# Incorrectly reported 'news'



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Is this what they call 'fake news'?

Anyone who has been following the Brexit situation in the UK will know that the PM decided to prorogue parliament starting today. They will also know that his attempt to call an election was defeated twice with the second vote being held yesterday. They will also know that his decision to prorogue parliament was made weeks ago and received a lot of negative uproar given the approach of the October 31 Brexit deadline. That should be enough info for anyone who has not been following the situation to understand what I am going to write next.

This morning on CTV News Toronto, the airhead 'news' anchor said that the UK PM had prorogued parliament starting today because his call for an election had been voted down by parliament!!! She directly attributed cause and effect when in fact there is no connection of one to the other in that way. 

A lie is when you say something intentionally knowing it to be wrong so I wouldn't go so far as to say that is what she did but she most definitely gave incorrect information. If I am being generous I could just say the silly woman simply didn't know what she was talking about. But why should I be that generous when it is a supposed 'newsperson' I am talking about? It is her job to get the facts right, not just read from a teleprompter what someone has written for her to read out.

To me it is just another example showing that what passes for a 'newsperson' on TV today really is just a talking head with no brains or knowledge required.

But more importantly, it also shows a perfect example of just how these media people can make a supposed statement of fact when the facts are entirely different from what they are stating. THAT means the information on which we form our opinions on may things is not to be trusted when it comes from them. Who then can we trust to give us the real facts?

Some here may be old enough to remember Walter Cronkite, the anchor of CBS Evening News from 1962 to 1981. He was considered to be the 'most trusted man in America'. He used to end the news each evening with the phrase, 'and that's the way it was.' If Cronkite said it, it was true. The only times he did not use that ending was when he ended the program with an opinion or commentary rather than factual news.

If a news anchor today can say (paraphrasing) 'Boris Johnson prorogues parliament BECAUSE his call for an early election was voted down by parliament', then that news anchor can as easily say anything else that is equally incorrect. Is this what they call progress?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This is a pretty good summary and explanation of the situation. I read it and I still don't understand it.

I think all the defections from Boris Johnson's government changed a lot of the political calculations.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/uk/boris-johnson-prorogation-explainer-gbr-intl/index.html


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

If you want examples of "incorrectly reported news" CNN does so daily. As does MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS.

Your agenda is tiresome.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

What agenda are you referring to Prairie Guy? A wish for news that was reported correctly?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What if every TV news person was offered the choice of two super powers? Choice #1, you will always be able to get the story, and to get at the truth behind the story. Choice #2, your hair will always look perfect. Does anyone doubt that every one of them would pick #2?

In the US they don't even bother wondering about the truth anymore. They spin the yarn they are told to spin and laugh at the rubes who believe them.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> What agenda are you referring to Prairie Guy? A wish for news that was reported correctly?


Yes, I'd love accurate news.

Even your adored Walter Cronkite had an agenda and opinions that were spun as news. The difference today is that the media no longer hide their agenda. For example, 2 full years of screaming headlines about Russian collusion and when it was proven completely fake the entire media moved on the next as if nothing happened...no retraction and no apology for getting it wrong every single day for 2 full years. Prior to that they pretended Obama walked on water for 8 years and never reported his crimes or failings.

And some people on this site pretend those news sources are still credible. And too many people still believe the lies they are told.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

In defence of LTAs thread, newscasters evolved into newsreaders. Famous people like Katie Couric and Kevin Newman both relinquished the job and pursued more rewarding endeavours.

In the case of the UK, I am sure the newswriters had not followed the situation so had to make stuff up.

The same thing happens here where people make stuff up to support their positions...


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> Yes, I'd love accurate news.
> 
> Even your adored Walter Cronkite had an agenda and opinions that were spun as news. The difference today is that the media no longer hide their agenda. For example, 2 full years of screaming headlines about Russian collusion and when it was proven completely fake the entire media moved on the next as if nothing happened...no retraction and no apology for getting it wrong every single day for 2 full years. Prior to that they pretended Obama walked on water for 8 years and never reported his crimes or failings.
> 
> And some people on this site pretend those news sources are still credible. And too many people still believe the lies they are told.


But how are we supposed to get credible news Prairie Guy? If the left leaning say the right leaning newsreaders are feeding us 'fake news' and the right leaning say the left leaning newsreaders are feeding us 'fake news', they can't both be right at the same time can they. So how is the average person to know when to listen to one vs. the other to know what is real? Journalists of whatever media should ALL be reporting the same facts regardless of their personal bias and should be fact-checking what they report.

If we cannot trust in the 'press' to report factually correct information, who then can we TRUST to do so? Veritas is the abiding prime directive of journalism or at least used to be and still should be. Here is a good article on the subject:
https://medium.com/@ubuntufm/the-fo...-of-journalism-facts-vs-fake-news-61168f8e8cf


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> In defence of LTAs thread, newscasters evolved into newsreaders. Famous people like Katie Couric and Kevin Newman both relinquished the job and pursued more rewarding endeavours.
> 
> In the case of the UK, I am sure the newswriters had not followed the situation so had to make stuff up.
> 
> The same thing happens here where people make stuff up to support their positions...


Kcowan, I think it could have been as simple as someone reading on a newswire service something like, 'UK PM loses vote on early election and prorogues parliament after the vote.'

That could read to someone as if affect followed cause but in fact what it would be referring to with the word 'after' is simply time. The vote was lost and yes, after the vote was lost parliament was prorogued an hour or two later, as was already SCHEDULED to happen. 

The newswriter doesn't need to 'make stuff up' as you suggest although that is also a possibility, they would just need to not understand the context of what they were reading and make a simple ASSUMPTION of cause and affect. 

It's really about reporting on something without knowing what you are talking about or fact-checking to make sure you have got it right. We can't expect a newsreader to be aware of everything in the world but we should be able to expect them to know what they are talking about. For example, don't tell me GM is doing a recall on pickup trucks for brake problems if you have not called (or someone has) GM to confirm the facts. It should be that way for every news 'item' a newsreader reads to us. Time was when nothing got reported on the news without at least TWO corroborations being found. No one found two that would corroborate the proroguing of the UK parliament was caused by the vote against an early election. So what happened to having 2 corroborations of what was reported? Answer, it didn't happen obviously. 

Getting it right is what a journalist's job is about. No one can accuse a left leaning or right leaning journalist of bias IF they only report FACTS which are verifiable. When they fail to do that however and get something wrong, their entire credibility is gone. What is a journalist without credibility? Answer, just another talking head.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> The newswriter doesn't need to 'make stuff up' as you suggest although that is also a possibility, they would just need to not understand the context of what they were reading and make a simple ASSUMPTION of cause and affect.


You seem to misunderstand the need for people to know the answers. It is a very common human failing. It seems that the simple answer "I don't know" is not considered. I have seen it repeatedly in executive ranks. Assuming cause and effect is a huge problem in general, especially among social "scientists".


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Actual New York Times tweet:

"18 years have passed since airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center and brought them down"

According to the NYT "airplanes" took down the World Trade Center...not terrorists.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That headline is accurate. You just don't understand it.

The key words are "took aim".

Airplanes can take aim at buildings and bring them down. Terrorists taking aim by squinting down their arms wouldn't bring the building down.

Sorry, but we have to send you back to the mail room.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> That headline is accurate. You just don't understand it.
> 
> The key words are "took aim".
> 
> ...


Wrong. Airplanes can't take aim so that's not accurate. They must be aimed by a human.

However, you really do know what the problem is with that byline but you just can't help defending their stance even though it's a perfect example of inaccurately reported news.

You just can't help yourself, can you?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> That headline is accurate. You just don't understand it.
> 
> The key words are "took aim".
> 
> ...


Really??? You think an airplane can aim???? My oh my. Is English not your first language sags? That might explain your misconception of what a THING can do vs. what a person can do. 

Good example Prairie Guy of yet another dumbing down of the English language by the media.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Good example Prairie Guy of yet another dumbing down of the English language by the media.


I don't think it's dumbing down...it's a deliberate attempt to mislead or obscure. Would the headline have been the same if it was white supremacists who flew into the towers?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Prairie Guy said:


> I don't think it's dumbing down...it's a deliberate attempt to mislead or obscure. Would the headline have been the same if it was white supremacists who flew into the towers?


Umm, I don't know, I think you may be reading more into it than exists in regards to intent. Why would they want to obscure that it was terrorists who did it? Why would they want to change it if white supremacists did it? I think it was just sloppy writing which is becoming all to common these days.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Umm, I don't know, I think you may be reading more into it than exists in regards to intent. Why would they want to obscure that it was terrorists who did it? Why would they want to change it if white supremacists did it? I think it was just sloppy writing which is becoming all to common these days.


The media has no problem blaming white supremacists on a regular basis….even if they weren't responsible. Attributing a terrorist attack to a Muslim never happens. It's not sloppy, it's deliberate.

Let's not forget that we just had 2 full years of the media almost daily claiming that Trump was a Russian agent when there was absolutely no proof. Once proven wrong they didn't even apologize or retract 2 full years of lies.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lets also not forget that 15 of 19 of the 911 terrorists were citizens of Saudi Arabia and 2 were citizens of the United Arab Emirate. 

