’t share your outrage over what was, in nearly every respect, a peaceful protest. When you compare the scope, damage, and lawlessness of the two events, it becomes clear: calling LA a “riot” is more about scoring political points than reflecting reality.I can only imagine how much worse it would have been for LA if President Donald Trump had not deployed the National Guard and Marines.
I believe he saved that city a lot of money by his actions.
He took the reins of leadership because the democrats are hopelessly incompetent at their jobs.
A peaceful protest is where there is no damage to public property and no members of law enforcement are attacked.
This is a concept that seems lost by those on the left.Let’s separate fact from spin.
“I can only imagine how much worse it would have been for LA if Trump hadn’t sent in the National Guard and Marines…”
That’s exactly right — you can only imagine it because the facts tell a very different story. The worst of the violence — broken windows, scattered fires, confrontations — occurred on June 6–7. The National Guard and Marines didn’t show up in real force until the evening of June 8, and by then LAPD had already regained control and the protests had turned overwhelmingly peaceful (Washington Post, The Guardian).
So no, Trump didn’t “take the reins” — he showed up after the horse had already left the barn.
“He saved that city a lot of money by his actions.”
Actually, Trump’s actions added millions in unnecessary costs.
• LAPD overtime alone cost nearly $17 million.
• Cleanup and fire responses added another $15 million.
• The Guard and Marines’ deployment — authorized from D.C. and coordinated through federal resources — cost taxpayers at least $134 million more (and still growing) for housing, logistics, staging, and transport — despite having almost no meaningful impact[/b].
Much of the federal force sat idle, some reportedly playing cards and watching Netflix while waiting for orders that never came. It was political theater — a show of strength for the cameras and his base on the Right, not the streets.
“Democrats are hopelessly incompetent…”
Let’s get real. LAPD, under Democratic leadership, restored control before Trump’s troops ever deployed. The state of emergency and curfews were in place, key zones were under tactical lockdown, and there were no major violent outbreaks after June 7.
Meanwhile, Trump tried to federalize the optics, throwing Marines into a domestic protest situation to stoke fear and division, not to restore peace. That’s not leadership — that’s authoritarian cosplay.
“A peaceful protest is where there’s no damage or attacks on law enforcement.”
That is an extremely naive and/or dishonest view. By that definition, literally no large protest in modern history is “peaceful”. Not the Tea Party (historic or modern), not Occupy Wall Street, not even many civil rights marches.
Here’s the real story:
• Over 200,000 people protested in LA over several days.
• Fewer than 0.3% committed any acts of violence or vandalism.
• Only 10 police officers were injured — over 8 days.
Compare that to January 6, where:
• Over 140 officers were injured — in just 8 hours.
• Damages and law enforcement costs exceeded $2.8 BILLION.
• And Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop it.
So pardon me if I don’t take your “concern” seriously when it’s clear the LA protests were overwhelmingly peaceful and handled locally — without needing Trump’s taxpayer-funded photo op (of which he does a lot of - he is probably the most wasteful president in our history.
Bottom line:
Trump wasted millions in federal dollars for a militarized publicity stunt while local law enforcement was already restoring calm. It wasn’t about safety — it was about spectacle.
And that, too, is a concept lost on the right.Yes. Let's separate fact from spin.
As I recall there were molotov cocktails thrown at police. They were assaulted with fireworks rockets and whatever else was available.
That is NOT a "peaceful protest" no matter how hard you try to spin it. And that's a fact.You do have an amazing ability to assume the actions of one individual means ALL individuals did the same thing. Hard to argue with that illogic, nevertheless, I will try.
You’re absolutely right — Molotov cocktails, fireworks, and assaults on police are not peaceful. No one said they were. What I said — and what the data shows — is that those incidents were rare exceptions in a protest involving over 200,000 people across Los Angeles.
Let’s do the math:
* Fewer than 0.3% of protestors committed any violent acts.
* That means over 99.7% didn’t throw a single bottle, spark a fire, or injure anyone.
* Ten officers injured over 8 days in LA vs. 140+ injured in just 8 hours on Jan 6.
So if your standard is “any violence = not peaceful”, then by that logic:
* The Tea Party (modern) protests weren’t peaceful (because there were arrests).
* Civil rights marches weren’t peaceful (because of scattered clashes).
* Hell, even some sporting celebrations would be considered riots.
That definition is intellectually dishonest and historically illiterate.
What’s more:
* The worst of the unrest was already contained by June 8.
* Trump’s federal troops didn’t begin significant staging until after that — and largely sat idle.