Osama Bin Laden was also a Saudi citizen. 

Now the US Justice Department has released the names of 2 Saudi intelligence officers who were involved.

And yet.....Trump's Muslim travel ban and oil embargos didn't include Saudi Arabia or the UAE......hmmm.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Lets also not forget that 15 of the 911 terrorists were citizens of Saudi Arabia and 2 were citizens of the United Arab Emirate. Osama Bin Laden was also a Saudi citizen.
> 
> Now the US Justice Department has released the names of 2 Saudi intelligence officers who were involved.
> 
> And yet.........Trump's Muslim travel ban didn't include Saudi Arabia or the UAE.............hmmm.


There was no Trump Muslim Travel ban.
It was specifically a CIA recommended ban from specific high risk countries.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> There was no Trump Muslim Travel ban.
> It was specifically a CIA recommended ban from specific high risk countries.


And that ban was originally recommended by people under Obama's reign.

But regarding incorrectly reported news...no one in the media or here is willing to acknowledge the 2 full years of media frenzy about the non-existent Trump/Russia collusion.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> And that ban was originally recommended by people under Obama's reign.
> 
> But regarding incorrectly reported news...no one in the media or here is willing to acknowledge the 2 full years of media frenzy about the non-existent Trump/Russia collusion.


I thought it was the Russian and Saudi oligarchs who invested so heavily in Trump's businesses that has lead to Trump's otherwise irrational behaviour?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> I thought it was the Russian and Saudi oligarchs who invested so heavily in Trump's businesses that has lead to Trump's otherwise irrational behaviour?


I thought Trump was an arrogant bombastic goofball, who also happens to be exceptionally intelligent, and that led to his behaviour.

Often he goes off in weird ways, likely because he's quite narcissistic, and honestly, who at that levels isn't at least a bit?
You see the chaos and the crazy, and I think he kinda likes to be the center of that maelstrom.

It doesn't make sense to me, but if you look at the results of what Trump has accomplished, it's quite surprising.
He got his wall.
He's got the Democrats in chaos, look at how "The Squad" managed to be in the news so much. 

Look at the polling numbers, the democratic candidate that polls best against Trump is Biden. 
Quite honestly, once they launch attack ads of Joe Biden and his creepy AF hair sniffing, and other behaviour, I don't think he'll get the "feel good" vote everyone is hoping for.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I see no point in going off topic for a political argument. The topic is incorrectly reported news of any kind. While some of that incorrectly reported news may be intentional based on a bias or not, is also not the topic of the thread, only a subset of the overall umbrella of incorrectly reported news. Or is that too difficult for some here to get their head around?

A lie is only a 'lie' if intentional but incorrectly reported facts are always incorrect whether intentional or not. I don't think that in the example I gave re a report by CTV on Brexit, that the newsreader or CTV intended to 'lie' about anything or had any bias in regards to what was being reported, they just got it WRONG because no one did their fact checking which would have shown them there was no 'cause and affect' linking the two things. An early election vote in Parliament and the proroguing of that Parliament. 

This at best, sloppy reporting is all too often, what we get these days from the news media. Whether it is incorrectly associating cause and affect or simply incorrect use of English as in a plane being able to aim, the standards of the news media are becoming lower and lower. Another simple example I have alluded to is the incorrect pronunciation of place names. Recent news regarding Puerto Rico for example has had newsreaders saying Porto Rico. It is insulting as well as incorrect to do that. How difficult is it to find out how to properly pronounce a place name if you are going to be using it in something you say? 

When someone on the street says Porto Rico, I think nothing much about it. They obviously just don't know how to pronounce a Spanish name properly. But when a supposed journalist gets it wrong, that is another thing entirely. A journalist's first priority is supposed to be to get what they say RIGHT. That means right in every respect including pronunciation. When I hear them get it wrong, it undermines their entire credibility in my mind. Just think about how for example K Coh-wan would feel if I pronounced her name that way?

No offense intended kcowan, just using your handle as an example. I could have used Rustyo Tool Eh. But it shows just how important even seemingly SMALL things can be. If someone was talking about a news item and said something like, 'according to K Coh wan, blah, blah, blah', my immediate thought would be if this newsreader can't even pronounce Cowan correctly, the newsreader can't be a very bright bulb and anything else that newsreader says is just as likely to be incorrect.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> I see no point in going off topic for a political argument. The topic is incorrectly reported news of any kind. While some of that incorrectly reported news may be intentional based on a bias or not, is also not the topic of the thread, only a subset of the overall umbrella of incorrectly reported news. Or is that too difficult for some here to get their head around?
> 
> A lie is only a 'lie' if intentional but incorrectly reported facts are always incorrect whether intentional or not. I don't think that in the example I gave re a report by CTV on Brexit, that the newsreader or CTV intended to 'lie' about anything or had any bias in regards to what was being reported, they just got it WRONG because no one did their fact checking which would have shown them there was no 'cause and affect' linking the two things. An early election vote in Parliament and the proroguing of that Parliament.
> 
> ...


Porto Rico is how English speakers pronounce it.

Lots of languages don't pronounce "th" like in math, I don't take it as an insult if people find my name difficult.
I don't get insulted when someone is speaking English as a second language, and I expect others to be just as understanding.

As far as correct in General, a lot of them aren't even trying. Look at the Covington kids, they didn't even watch the video before they started lying about what was on it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> As far as correct in General, a lot of them aren't even trying. Look at the Covington kids, they didn't even watch the video before they started lying about what was on it.


But when the full information came out it took some media days to correct themselves. Is that sloppy or a deliberate attempt to push a known lie?

Why do all the mistakes and sloppiness seem to fall the same way? How come during 8 years of Obama the media never once accidentally reported something wrong that made him look bad? But the Covington kids, Jussie Smollet, Kavanaugh, etc...every single error was made to make white people or the right look bad.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> But when the full information came out it took some media days to correct themselves. Is that sloppy or a deliberate attempt to push a known lie?
> 
> Why do all the mistakes and sloppiness seem to fall the same way? How come during 8 years of Obama the media never once accidentally reported something wrong that made him look bad? But the Covington kids, Jussie Smollet, Kavanaugh, etc...every single error was made to make white people or the right look bad.


The full information was available when they made the initial reports. I believe Tim Pool said he had the full video within an hour or two of the initial CNN reports.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

New York Times was just forced to print a retraction of a new Kavanaugh false sexual assault accusation. Printed without proof but the damaging headline probably served its purpose and convinced a few people.

As I stated earlier...all the mistakes and sloppiness fall the same way. What does it take for reasonable people to stop believing the mainstream media?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have never been comfortable with the media reporting "allegations" of any "alleged" crimes as if they were convictions.

It is bad enough the justice system puts some innocent people through a meat grinder and then say "oops our bad" and then withdraw charges on the day of court. 

The police and Crown attorneys go on about their business and the accused has to try to pick up their tattered lives.

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything for their own nefarious reasons and we should always keep that top of mind.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think the NYT printed a retraction. 

It was more like a weak explanation, which was they printed the story with a couple of minor errors........like having no evidence at all the incident occurred.

It falls hopelessly short of what they should have printed........a full retraction of the entire story and an apology to Mr. Kavanaugh.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> I don't think the NYT printed a retraction.
> 
> It was more like a weak explanation, which was they printed the story with a couple of minor errors........like having no evidence at all the incident occurred.
> 
> It falls hopelessly short of what they should have printed........a full retraction of the entire story and an apology to Mr. Kavanaugh.


Allegations and the reporting of them is one of those 'slippery slopes' that can go either way.

If someone is arrested and charged, it is reasonable to expect the media to report that. If someone is accused (alleged) by one person to have done something, is it reasonable to expect the media to report that allegation or not? It is not the media's job to find evidence UNLESS what they are reporting is being reported as a FACT. The problem I see is that many people don't seem to be able to distinguish between an allegation and a fact. In other words, it is the READER who leaps to a conclusion based on an allegation, not the media.

Take the SNC-Lavalin and allegations of 'tampering' by Trudeau. Please don't go off track into comments on the issue, stick to it as an EXAMPLE of an allegation only.

Should the media have reported the allegations or should they have waited till Trudeau was arrested and charged with a crime? If you don't want them to report allegations, then we would never have heard one word yet about that issue since Trudeau has certainly not been arrested and charged with anything. Was reporting of the allegations detrimental to Trudeau's reputation? Of course it is because many people take the allegation as meaning it is a fact. 'She said it, he must have done it.' They don't wait to see what comes of it, an arrest and trial or not. The make their judgement based on the allegation.

I don't think we can expect the media to not report allegations. They are in fact 'news'. It is how the reader then 'hears' those allegations that is the problem.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> I don't think the NYT printed a retraction.
> 
> It was more like a weak explanation, which was they printed the story with a couple of minor errors........like having no evidence at all the incident occurred.
> 
> It falls hopelessly short of what they should have printed........a full retraction of the entire story and an apology to Mr. Kavanaugh.


I said retraction but it was a correction. 

I agree with your comment...they had no evidence at all and based on the previous accusations that had no proof they should have exercised caution. I can only assume that printing the story was a deliberate attempt to smear and not incorrectly reported news. Then they had to back peddle.

That's not journalism by any stretch.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nope it isn't journalism, and neither is the CPC party's website posting an altered photo of Trudeau standing beside known white nationalist Faith Goldy and claiming he bought her drinks. Trudeau not only didn't buy her drinks but the video shows he was trying to avoid her as she chased him around. Tactics like this are the reason the Rebel website isn't considered as a legitimate news organization.

The photo was ripped from a video and edited, as was proven by fact checkers on the internet.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Do you have proof that she is a white nationalist or is she just someone wanting controlled immigration?

Who checks the fact checkers?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

This is a perfect (and very common) example of how the media deliberately misleads. New York Times makes a racial accusation in the first headline but deliberately leaves it out race in the correction. The original headline by The New York Times:

"Black Virginia Girl says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlock on Playground"

After she admitted it was a hoax this was the headline:

"Virginia Girl Recants Story of Boys Cutting Off Her Dreadlocks"


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> This is a perfect (and very common) example of how the media deliberately misleads. New York Times makes a racial accusation in the first headline but deliberately leaves it out race in the correction. The original headline by The New York Times:
> 
> "Black Virginia Girl says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlock on Playground"
> 
> ...


I'm going to take the counterpoint, isn't it great that there are so few incidents of hate crime that they have to make them up?
I think we should all be glad that there is so little racism that they have to lie about it, or there wouldn't be any news on it at all.


I'm also glad that more and more people are pushing back on these fake claims, they're bad for society, and they hurt REAL victims.
I want to help and support real victims, one of the things victims fear is not being believed.
Of course a false accusation makes a different victim.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

One of the things I hear constantly in the media that annoys me is the misuse of the terms, illegal immigrant, immigrant and refugee/asylum seeker. I see on the news today that NYC have apparently passed a law that it is illegal to use the term illegal alien OUT OF HATE. Just how easy it will be to enforce and how it will fare when it is inevitably challenged in court, who knows.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/city-bans-calling-someone-an-illegal-alien-out-of-hate/

Here in Canada, I got real tired of hearing our media talking heads speaking about asylum seekers crossing our border from the USA, as 'illegal immigrants'. That's simply incorrect. 

Sometimes I think some people should try talking to an asylum seeker. More often than not, all they really want is to go home but cannot. Ask a Syrian if they come to Canada because of a desire to become Canadian and take 'advantage' of all our wonderful social programs. They come because they are in fear of their lives and the lives of their family. Given the choice, they would stay in Syria otherwise. Many have lost businesses, homes, livelyhoods, etc. does anyone think they prefer to come here and claim welfare? Yet that is how some people try to paint the picture. Disgusting.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Here in Canada, I got real tired of hearing our media talking heads speaking about asylum seekers crossing our border from the USA, as 'illegal immigrants'. That's simply incorrect.
> 
> Sometimes I think some people should try talking to an asylum seeker. More often than not, all they really want is to go home but cannot. Ask a Syrian if they come to Canada because of a desire to become Canadian and take 'advantage' of all our wonderful social programs. They come because they are in fear of their lives and the lives of their family. Given the choice, they would stay in Syria otherwise. Many have lost businesses, homes, livelyhoods, etc. does anyone think they prefer to come here and claim welfare? Yet that is how some people try to paint the picture. Disgusting.


If a refugee/asylum seeker is coming to Canada from the US, they were ALREADY in a safe country and have no need to cross into Canada for asylum.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> If a refugee/asylum seeker is coming to Canada from the US, they were ALREADY in a safe country and have no need to cross into Canada for asylum.


The number of people legitimately seeking refuge or asylum from the US is minuscule.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> The number of people legitimately seeking refuge or asylum from the US is minuscule.


I was referring to non Americans who come to Canada via the US.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> I was referring to non Americans who come to Canada via the US.


I include those with Americans seeking asylum. I think the vast majority of non-US citizens, specifically syrians etc are safe inside the US.

I do think it is possible, though unlikey, or in very small numbers, that there are people physically in the US who are still fleeing.
If you've made it to the US, you're pretty safe.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Many of those legally in the US yet coming into Canada, do not believe they are safe in the USA thanks to Trump. I think you have to consider it from their viewpoint, not just the LEGAL 'safe country' issue. The USA is supposed to be a legal 'safe country' but is it?

You will find this, _"Canadian advocates have mounted a challenge in Canadian courts (still in the discovery phase) as to whether the Trump administration’s policies towards refugees and asylum seekers have rendered the United States no longer “safe” within the meaning of the agreement."_ In this link: https://www.justsecurity.org/64926/...d-country-agreement-and-examples-from-europe/

I think it is very hard to put ourselves in the shoes of an asylum seeker. We just have no personal experience and frame of reference to go from. We live in a safe country where there is no war going on or people being killed due to their religion or sexual orientation, etc. If you have had to flee a country because you were in fear of your life, I don't think it is that hard to see how a person looking at Trump might think they weren't safe yet when they got to the USA.

So you can say they are 'pretty safe' in the USA MrMatt, but YOU are not the person who needs to FEEL safe. You're a Canadian with nothing to fear.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Most of the Syrians immigrants were selected from holding camps in Jordan where they were also safe. It was just not a stable long-term place to raise a family.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Many of those legally in the US yet coming into Canada, do not believe they are safe in the USA thanks to Trump. I think you have to consider it from their viewpoint, not just the LEGAL 'safe country' issue. The USA is supposed to be a legal 'safe country' but is it?
> 
> You will find this, _"Canadian advocates have mounted a challenge in Canadian courts (still in the discovery phase) as to whether the Trump administration’s policies towards refugees and asylum seekers have rendered the United States no longer “safe” within the meaning of the agreement."_ In this link: https://www.justsecurity.org/64926/...d-country-agreement-and-examples-from-europe/
> 
> ...


You're right...you can't put yourself in the shoes of an asylum seeker so stop doing it. No one fleeing real danger would ever turn down asylum in the US. You sound just like sags and James...making up things because the facts don't fit.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Most of the Syrians immigrants were selected from holding camps in Jordan where they were also safe. It was just not a stable long-term place to raise a family.



the syrian & armenian refugees brought to canada in the first greatly-contested waves of late 2015 & 2016 & later in smaller waves that continue to this day, were brought over & are being brought over from refugee camps located in both jordan & lebanon.

the arrangements roughly provide that, for every soul canada or other countries accept from jordanian or lebanese refugee camps, those countries will, in turn, admit another crisis refugee coming directly from a war zone in syria.

this is not the place to speak about conditions in jordanian & lebanese refugee camps; but the inhabitants are not safe. In many cases heat is no longer provided in wintertime to snowbound dwellings which are already wretched. Neither are there any schools any longer for children in some refugee camps. These recent hardships came about when donald trump axed US aid to middle eastern refugee camps.

by far the greatest number of syrian refugees are being held in turkey; but canada is not drawing from turkish camps. We are indirectly helping to pay turkey via the UN for housing refugees in turkey, though, as is every other UN member.

this accord - that turkey would receive compensation for housing millions of syrian refugees - was brokered between turkey, western europe & other western nations including the US & canada in 2016. It was the sole move that would stop the millions of refugees who were fleeing turkish shores by boat to greek islands. From greek islands refugees were literally trudging across europe to france, germany, holland, belgium, denmark, norway, sweden, england if they could, austria if they could.

in return for UN compensation to help with refugee costs, turkey agreed to stop the boat departure traffic. The UN paid. Turkey stopped the refugee boat traffic. 

.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> You're right...you can't put yourself in the shoes of an asylum seeker so stop doing it. No one fleeing real danger would ever turn down asylum in the US. You sound just like sags and James...making up things because the facts don't fit.


They didn't turn down asylum in the US, they just assume that they will be deported so they cross over to Canada.
All this really did, was that US deportation was outsourced to Canada. Close to half of the finalized claims were rejected and I would assume that meant they were returned to their original country of origin: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Many of those legally in the US yet coming into Canada, do not believe they are safe in the USA thanks to Trump. I think you have to consider it from their viewpoint, not just the LEGAL 'safe country' issue. The USA is supposed to be a legal 'safe country' but is it?
> 
> You will find this, _"Canadian advocates have mounted a challenge in Canadian courts (still in the discovery phase) as to whether the Trump administration’s policies towards refugees and asylum seekers have rendered the United States no longer “safe” within the meaning of the agreement."_ In this link: https://www.justsecurity.org/64926/...d-country-agreement-and-examples-from-europe/
> 
> ...


The standard isn't if someone "feels safe". That's an impossible standard.
Particularly when we have people lying about how dangerous is it out there.
By that logic the people walking around university campuses looking for "safe spaces", or Greta need to find somewhere safe.