* Local agencies, under Democratic leadership, restored control — not Trump’s Marines.
So the only "spin" happening here is you pretending that a few dozen bad actors invalidate the rights, restraint, and peaceful behavior of hundreds of thousands of Americans — including clergy, veterans, nurses, students, and business owners — who marched lawfully.
Let’s be clear:
* Condemning violence doesn’t mean dismissing the protest.
* Pretending a protest is violent because a few people acted out? That is spin.
* And let’s not forget: the federal presence you’re defending cost taxpayers over $134 million for a symbolic display that changed nothing operationally — after the situation was already calming.
Bottom line: Yes, there was violence. But no, it wasn’t the defining character of the LA protests. And using isolated chaos to justify an authoritarian-style overreaction is both misleading and dangerous.
He does it that way because MAUGA loves him making a spectacle of himself.
For the curious take a peek at . . .
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Statistics presented by U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement
https://www.ice.gov/statistics
There is opportunity to use drop down menus to tailor specifics for taste. For instance arrest by fiscal year offers to select years
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
The drop downs are:
Date Selector
Arrest Fiscal Year
Arrest Month
Area of Responsibility
Country of citizenship
Criminality
Arresting agency
Interestingly the area of the most arrests is the Dallas Area followed by Houston.
It also shows detentions, removals, and expulsions.
There is opportunity to use links for resources going back to 2013This is disgusting...
Immigration agents told a teenage US citizen: ‘You’ve got no rights.’ He secretly recorded his brutal arrest...
Video footage of the incident captured by Laynez-Ambrosio, an 18-year-old US citizen, appears to show a group of officers in tactical gear working together to violently detain the three men*, two of whom are undocumented. They appear to use a stun gun on one man, put another in a chokehold and can be heard telling Laynez-Ambrosio: “You’ve got no rights here. You’re a migo, brother.” Afterward, agents can be heard bragging and making light of the arrests, calling the stun gun use “funny” and quipping: “You can smell that … $30,000 bonus.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ion-arrestI would care more if people on the left cared as much about the violence experienced by ICE agents and border patrol for doing their job.
The two guys were released on bail. The American citizen was not arrested.
ICE and Border patrol deal with lots of bad people and have to be ready at all times to deal with horrible situations. Murderers, rapists, convicted felons are just a few.
Until they are certain there is no threat to them, I think they won't relax.
There is really no reason for anyone to be here illegally. The administration of President Donald Trump has a program in place where they can self-deport, be given $1,000 and a free plane ride back to their country. They can then come back and file all the necessary paperwork to be in the US legally.
People who are here illegally are bringing a lot of problems on themselves."I would care more if people on the left cared as much about the violence experienced by ICE agents and border patrol for doing their job."
Deflection as far as the eye can see....but why is it always a choice with you folks? Do people really have that difficult of a Time holding two ideas in their mind at once?
We're talking about an American citizen here, who was treated like an actual piece of dirt...The ICE agents bring the violence on themselves through the use of illegal, inhumane tactics. They should be held to a higher standard, but they are not. They are held by MAGA to a much lower standard.
Incompetent? I wouldn't use that word if I was a MAGA. Look at this cabinet. Look at his appointed judges. Look at his staff. Name one of them who has the experience or expertise to do the job they've been thrown into.
Incompetent? That’s a lazy talking point. Trump’s cabinet and appointees include some of the most accomplished people in their fields. Look at judges like Amy Coney Barrett or Neil Gorsuch, both widely respected for their legal expertise and intellectual rigor. These aren’t amateurs thrown in randomly; they’re top-tier professionals reshaping the judiciary after decades of liberal activism.
As for the cabinet, many have deep business, military, or government experience. Just because someone doesn’t fit the Washington “establishment” mold doesn’t mean they lack qualifications. In fact, Trump deliberately picked outsiders to break the cycle of career politicians who’ve done little but deepen bureaucratic failures.
If you want to challenge someone’s qualifications, bring names and facts. Otherwise, throwing around “incompetent” is just weak rhetoric from people who can’t handle that Trump actually disrupted the status quo and put qualified people in power.It's the least qualified cabinet in history.... Fact check it. Sycophants as far as the eye can see...
It's a view supported by all the major AI bots
Yeah, and if all major AI bots support it, it has to be true.
(This is sarcasm)Anyone here is perfectly welcome to dispute it
You brought up AI --- Here is a simple question, let AI dispute it.
List Trump's cabinet with their qualifications and stats on their confirmation.What is their confirmation have to do with how qualified they are?