In the US, there is no war, and you're not going to get killed for your religion or sexual orientation.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I include those with Americans seeking asylum. I think the vast majority of non-US citizens, specifically syrians etc are safe inside the US.
> 
> I do think it is possible, though unlikey, or in very small numbers, that there are people physically in the US who are still fleeing.
> If you've made it to the US, you're pretty safe.



sorry but i don't believe you're up on your facts re the illegal border crossings at lacolle, quebec.

there were & are almost no syrians involved. Syrian refugees are being admitted to canada through traditional formal refugee admission channels, almost none are crossing at lacolle.

the illegal lacolle crossings began in 2017 & continued through 2018, following which their numbers have dropped dramatically. The majority of the 50,000 or 60,000 who crossed those 1st 2 years were US residents of guatemalan, el salvadorian, nicaraguan, haitian origin whose status in the US of A was not safe at all. 

all were under donald trump's threat of immediate deportation. Take the case of the Dreamers, for example. These were the children of central & latin american immigrants who had been born in the US to parents whose status had not yet been granted. Technically Dreamers were US citizens by birth. Yet trump specifically named them for deportation as young adults, along with their parents. Many such families fled to canada via the roxham road.

haitians admitted to the US after the haiti earthquakes by barack obama were another group that rushed to the lacolle border crossing point in 2017 & 2018 when donald trump announced plans to deport all of them back to haiti. Might i interject right here a remark to the effect that conditions in gang-&-crime-ridden port-au-prince & other haitian cities are currently so extremely violent that canada, officially, is not these days deporting anybody to haiti. 

the numbers of illegal roxham road crossers have dwindled so much in 2019 that one concludes that the most vulnerable among the latin american & haitian communities have already made it into canada.

that leaves another large group of illegal roxham road crossers who came from europe & also directly from africa. Curiously these people were able to fly to new york city or other east coast US cities, get themselves somehow admitted into the US by US immigration services, then take taxis north through champlain NY to the roxham road border crossing, then throw themselves upon the mercy of the IRCC, the RCMP & the SQ at lacolle

i for one do not know how these people happened here but it looks to me like the work of professional internatonal "immigration" body traffickers. The coyotes.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> sorry but i don't believe you're up on your facts re the illegal border crossings at lacolle, quebec.
> 
> there were & are almost no syrians involved. Syrian refugees are being admitted to canada through traditional formal refugee admission channels, almost none are crossing at lacolle.
> 
> ...


Sorry Daca/Dreamers are non-US citizens staying in the country illegally and they should be deported.

Just because you're breaking US law, doesn't mean you're suddenly a refugee


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> They didn't turn down asylum in the US, they just assume that they will be deported so they cross over to Canada.
> All this really did, was that US deportation was outsourced to Canada. Close to half of the finalized claims were rejected and I would assume that meant they were returned to their original country of origin: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx


Irrelevant. A legitimate asylum seeker doesn't get to shop around for countries. For example, people who came to Canada through Mexico and the US had already passed through 2 safe countries and made the choice not to apply for asylum. If that's not shopping around, then what is it?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

humble_pie said:


> all were under donald trump's threat of immediate deportation. Take the case of the Dreamers, for example. These were the children of central & latin american immigrants who had been born in the US to parents whose status had not yet been granted. Technically Dreamers were US citizens by birth. Yet trump specifically named them for deportation as young adults, along with their parents. Many such families fled to canada via the roxham road.


That's incorrect. Trump offered amnesty to all of the dreamers and the Democrats said no. Look it up.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Irrelevant. A legitimate asylum seeker doesn't get to shop around for countries. For example, people who came to Canada through Mexico and the US had already passed through 2 safe countries and made the choice not to apply for asylum. If that's not shopping around, then what is it?


Here's the thing. Blame the US for not doing its job, and given Mexico's environment for violence, I wouldn't consider Mexico as a safe county.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Sorry Daca/Dreamers are non-US citizens staying in the country illegally and they should be deported. Just because you're breaking US law, doesn't mean you're suddenly a refugee



this is crazy talk. The Dreamers were & are a cohort that US democrats are anxious to keep, that other countries are hoping to attract as immigrants because their profiles are so good. They were born in the US, therefore acquired US citizenship.

more to the point, they were educated in the US. They all speak english fluently. Many grew up not speaking spanish at all, so deporting them to guatemala or el salvador would be traumatic.

we are told that, as a group, they are employed & hard-working. I for one have never heard of any trouble coming from this group of young adults of latin american origin. I've only encountered one, once. Living in texas. University degree in finance. Impressive young 20-something. Working, believe it or not, for the TD bank. In texas.

i absolutely cannot understand your cruel desire to harm & to punish these appealing & blameless young people. It looks beyond irrational to me. It looks crazy.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> That's incorrect. Trump offered amnesty to all of the dreamers and the Democrats said no. Look it up.



trump didn't offer amnesty. He tried to use the Dreamers as a means to get congress to pay for his neverending mexican wall sob story. Look it up.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> this is crazy talk. The Dreamers were & are a cohort that US democrats are anxious to keep, that other countries are hoping to attract as immigrants because their profiles are so good. They were born in the US, therefore acquired US citizenship.
> 
> more to the point, they were educated in the US. They all speak english fluently. Many grew up not speaking spanish at all, so deporting them to guatemala or el salvador would be traumatic.
> 
> ...


If they have US citizenship they can't be deported.
The issue with the ones being deported is they came at a very young age and are NOT citizens.

US Citizens have an absolute right to enter and stay in the US.

I don't know if you're misinformed, or purposely misrepresenting the situation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> trump didn't offer amnesty. He tried to use the Dreamers as a means to get congress to pay for his neverending mexican wall sob story. Look it up.


With a moat with alligators and snakes........


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> .. absolutely cannot understand your cruel desire to harm & to punish these appealing & blameless young people. It looks beyond irrational to me. It looks crazy.


I think the attitude stems from ignorance. The young dreamers are legal Americans. Trump wants to prevent them from sponsoring their parents. By his desired rules, Scheer would not have qualified as an American. I think it is the IRS that wants to keep the rules in place. It is a significant source of revenue.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

kcowan said:


> I think the attitude stems from ignorance. The young dreamers are legal Americans.


They are not Americans.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

humble_pie said:


> trump didn't offer amnesty. He tried to use the Dreamers as a means to get congress to pay for his neverending mexican wall sob story. Look it up.


Yes he did. He offered amnesty for every single one of them in exchange for a border wall. That's a win/win...the dreamers get amnesty and the country gets a secure border. And yet the Democrats refused.

Look it up.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Yes he did. He offered amnesty for every single one of them in exchange for a border wall. That's a win/win...the dreamers get amnesty and the country gets a secure border. And yet the Democrats refused. Look it up.



of course the democrats refused blackmail, tygrus. The Dreamers matter was only one of many trump blackmail attempts to obtain money for the Wall. At one point trump shut down all US gummint operations. Blackmailed his own country, he did. A sitting US president. Look it up.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

I didn't realize a secure border was blackmail. 

I guess that the Democrats actually want more illegal aliens in the country...so much so that they would even deny a million dreamers the chance for amnesty. Imagine that...putting the lives of a million children at risk just to make it easier for illegals to cross. Shameful.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

kcowan said:


> I think the attitude stems from ignorance. The young dreamers are legal Americans. Trump wants to prevent them from sponsoring their parents. By his desired rules, Scheer would not have qualified as an American. I think it is the IRS that wants to keep the rules in place. It is a significant source of revenue.


Nope, they aren't. The young Dreamers are those who were illegally brought to the US as children. In other words, they aren't Americans as they don't have birthright citizenship and there is no current path to citizenship. The DREAM Act was to provide a path to citizenship. Right now, DACA is in place which allows these people to defer the deportation action and work in the US, but doesn't provide a way to become citizens. 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/donald-trump-what-is-daca-dreamers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes I agree that they came and are still under 18? and want citizenship. I think the Dems denied Trump because everyone believed the wall was a bad idea.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Yes I agree that they came and are still under 18? and want citizenship. I think the Dems denied Trump because everyone believed the wall was a bad idea.


They aren't still under 18 anymore. They just had to be younger than 31 as of 2012 and arrived in America before the age of 16.

It is more like the other way around. There was a Dreamer act ready to go, but then Trump said, "let's tie the wall building to it". So to blame the Democrats is disingenuous to say the least. 

And yes, the wall is a bad idea. It's a large diversion of funds that could be used for other uses. For example, they decided to use military funds: Military construction money finances projects ranging from renovating schools on U.S. military bases to expanding naval piers to accommodate more submarines. An analysis by The* Washington Post earlier this year found that projects in Puerto Rico and initiatives to help European nations deter Russia were particularly vulnerable to being defunded*.

At the end of the day the wall is a waste of money when you do the cost-benefit analysis. Like any obstacle, it requires monitoring, unless you increase the budget for more border guards, all a wall is going to do is delay people if they decide to climb the wall.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's not only a diversion of funds from other places like the military, but it's also resulted in a diversion of funds within DHS itself. I write this with first hand experience, as I worked with the Department of Homeland Security as a contractor.

The DHS is a very large organization that's involved in all kinds of defense / emergency / police activities. For example, I worked with a part of DHS that did computer security defense. We were trying to protect critical infrastructure like hospitals, banking, 9-1-1 systems from hackers and cyber attacks.

I worked with some great people at DHS who were very committed to protecting national infrastructure. These are very important areas, and solutions and improvements are desperately needed. The need is critical -- urgent. And in the years I did this work, slightly before Trump was elected, good progress was being made. There were exciting projects, eager and motivated government managers, technologists from various universities and companies... all coordinating very large scale projects that were helping solve these problems. Really good morale, but also good results.