I presented each candidate’s qualifications, and based on the confirmation statistics, it’s clear that Congress was satisfied with the majority of the individuals they approved. That’s why I made mention of confirmations. In my opinion, Congress, given its responsibility and access to thorough vetting, is more qualified than either of us to assess and confirm President Trump’s nominees.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4378056
Your biased comment made me consider, perhaps you do feel you are more qualified...
"Willowarbor wrote:
It's the least qualified cabinet in history.... Fact check it. Sycophants as far as the eye can see..."
How does one dispute it? We would need to know what you asked AI. Please share what you requested from AI.
One must first know how to efficiently use AI. Second, must offer direct questions, ask for facts, not opinions. For example, Willows' claim that AI supports that Trump's administration is the least qualified in history.
Question to AI -- Isn't Trump's administration the least qualified cabinet in history?
Reply
No — based on objective measures, it is not accurate to say that Trump's second-term administration is the least qualified cabinet in history. That claim is subjective and unsubstantiated, often used rhetorically in political commentary, not grounded in a clear or consistent standard of what "qualified" means.
Here’s a non-biased breakdown:
What “Qualified” Typically Means in a Cabinet Context
Prior public service (e.g., governors, senators, representatives)
Subject-matter expertise (e.g., military experience for Defense, legal experience for Attorney General)
Executive leadership (e.g., running a business or agency)
Senate confirmation (votes reflect bipartisan confidence or concern)
Trump’s Second-Term Cabinet (2025): Qualifications Overview
Marco Rubio (Secretary of State) – Longtime U.S. Senator, major foreign policy experience.
Doug Burgum (Interior) – Two-term governor, energy and land-use experience.
Scott Bessent (Treasury) – Financial strategist with global economic background.
Pam Bondi (Attorney General) – Former state AG with prosecutorial background.
Chris Wright (Energy) – Private-sector energy executive.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (HHS) – Decades of public advocacy, though controversial.
Many others have held elected office, served in the military, or led major organizations, and most were Senate-confirmed.
Why the “Least Qualified” Claim Doesn’t Hold Up
No historical benchmark exists to quantify “most” or “least qualified” across all administrations.
Many past cabinets had controversial or inexperienced members (e.g., Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” Harding’s “Ohio Gang,” or JFK appointing his brother as Attorney General).
Several Trump appointees received strong bipartisan confirmation votes (e.g., Rubio 99–0, Burgum 80–17, Duffy 77–22).
Valid Criticism Exists — But It’s Nuanced
Critics argue that some picks (like Hegseth for Defense or RFK Jr. for HHS) were chosen more for loyalty or ideology than subject-matter expertise.
That’s a fair debate, but a few controversial picks don’t make the entire cabinet unqualified.Yes, I found yet another of these today. I found an article in my alerts that had an interesting title, clicked on it, and then when I read it found that it was medically incorrect (based on published research) and there was a line at the bottom about it being created by AI. Now AI uses it as one of the sources so they are just going to regurgitate more falsehoods.
It seems like if AI supports it, there is a good chance that it is false.AI is often incorrect. The best way to use AI is to request only facts that can be proven with a clear source that produces clear evidence.
Yes, I agree. I only fell down this rabbit hole since I liked the title of that article and did not notice until the end that it was written by AI. It was about cats, and political articles from AI are even more often incorrect.
That makes sense, and you’re not alone in feeling that AI-written content, especially political articles, can sometimes seem off or incorrect. It’s not always just the AI’s fault or the user’s; several factors contribute to this. AI learns from a wide range of sources like news, blogs, and social media, and if those sources lean in a certain direction, the AI can unintentionally mirror that bias. Also, politics requires nuance and context, which AI often misses, making articles feel shallow or one-sided. Many AI-generated pieces are published without thorough human review, so errors or slants may go unnoticed.
Another very important point is that users can shape the AI’s output by giving instructions that affect tone, perspective, or bias, so the same AI can produce very different takes depending on the prompt. While AI can be great for simple topics, political content needs careful use and fact-checking, since polished writing doesn’t always mean accurate or balanced.This is what happens when Trump lets what he calls his truthful hyperbole get in the way of simple mathematics that a 5th grader knows is impossible.
.President Donald Trump claimed to be planning a massive reduction in drug costs for Americans, but critics were quick to point out his numbers don’t add up.
In a reception with members of Congress on Tuesday, Trump spoke about lowering drug prices for Americans at a time when cuts to programs like Medicaid are on the horizon.
In doing so, Trump promised some truly staggering figures.