Those were exciting times. And then Trump got elected. Very quickly, the DHS started going down hill.

Funds were diverted to "the wall". This means that other projects got cut, including the areas I was working on. Many other important areas got cut as well. Another effect of this was that most of the good people abandoned DHS. One by one, they all left. All those people who were eager, motivated project managers, the technologists, the top university researchers, the people who could get things done -- they all left. Partly because their projects were terminated, but partly because the organization turned toxic, with highly partisan pro-Trump appointees who are also obsessed with anti-immigration and "the wall".

I was in touch with a few higher-up people at DHS who stayed at the organization into Trump's years and they were very unhappy people. They had lost all their best staff, had lost all their funding for various important projects, and were seeing a widespread decay throughout the whole organization.

It's a really sad thing to see happen to an organization. The worst part of it of course is that the organization is supposed to be doing critical tasks... they are responsible for protecting critical infrastructure, defense/response to terrorism, emergency systems, and natural disaster preprations. All of these areas have suffered under Trump's leadership. They may end up with a stronger border wall, but they are going to end up weaker on many other fronts.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The President is the Chief executive, and has wide lattitude to run the country within the bounds of the law.
He's readjusting priorities as much as he can.

I don't think he should be diverting these resources, however I don't think he should have been denied the resources either.

It's all politics, everyone knows an improved physical barrier will help, sure it's not 100%, but that doesn't matter, voters want them to do something.
A wall is simple, it's easy to see, and people know if it's being done, or being worked on.

But the Democrats see too much value in obstructing it.

Voters/Public opinion is very short sighted.
SO what if building the wall causes problems elsewhere, thats the job of the elected officials to sort out.

Unintended consequences is one of the major problems in poltics, every problem has "an easy solution", that is wrong.


Just look at the vaping problem, everyone was on board, while anyone with a brain knew that vapourizing unknown and untested substances directly into the lungs was a bad idea. People just don't think things through.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The President is the Chief executive, and has wide lattitude to run the country within the bounds of the law.
> He's readjusting priorities as much as he can.
> 
> I don't think he should be diverting these resources, however I don't think he should have been denied the resources either.
> ...


Nope, it's a useless money pit that Trump can put his name on, just like a memorial. Spending $20-45B for a vanity project is a misuse of government funds. Aren't you the one decrying government misspending? Where do you think the funds are going to come from? Just add it to the US debt, which is what they are doing right now.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trump's beautiful wall with a moat filled with.......

_There were green alligators and long necked geese,
Some humpty-back camels and some chimpanzees,
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you were born,
The loveliest of them all was the unicorn._


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> Where do you think the funds are going to come from?


The money that is currently spent on illegal aliens will more than enough to pay for a wall.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> The money that is currently spent on illegal aliens will more than enough to pay for a wall.


You have some source to back up your claim?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Nope, it's a useless money pit that Trump can put his name on, just like a memorial. Spending $20-45B for a vanity project is a misuse of government funds. Aren't you the one decrying government misspending? Where do you think the funds are going to come from? Just add it to the US debt, which is what they are doing right now.


I do decry government waste. 

However voters and many experts think a physical barrier in some key ares of the border is a worthwhile investment.
One of Trumps key elections was a plank, and he's working hard to keep his election promise.

One can argue the merits, and if it's worth it, but calling it a vanity project is a bit much.
At worst it's an expensive project with limited but non-zero benefits.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I do decry government waste.
> 
> However voters and many experts think a physical barrier in some key ares of the border is a worthwhile investment.
> One of Trumps key elections was a plank, and he's working hard to keep his election promise.
> ...


I'd be curious which experts actually think that it's a worthwhile investment. Most believe that just setting up an e-fence with sensors would be just as effective at a lower price tag. Trump said a lot of things during the election: bringing back the coal industry, bringing back the aluminium industry, eliminating the deficit, replace Obamacare (aka ACA). He hasn't moved on any of those, or just plain failed. Sure, he pushed the conservative judge, tax cuts, and pulling out of the Paris accord. So he has a mixed record and isn't against breaking his promises (let's face it, that's what he does). The only reason why the wall is a big deal is that he views himself as some developer even though he hasn't been in the business for decades. All he does is lend out his name for cash. But it is a vanity project, he even went and signed his name with a Sharpie when he visited.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> You have some source to back up your claim?


You have fingers and keyboard...there are plenty of sources. It's an accepted fact that illegal aliens cost the US 10's of billions per year.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> bgc_fan said:
> 
> 
> > You have some source to back up your claim?
> ...


Nope you make the assertion so you provide the source. I do that myself so you should have the courtesy to do the same.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Can you find me a single expert that thinks you can secure the border without a wall, gate, fence, gate or other physical obstruction of some sort?
Do you need a massive 40' wall everywhere, no. But can you get by with a wife open field everywhere? No


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A 40 foot wall is defeated with a 41 foot ladder, shovels to dig under it, or equipment to create holes in it.

Most illegal immigration comes through at border crossings and people overstay their visit. A wall won't change that.

The only way to prevent mass migration is to eliminate the reasons people are leaving their home country.

Trump has cut aid to foreign countries which only makes the situation worse. Andrew Scheer is advocating for Canada to cut foreign aid.

It is a really bad idea.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I agree, walls work, unless you have circumvention devices.
But I bet you lock your house or car, even though togose methods can be circumvented. 

I also agree, people want to immigrate to the US because it's better than the country they are in. 


The only question is who is responsible for the fact that other countries suck. 
I say the citizens of those countries are responsible. 
If you want to help, go ahead. 

I care, however I'm far more concerned with the problems in my country.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Berlin Wall was double walled, patrolled by ravenous dogs, with guard towers every few feet and sand put in between the dual walls to see footprints to force guards to shoot people or get shot themselves.

Despite that, many in the east escaped to the west. A fence wall in the middle of nowhere isn't going to stop anyone. What would be the penalty for scaling the wall ?

Do you propose the aliens are returned to their country or would agree with Trump they should be shot ?

Trump's immigration policy IS a problem for our country. His threats to deport people sends them north to Roxham Road seeking safety.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> Nope you make the assertion so you provide the source. I do that myself so you should have the courtesy to do the same.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/5/the-real-cost-of-illegal-immigration-and-its-not-a/


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Can you find me a single expert that thinks you can secure the border without a wall, gate, fence, gate or other physical obstruction of some sort?
> Do you need a massive 40' wall everywhere, no. But can you get by with a wife open field everywhere? No


The wall is a solution in search of a problem. The question is the cost-benefit. The problem is you have bought into the idea that the border between Mexico and USA is a wide open field. There are already fences along the border, and I'm sure that they address that sort of situation.

Here's one paper on an alternative to a physical wall: https://www.securityinformed.com/in...gies-shoot-donald-trump-co-1090-ga.19574.html
Here's a couple of opinions or options instead of building a physical wall: https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...t-ideas-5-billion-border-spending/2515167002/
Here's an article from the Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

But maybe we should ask the US to build a northern wall: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mexicans-crossing-us-canada-border-immigration-1.4760153


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/5/the-real-cost-of-illegal-immigration-and-its-not-a/


So, I'll throw away the $200B because they don't substantiate where that number comes from. I'll also throw out any costs related to the US drug problem because regardless of the illegal immigration, drugs are getting into the country. So that leaves $18.5 billion for medical, and $59.8 billion for education, which are the only things that are actually itemized in your article.

We have the other side of the coin, how much do illegals contribute.
Taxes paid (state and local): $11.74B https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads...-Immigrants-State-and-Local-Contributions.pdf
Social security paid (can't collect so a net benefit): $6B https://berkshireic.org/fact-checking/

And then there is the more nebulous benefit - they do farm work that Americans won't do: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-us-jobs-economy-farm-workers-taxes/
The result not having the illegals would end up with failed farms and increased prices for things like milk, fruit, vegetables and meat. Not a cost to the government right? I doubt it as the government would most likely bail out the farmers. For comparison sake, the bailout due to the trade war with China cost $28B so far (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-trump-s-28-billion-bailout-isn-t-a-solution). Hard to estimate what the cost for a widespread bailout would cost. But let's say it decimates the farming industry, based on the US farm profits chart in the article, that could be $58B, assuming that the net profits would have to be made up by the government.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> The wall is a solution in search of a problem. The question is the cost-benefit. The problem is you have bought into the idea that the border between Mexico and USA is a wide open field. There are already fences along the border, and I'm sure that they address that sort of situation.


I have not "bought into" the idea that the border is a wide open field. In fact my point was that they already have a lot of wall/fence/barricades and gates now, clearly at some point people thought these were a good idea.
I think it is pretty obvious that in some cases a physical barrier is appropriate, and it's up to the government to decide exactly where.
It's actually a pretty boring debate IMO.

The point is that the US is well within their rights to treat those entering illegally as the criminals they are.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There is the source of your misunderstanding.

Refugees seeking asylum are not criminals. The Trump administration is constantly being overturned by the courts for violating US immigration laws.