“We will have reduced drug prices by 1000%, by 1,100%, 1,200%, 1,300%, 1,400%, 700%, 600%. Not 30% or 40% or 50%. But numbers likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of.”
“We’re gonna get the drug prices down,” Trump said. “Not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we’re gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%. Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable.”
Trump’s comments left social media users scratching their heads. Users asked X’s AI chatbot Grok about Trump’s claims. Grok variously called them “mathematically impossible,” “hyperbolic,” and in one case, “total bullsh**t.”
Several accounts pointed to the impossibility of “negative numbers” for drug prices, along with the idea of “getting paid to take drugs.”
One user put it more bluntly: “Cant wait fill my next zpack at cvs and leave with a stack of their money”
Trump claimed that an executive order signed in May would pave the way for reduced drug costs by invoking “most-favored nation” status on drug prices. In theory, pharmaceutical companies could not charge Americans anymore for drugs than they were charging citizens in other countries.
However, talks between the Trump administration and pharmaceutical companies have been ongoing, with one executive calling them “inconclusive” by according to Bio Pharma Dive.President Trump's executive order is aimed at ensuring Americans don’t pay more for prescription drugs than other developed countries. I had a look at the EO. It’s a promising step that "could" help lower costs, particularly for Medicare patients. However, it’s still early in the process, the order hasn’t been fully implemented yet, and the pharmaceutical industry is likely to push back. They always do... Hopefully, this leads to more affordable medications without compromising access to new treatments. That said, I thought his figures were definitely over the top and very hyperbolic. LOL
AI will s[it up anything you tell oy to. LOL
My request to AI --so it is clear Trump's administration represents very qualified people, offer me why.
AI response --- Yes, it is fair to say that Trump’s second-term administration includes many qualified individuals, especially when judged by their professional experience, public service background, sector-specific knowledge, and political confirmations. Here's why the claim that it's "the least qualified in history" doesn't hold up:
Why Trump’s Second-Term Cabinet Can Be Considered Very Qualified
1. Extensive Public Service and Elected Office Experience
Many cabinet members have held high elected office, such as Marco Rubio (Senator), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Congresswoman), Kristi Noem (Governor), Doug Collins (Representative), and Tulsi Gabbard (Representative).
Their legislative experience gives them deep knowledge of federal policy, lawmaking, and budget oversight — key qualifications for executive roles.
2. Military and National Security Credentials
Several appointees, including Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Lee Zeldin, and John Ratcliffe, have military service or national security backgrounds.
These roles demand a high level of judgment, discipline, and understanding of international affairs and defense policy — all highly relevant to their Cabinet responsibilities.
3. Executive and Business Experience
Howard Lutnick (Commerce), Doug Burgum (Interior), and Linda McMahon (Education) all ran large organizations or companies.
These leaders bring real-world executive management experience to government, often with multi-billion-dollar budgets, staff oversight, and strategic planning — essential skills for federal agency leadership.
4. Policy and Legal Expertise
Brooke Rollins, Pam Bondi, Russell Vought, and Jamieson Greer have deep legal and policy credentials, having worked in law, think tanks, and federal policy offices.
These backgrounds are critical when navigating complex federal regulations, legal frameworks, and Constitutional limits.
5. Strong Bipartisan or Broad Senate Confirmation
Many nominees were confirmed with wide bipartisan support, showing that even opponents found them credible or competent:
Marco Rubio: 99–0
Doug Burgum: 80–17
Sean Duffy: 77–22
Doug Collins: 77–23
This undermines claims that the cabinet is merely filled with “sycophants” or unqualified loyalists.
6. Issue-Specific Expertise
Appointees like Chris Wright (Energy) and Scott Bessent (Treasury) come with domain-specific expertise that fits their roles. Wright is a seasoned energy executive, and Bessent is a global investor and strategist — ideal for energy and economic portfolios.
7. Diverse Backgrounds Reflecting Real-World America
The cabinet includes a mix of military vets, entrepreneurs, former athletes, lawyers, and public servants. This diversity in professional background often leads to well-rounded decision-making that reflects both elite policy knowledge and real-life challenges.Your question to the AI was a leading question, not a neutral one. When I put your question to ChatGPT without the leading words, I got this.
Does the Trump's cabinet represents very qualified or very unqualified people, offer me why.
ChatGPT said:
Trump’s 2025 Cabinet appears to be a highly controversial mix, with some experienced individuals alongside many with little or no relevant qualifications for their roles. Whether it represents a “very qualified” or “very unqualified” Cabinet depends largely on how one defines “qualified”—traditional expertise, ideological alignment, or loyalty to Trump.