If Trump and the Republicans don't like the law, they should change it. Trump isn't a king. He doesn't rule by decree.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I have not "bought into" the idea that the border is a wide open field. In fact my point was that they already have a lot of wall/fence/barricades and gates now, clearly at some point people thought these were a good idea.
> I think it is pretty obvious that in some cases a physical barrier is appropriate, and it's up to the government to decide exactly where.
> It's actually a pretty boring debate IMO.
> 
> The point is that the US is well within their rights to treat those entering illegally as the criminals they are.


You are changing the subject how they treat the illegals is a completely different subject than building a costly border wall. The point is whatever physical fencing they have is probably accounting for most of the "easy" access. The part that isn't fenced isn't fenced for a reason: desert environment, hard to get to, rivers and waterways etc. Why spend $20-45B on a physical wall that would probably stop a dozen people? Seems like a waste of money.

BTW if it was so easy to get through the border, why didn't those migrant caravans that was big in the news able to just walk across the border? Easy answer, because it isn't that easy even without a costly border wall. Or like the majority of those seeking asylum, they go through the proper channels.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

You left out how illegals drive down wages and make more Americans unemployed. 

Farms won't fail. Farmers would just have to pay a proper living wage to Americans and those Americans will pay taxes and contribute to the economy so the "benefit" of some illegals paying taxes is a fallacy because they'd be replaced by Americans paying taxes. And even better, the money they make stays in the local economy instead of some of it being sent back home.

Hollywood celebrates might not be able to get a cheap maid anymore but no one really cares. No country ever benefits in the long run from cheap foreign labour.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> You left out how illegals drive down wages and make more Americans unemployed.
> 
> Farms won't fail. Farmers would just have to pay a proper living wage to Americans and those Americans will pay taxes and contribute to the economy so the "benefit" of some illegals paying taxes is a fallacy because they'd be replaced by Americans paying taxes. And even better, the money they make stays in the local economy instead of some of it being sent back home.
> 
> Hollywood celebrates might not be able to get a cheap maid anymore but no one really cares. No country ever benefits in the long run from cheap foreign labour.


Nope, farmers don't want to pay a living wage because it isn't profitable, and the fact of the matter Americans don't want to do the work. Go back and take a look at the links I posted because obviously you didn't read them.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> You are changing the subject how they treat the illegals is a completely different subject than building a costly border wall. The point is whatever physical fencing they have is probably accounting for most of the "easy" access. The part that isn't fenced isn't fenced for a reason: desert environment, hard to get to, rivers and waterways etc. Why spend $20-45B on a physical wall that would probably stop a dozen people? Seems like a waste of money.
> 
> BTW if it was so easy to get through the border, why didn't those migrant caravans that was big in the news able to just walk across the border? Easy answer, because it isn't that easy even without a costly border wall. Or like the majority of those seeking asylum, they go through the proper channels.


Now you claim that a wall will only stop a dozen people. For someone who just criticized my link from a respected news organization that's pretty hypocritical, don't you think?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> There is the source of your misunderstanding.
> 
> Refugees seeking asylum are not criminals. The Trump administration is constantly being overturned by the courts for violating US immigration laws.
> 
> If Trump and the Republicans don't like the law, they should change it. Trump isn't a king. He doesn't rule by decree.


No misunderstanding, I've never said refugees seeking asylum are criminals.
I've said those who enter the US, in violation of US law are committing a crime. 

These are two distinct, yet potentially overlapping populations.

Can you have a discussion without misrepresenting my position?

Oh and if the Democrats don't want to detain the hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the US, maybe they should change the law.
If people want them to be held in better conditions, why don't they fund better facilities?

The simple fact is that as much as they complain about the enforcement of the laws, they don't actually have the votes to change the laws.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sorry but your position is based on false information.

Trump has closed down the avenues for legal refugee claims, despite being ordered by the courts to observe the law.

Trump is doing everything he can to "prevent" refugees from making it to the US border so they can legally claim refugee status.

Hence, he wants Mexico to stop the refugees before they reach the US border.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder what those opposed to refugee immigration would do in their place ?..........walk a mile in their shoes type of consideration.

They are escaping the worst kind of violence and are leaving everything behind to seek freedom and safety.

If the world wants to prevent mass migration from such countries, they have to supply what is missing so the refugees don't have to run for their lives.

Generally, I don't think countries should interfere with other countries internal problems, but when it becomes a problem for them they must act.

The US invaded Panama and got rid of the dictator Noriega and that was that. Tanzania and Ugandan rebels (supplied by the US) forced Ugandan dictator Idi Amin to flee.

It can be done if the will is there.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Generally, I don't think countries should interfere with other countries internal problems, but when it becomes a problem for them they must act.
> 
> It can be done if the will is there.


When it becomes a problem for who? 

Also I think you are mixing issues.
You keep conflating refugees with those entering the US illegally.

At least we can agree a border wall will stop some illegal entry. Since we agree in principle that it works, the discussion really circles back to is it cost effective.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't agree that walls or fences work. 

I have seen on the news the elaborate tunnels the drug cartels build to go under walls and fences. They are complete with lights, air conditioning, and min-railroads.

A 40 foot wall is defeated by a 41 foot ladder. 

That is why Trump started talking about moats with snakes and alligators, painting the fence black to absorb heat so they couldn't be climbed, and razor sharp fence tops.

Trump's response must have come from security briefings he received that said........sorry, Mr. President but a wall won't work.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I don't agree that walls or fences work.


I was referring to the post that a wall would stop a dozen people. I think that is incorrect by several orders of magnitude, but it is agreement that it will be effective in some cases. 

I have less people walking through my yard or house. I think that is because it has a fence and walls. 
I feel almost everyone thinks walls and fences work at some level. 

I think when you say fences don't work, you have applied a criteria. 
I say they have an effectiveness between but not equal to 0% and 100%


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> That is why Trump started talking about moats with snakes and alligators, painting the fence black to absorb heat so they couldn't be climbed, and razor sharp fence tops.


Don't you get tired of repeating what CNN lies? Or are you truly that gullible?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Now you claim that a wall will only stop a dozen people. For someone who just criticized my link from a respected news organization that's pretty hypocritical, don't you think?


When did I criticize your link? You are a bit defensive there aren't you? I pointed out that they said $200B at the start and the only things that were itemized were the health care and education. 

I was just illustrating the point that the areas that the wall would be built would have little practical purpose because of the low traffic rate vs the cost.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Fact checker and left biased Snopes has just admitted that facts don't matter with their fact checking. Many people already know that they are biased but the problem is that much of the mainstream media cite Snopes as a legitimate fact checking site in spite of that. And some people on this site have quoted Snopes as a legitimate fact checker. 

In their own words:

"Facts aren’t enough

While it may seem fitting to challenge post-truth politics with quantitative research, statistical data and hard facts, this is unlikely always to be sufficient – at least not when confronting emotive societal problems, such as Brexit or climate change.

Whether examining Brexit, public austerity measures or the effects of climate change, one limitation is that facts and data generated through quantitative social research are presented as if detached from the people they concern as well as those involved in their production. Far removed from people’s lived experiences, they risk displacing any sense of what it is to be human. As such, they are, perhaps, too easy to dismiss.

So, can qualitative social research – where the focus is not on abstract facts but on what things mean for people in their everyday lives – come to the rescue? As we argue in our new book, Embodied Research Methods, social scientists do not and cannot rely just on data.* When genuinely committed to understanding everyday life, they must also craft rich, nuanced and vivid accounts that flesh out how people live and struggle with the problems they encounter.*"

https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/10/10/facts-and-data-arent-enough-to-combat-fake-news/


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> As we argue in our new book, Embodied Research Methods, social scientists do not and cannot rely just on data.


Most social scientiists rely on correlation yet publish as if the findings are causation. True scientists will use correlation as a hint that causation might be present, and study that rather than publish.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Fact checker and left biased Snopes has just admitted that facts don't matter with their fact checking.


They actually said nothing of the sort. You literally just made that part up.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

nathan79 said:


> They actually said nothing of the sort. You literally just made that part up.


Nope...that's exactly what they said. When the facts don't support their position they instead will rely on "nuanced and vivid accounts". Nuanced and vivid accounts are not facts.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

ABC was forced to apologize for using gun range video in a story about bombing in Syria. 

I'm sure someone here will defend their actions or make excuses as to why it's okay. Or pretend that it never happened at all.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

ISIS mass murderer Abu al-Baghdadi killed. Washington Post headline:

"Abu al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic state, dies at 48"


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It was an obituary heading and they changed it 3 times. It was a dumb headline and has been changed. Sunday......probably all the main editors were at the Hamptons.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> ISIS mass murderer Abu al-Baghdadi killed. Washington Post headline:
> 
> "Abu al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic state, dies at 48"


Anything, anything at all to belittle Trump. They have gone so far now it has become a joke. There is a whole Twitter page of parodies already. Some are quite funny. Here are a few examples.

'Adolf Hitler, passionate community planner and dynamic public speaker, dies at 56.'

'Charles Manson, famous songwriter and meditation leader, dead at 83 '

See more at https://twitter.com/hashtag/WaPoDeathNotices?src=hash


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> It was an obituary heading and they changed it 3 times. It was a dumb headline and has been changed. Sunday......probably all the main editors were at the Hamptons.