Let’s look at the facts, not the politics:
Some Picks Have Conventional Qualifications
Name Role Why Considered Qualified
Marco Rubio Secretary of State U.S. Senator, member of Foreign Relations Committee
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. HHS Secretary Long career in environmental law, public health advocacy. RFK Jr. is considered qualified by some, but many health professionals oppose him due to his anti-vaccine activism.
Stephen Miller WH Dep Chief of Staff Deep experience in immigration policy under Trump 1.0
Pam Bondi Attorney General Former Florida AG; involved in Trump defense in impeachment. Strong political loyalist; involved in ethical controversies as FL AG
These individuals at least bring governmental or subject-matter experience, though not always in the exact field they now lead.
But Many Are Deeply Questioned Appointments
The criticisms fall into three main buckets:
1. Lack of Subject-Matter Expertise
Name Role Concerns
Pete Hegseth Secretary of Defense Fox News commentator; limited military leadership experience; never held command
Tulsi Gabbard Director of Nat. Intelligence Former Rep. with no intelligence background; polarizing figure
Mehmet Oz Administrator of CMMS TV doctor; criticized for promoting pseudoscience
2. Appointees With Political Loyalty But Not Relevant Skills
Name Role Criticism
Kristi Noem HHS Secretary Chosen for loyalty; no background in environmental or federal land management
Scott Bessent Sec Treasury Hedge fund manager; limited public sector experience
3. Controversial Ideologies or Conflicts
Pete Hegseth faces bipartisan concern over his militaristic rhetoric, alleged promotion of disinformation, and ethical questions.
Tulsi Gabbard has drawn criticism from both parties for embracing Russian and Syrian talking points, raising national security worries.
Expert Consensus & Public Polling
Most public polls show that Americans are either skeptical or unfamiliar with Trump’s picks. Only Marco Rubio and RFK Jr. have modest net-positive ratings.
Major editorial boards and think tanks (e.g., Brookings, Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations) have criticized the Cabinet as “ideologically extreme,” “lacking depth,” or “stacked with loyalists over experts.”
Only 30% of Americans say they trust Trump to appoint qualified people (AP-NORC, April 2025).
ESO Comment: Marco Rubio is the most disappoint of all. We knew we getting unqualified picks for everybody else, but Rubio was well regarded, which is why he picked up all those Democratic votes. But he has turned into one of Trump's most loyal sycophants.
Supply your Factcheck link or what you requested in the way of a request from AI.
Actually, I am more pleased than I thought I would be on his nominations. There are at least a handful, those that have ruled against Trump, who take their job seriously even though they swing Right.
But his cabinet, WOW! They are ideologs who believe in Trump more than America or the Constitution or are just incompetent. I can't think of even one who measures up to the kind of Department Secretaries that America is used to, and that includes Marco Rubio who sold his soul the devil to get those appointments.
Related Discussions
- 13
Did you just call me a 'pussy communist?"
by ptosis 8 years ago
Posse Comitatus:The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.The Act does not apply to the Army National Guard and the Air National...
- 9
Obama Deported 3 Million People
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
Why didn't liberals cry about due process then?I guess they have selective due process outrage."Did President Obama remove more noncitizens from the U.S. than any other president in U.S history?Yes.Former President Barack Obama formally removed 3 million noncitizens from the U.S. over two...
- 80
Donald Trump on Immigration (Deportation)
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
Trumps speech on August 31 was fraught with lies and miss-information. He should not call it his policy on Immigration, but it should be called his policy on Deportation. I watched the entire speech and it gave me chills. He sounded and acted just like Hitler and Mussolini. Here...
- 14
Immigration! Trump announced his new 'Border Czar' on Truth Social.
by Tim Mitchell 8 months ago
Trump to appoint former ICE Director Tom Homan as next ‘border czar’: ‘nobody better at policing our borders’ by Fox News (Nov 11, 2024)Trump said Homan 'will be in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin'https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- …...
- 46
So when do the deportations start?
by Will Apse 8 years ago
I imagine it will take some time to establish the infrastructure, round up the illegals, get new laws in place. What is a realistic timescale?
- 40
Deporting Criminal Migrants: Time for Action
by Sharlee 7 months ago
These statistics show that illegal migrants with criminal records have entered the U.S. under multiple administrations, with a noticeable increase during the Biden administration.NOTE --- Please consider that my original point is focused specifically on the deportation of illegal immigrants who...