It wasn't a dumb mistake...it was a deliberate attempt to mislead.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Anything, anything at all to belittle Trump. They have gone so far now it has become a joke. There is a whole Twitter page of parodies already. Some are quite funny. Here are a few examples.
> 
> 'Adolf Hitler, passionate community planner and dynamic public speaker, dies at 56.'
> 
> ...


If Trump cured cancer the headline would be: "Trump puts millions of doctors out of work"


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The media doesn't have to make up anything about Trump. He does a fine job of humiliating himself.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The media doesn't have to make up anything about Trump. He does a fine job of humiliating himself.


Trump made the Washington Post defend a murdering terrorist. They humiliated themselves and you humiliated yourself when you defended them.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

sags said:


> The media doesn't have to make up anything about Trump. He does a fine job of humiliating himself.


By defeating ISIS when Bush and Obama couldn't?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> By defeating ISIS when Bush and Obama couldn't?


The left loves terrorists. Our own PM praised China's dictatorship, praised Castro, and gave a convicted terrorist $10.5 million.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, but then the people threw him out and elected Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Yes, but then the people threw him out and elected Justin Trudeau.


Why are you making false accusations against Harper? Isn't it against CMF policy to knowingly lie and slander people?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

PM Harper met with Castro before Trudeau was elected PM.

Arar received C$10.5 million and Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to him for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal", before Trudeau was elected PM.

You have an estranged relationship with facts, like some of your kindred brethren on CMF.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Harper never praised Castro and Arar never admitted to murdering a US soldier.

But I can see how those situations would seem exactly the same in some shallow minds.


----------



## Foxx88 (Aug 1, 2019)

Fake news is what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth, including his accusations of "fake news" stories that are actually based on fact. It's well known that he doesn't like facts. Before jumping on the "fake news" bandwagon, there's still a lot of accurate journalism out there for those who seek it. Yes, some media outlets are bad (especially cable news the U.S., tabloids etc ... but we all know tabloids aren't journalism!) There's a difference between reporting and editorials, the latter being opinions (i.e. not reporting.) Yes, journalists sometimes get the facts wrong (good journalists call them hacks). There's still lots of high-quality journalism in the world, and it's essential to democracy. Trump and tyrants in non-democratic countries (dictators) want to tear down journalism because the free flow of information doesn't suit their purpose, which is to fuzzify and obfuscate the facts. Leaders of non-democratic countries are the worst purveyors of false information. Any leader who attacks the free press is threatening democracy.

Although John Oliver is also a comedian, among many other things, his video about Trump vs. the Truth is based on fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xecEV4dSAXE
Whatever Trump may say about the media, he's far, far worse.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Foxx88 said:


> tyrants in non-democratic countries (dictators) want to tear down journalism because the free flow of information doesn't suit their purpose, which is to fuzzify and obfuscate the facts. Leaders of non-democratic countries are the worst purveyors of false information. Any leader who attacks the free press is threatening democracy.


Obama threatened to jail a reporter.

Trudeau tried to ban reporters from covering him before the election. A judge overturned it.

And you post a link to a comedian :biggrin:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Headlines on Fox News reveals they are splitting away from supporting Donald Trump.

The evidence is stacking up and Fox News can no longer ignore it, if they hope to retain any semblance of legitimacy as a news organization.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Personally I find a lot of US cable news contains too much opinion from the news anchors. I find Canadian news networks much better. The CBC is a national treasure.

It is good the Canadian government continues to support the CBC to provide quality journalism to Canadians.


----------



## Foxx88 (Aug 1, 2019)

Prairie Guy said:


> Obama threatened to jail a reporter.
> 
> Trudeau tried to ban reporters from covering him before the election. A judge overturned it.
> 
> And you post a link to a comedian :biggrin:


Yes, I did post a link to the political commentary of a "comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, and television host" because whether or not he's a comedian he used facts to make his point (and it's a point many others have made ... Trump is a liar, and possibly a pathological liar ... psychologists have also analyzed him). For example, if you watch the video you'll note that he points out that while Trump claimed the size of his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's, photographic evidence clearly shows that claim isn't true. John Oliver goes on to point out how other things Trumps has said or claimed aren't true, given what are the facts. So what if he uses humour to make his point ... he also uses facts to make his point. What John Oliver is doing is political commentary, not journalism. I used his video because he's done a very good job of showing, with humour, how Trump has a habit of twisting facts or just making them up.

As for Obama and Trudeau ... I was using Trump as an example. Any leader who tries to censor journalists for reporting the facts is threatening democracy, because factual reporting is essential to democracy. As you'll note in my original post, I agree there's inaccurate and biased reporting out there (intentionally or not), however there's also still good journalism out there. If people want to read garbage, that's their problem (though actually, also a problem for democracy). Seek out good sources of news, just a journalists should seek out reliable sources, and get the facts right by doing enough research and double or tripled checking the facts!

By the same token, the muzzling of federal government scientists by Harper was also very undemocratic, and that move is something more representative of dictators and oppressive regimes.

Sags ... yes I agree, CBC supports quality journalism.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Headlines on Fox News reveals they are splitting away from supporting Donald Trump.


That's because Murdoch's sons now run Fox and they lean left.

Try to keep up sags...


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Foxx88 said:


> As for Obama and Trudeau ... I was using Trump as an example. Any leader who tries to censor journalists for reporting the facts is threatening democracy, because factual reporting is essential to democracy.


So you used Trump who has never censored the media as an example rather than Obama or Trudeau who have censored the media?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Foxx88 said:


> By the same token, the muzzling of federal government scientists by Harper was also very undemocratic, and that move is something more representative of dictators and oppressive regimes.


Only authorized spokespeople in federal employment are allowed to talk to the media. This applies to all federal workers whether they be scientists, tax workers, armed forces, etc. No one was muzzled.

You're 0 for 2 foxx...want to make it 0 for 3?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Harper muzzled everybody, including his own cabinet ministers. 

The PMO used to hand out talking point memos to cabinet ministers, which Finance Minister Jim Flaherty used to joke about with reporters before he threw them in the trash bin.


----------



## Foxx88 (Aug 1, 2019)

Prairie Guy said:


> Only authorized spokespeople in federal employment are allowed to talk to the media. This applies to all federal workers whether they be scientists, tax workers, armed forces, etc. No one was muzzled.
> 
> You're 0 for 2 foxx...want to make it 0 for 3?


You're 0 for 2 Prairie Guy ... you're talking about now. However, there was a time journalists could call up any government scientist and ask them for an interview, no problem. I know for a fact because I did it countless times, having worked for two national magazines. Some might have had to get approval from their boss, but I recall countless times the scientists just said "sure, when would you like to do the interview ... by telephone or would you like to come to the office?" Over time things have got more restrictive. And Harper restricted government scientists ability to talk to the media the most. Why do you think there were protests by the scientist themselves?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-muzzled-1.4588913


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Foxx88 said:


> You're 0 for 2 Prairie Guy ... you're talking about now. However, there was a time journalists could call up any government scientist and ask them for an interview, no problem. I know for a fact because I did it countless times, having worked for two national magazines. Some might have had to get approval from their boss, but I recall countless times the scientists just said "sure, when would you like to do the interview ... by telephone or would you like to come to the office?" Over time things have got more restrictive. And Harper restricted government scientists ability to talk to the media the most. Why do you think there were protests by the scientist themselves?
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-muzzled-1.4588913


Yes, it evolved over time and became more restrictive just like you said. That's perfectly normal and it doesn't mean anyone was muzzled. Correlation is not causation.

That link is a CBC "opinion" piece. Opinions are not facts.


----------



## Foxx88 (Aug 1, 2019)

Prairie Guy said:


> Yes, it evolved over time and became more restrictive just like you said. That's perfectly normal and it doesn't mean anyone was muzzled. Correlation is not causation.
> 
> That link is a CBC "opinion" piece. Opinions are not facts.


This page ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-muzzled-1.4588913 ) is described at the top as "an excerpt from Second Opinion, a weekly roundup of eclectic and under-the-radar health and medical science *news* emailed to subscribers every Saturday morning. The sense I have is the title of the publication (that the page is an excerpt of) is poorly chosen. The text is "reporting" this: "an investigation by the Information Commissioner of Canada were released and the verdict is in: the Harper government did muzzle scientists." It goes on to "report" on the findings of the Information Commissioner. The reporting of those findings isn't opinion, it's reporting what the investigation concluded, in the same way the journalists report on, for example, what a judge or jury concluded after testimony.

If you read the whole article it's obvious the authors are reporting on the findings of the investigation, not providing their own take on the issue. For example at the end, it reads: _"More than half of the 3,000 scientists who answered a survey last year said they did not feel they could "speak freely and without constraints to the media about work I do at my department/agency." The survey was conducted by the union representing more than 15,000 federal scientists."_ This is reporting the findings of that survey. It's not the author's opinion.

Yes, unfortunately, what Harper did was a big leap.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

There's a huge difference between deciding to have a designated spokeperson and banning reporters. Trudeau recently banned reporters from covering the election which was thankfully overturned by a judge.

You're more upset with the government choosing a designated spokesperson than Trudeau banning the media. Your values are out of whack.


----------



## Foxx88 (Aug 1, 2019)

Prairie Guy said:


> There's a huge difference between deciding to have a designated spokeperson and banning reporters. Trudeau recently banned reporters from covering the election which was thankfully overturned by a judge.
> 
> You're more upset with the government choosing a designated spokesperson than Trudeau banning the media. Your values are out of whack.


You know what Prairie Guy, you have a way of twisting things. Not once did I mention the Trudeau government or what I think of anything he's done. I only mentioned what the Harper government did in relation to scientists talking to the media. I mentioned that because it had direct bearing on my line of work because I've dealt with many government scientists over the years. You don't know what I think about anything Trudeau has done since I never mentioned it. That doesn't mean I condone what Trudeau did, it just wasn't a point of discussion on this thread. So don't twist things and tell me my "values are out of whack," when you have no clue what I think about the other things. If you want to assess whether someone's "values are out of whack," it's likely best to look in the mirror since the only mind for which you really know what's going on is your own. Best not to *assume* what other people think about things they haven't even talked about.

I'm fairly new to this forum and have rarely posted, but I'm being reminded how ridiculous things can get online ... people assuming they know what someone is thinking about something not even discussed. People extrapolating from one thing a person said to another conclusion by making false assumptions. Someone (in this case, Prairie Guy) telling someone else (in this case, me) their "values are out of whack" (which is an uncalled for personal attack) based on an assumption of what they think that person is thinking about a point that hasn't even been discussed. It's ridiculous. Probably not the first or last time you'll do that.

I don't care what other false assumptions and extrapolations you want to post Prairie Guy, *I won't respond, so have at 'er*. Good luck in life if that's how you operate.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Foxx88 said:


> You know what Prairie Guy, you have a way of twisting things. Not once did I mention the Trudeau government or what I think of anything he's done. I only mentioned what the Harper government did in relation to scientists talking to the media. I mentioned that because it had direct bearing on my line of work because I've dealt with many government scientists over the years. You don't know what I think about anything Trudeau has done since I never mentioned it. That doesn't mean I condone what Trudeau did, it just wasn't a point of discussion on this thread. So don't twist things and tell me my "values are out of whack," when you have no clue what I think about the other things. If you want to assess whether someone's "values are out of whack," it's likely best to look in the mirror since the only mind for which you really know what's going on is your own. Best not to *assume* what other people think about things they haven't even talked about.
> 
> I'm fairly new to this forum and have rarely posted, but I'm being reminded how ridiculous things can get online ... people assuming they know what someone is thinking about something not even discussed. People extrapolating from one thing a person said to another conclusion by making false assumptions. Someone (in this case, Prairie Guy) telling someone else (in this case, me) their "values are out of whack" (which is an uncalled for personal attack) based on an assumption of what they think that person is thinking about a point that hasn't even been discussed. It's ridiculous. Probably not the first or last time you'll do that.
> 
> I don't care what other false assumptions and extrapolations you want to post Prairie Guy, *I won't respond, so have at 'er*. Good luck in life if that's how you operate.


I'd suggest developing a thicker skin if you're gonna hang out here Foxx88. While many comments are posted that are in fact personal, others are less so even if taken personally. I find for example that if you attack a person's opinion of something, they consider it a personal attack. If someone writes, 'your idea sucks', that's not a personal attack after all, it is simply their opinion of your idea. 

The reality is that no one actually knows anyone else here, it's all anonymous. I don't know about you but I can't actually like or dislike someone I don't know. I might think their thinking is dumb or whatever but I have no opinion as to the person's actual intelligence. I know PhD's who don't seem to have the common sense of a 12 year old for example. 

It's easy to 'read into' something, we all do it. You have suggested on another thread that I was mocking you. I don't know you well enough to mock you. But I can certainly mock an idea or an opinion, that's not personal.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Foxx88 said:


> I'm fairly new to this forum and have rarely posted, but I'm being reminded how ridiculous things can get online


Well, in case you hadn't figured it out, "Other Discussions-->General Discussion" is the troll department. I find it best to just stay clear most of the time.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> Prairie Guy said:
> 
> 
> > ... Our own PM praised China's dictatorship, praised Castro, and gave a convicted terrorist $10.5 million.
> ...





sags said:


> PM Harper met with Castro before Trudeau was elected PM.
> Arar received C$10.5 million and Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to him for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal", before Trudeau was elected PM.
> 
> You have an estranged relationship with facts, like some of your kindred brethren on CMF.


Interesting comment considering Arar was declared innocent by the Syrians (among others). There seems to be a lot of ignoring facts that don't fit the claims in this thread, regardless of the sides.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Interesting comment considering Arar was declared innocent by the Syrians (among others). There seems to be a lot of ignoring facts that don't fit the claims in this thread, regardless of the sides.
> 
> 
> Cheers


It looks like you need to brush up on your facts a little.

_Syrian military intelligence agents held Arar for 10 months in what he described as a “grave” – a dark, rat-infested one-by-two metre cell. Arar said that during his initial weeks in captivity he was whipped with electrical cable for hours at a stretch. The physical attacks were later replaced with psychological torture. He said his torturers wanted, among other things, for him to confess that he had been to an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. He would later say he was willing to do anything to stop the torture and said as much to his interrogators. “I asked [the torturer] what he wanted to hear," Arar later said. "I was terrified, and I did not want to be tortured. I would say anything to avoid torture.” 
_

And then the Syrians declared him "totally innocent." While he was held in Syria, the RCMP and Canadian intelligence agents fought against his return to Canada. It was a travesty of justice.

_Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized to Arar for Canada's role in what the prime minister described as his “terrible ordeal.” In January 2007, the federal government awarded Arar $10.5 million in compensation, and another $1 million to cover his legal costs. _

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/maher-arar-case


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

ABC News:

Multiple allegations against Jeffrey Epstein didn't meet our standards for airing.

Also ABC News:

Here are some uncorroborated allegations against Kavanaugh during his confirmation.
Here is some Syrian war footage that's really from a Kentucky gun range.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you want accurate unbiased news coverage, you should watch CBC News.

Power and Politics, The National and other shows are the shizzle.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Still waiting for CBC to correct/amend the 11,000 scientists "petition" story that now appears to be at least partially fraudulent including such names as Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore. Just like ABC, CBC, NBC, etc...they lead with the headline that does the damage and then don't bother with the correction. Or they do correct it but hide the "correction" on the back pages or on their web site that never shows up.

It's no longer "incorrectly reported news" when they refuse to correct errors. It's called lying. It works because some people fall for it every time. Those who don't fall for it are called deniers.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

From my OP when I started this thread:

_A lie is when you say something intentionally knowing it to be wrong so I wouldn't go so far as to say that is what she did but she most definitely gave incorrect information. If I am being generous I could just say the silly woman simply didn't know what she was talking about. But why should I be that generous when it is a supposed 'newsperson' I am talking about? It is her job to get the facts right, not just read from a teleprompter what someone has written for her to read out.

To me it is just another example showing that what passes for a 'newsperson' on TV today really is just a talking head with no brains or knowledge required._

Whether Sags thinks the CBC is better or Prairie Guy thinks they don't, is irrelevant. The point is that we do not have ANY news programs today that actually worry very much about getting it right or correcting things when they don't. The 'news' today is about ratings and the way to get those is through sensationalist headlines and 'sound bites'. We do not have 'news reporters' who are true journalists, we have media people who are just talking heads. 

There are no 'unbiased' tv stations any more, they all slant their 'spin' one way or another, depending on which way the people paying them want it slanted. I think a good example of who runs tv stations etc. these days is the current firing of Don Cherry. I am glad he was fired but the relevance here is WHY he was fired. Sportsnet put out a response to his comments initially that basically said, 'he went to far, we've had a talk with him.' That was their official comment. The next day, they changed that to, 'we've decided it's time for him to go.' What changed in 24 hours? My bet, Labatt's who sponsor the show, told Sportsnet, 'he goes or we go.' Follow the money, that's where the decisions really get made.

News programs today are as I said, all about the ratings and the companies paying for the shows (advertisers) are who are calling the shots. It has nothing to do with trying to report factual, unbiased 'news' anymore. Expecting any more than that from them is just being foolish. If you want to know the real news, you really have to do your own in depth research on any news item you see.

Again using the Don Cherry story as an example(please don't go of on a tangent discussing this particular story), I don't listen to what a morning 'news reporter' says about it, I go online, find a video clip of him actually saying what he did, listen to what he said and decide for myself what I think about it. I do this pretty much every day for news 'items' that I am interested in. In probably more cases than not, I find what I heard on the TV told only half the story or less. Consequently, I no longer EXPECT any more than that from a tv news program. They are just good for providing me with something to look into myself.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder how many Trumpsters will watch the live hearings on CNN ? Pretty difficult to call it a sham when the witnesses are talking live and in colour.

I expect the Republicans will have to move the yardsticks yet again and will say Trump can't be impeached because his last name starts with a T.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Witness? The person with very close ties to Biden who never even heard the phone call?? Yes, it's a sham. I wonder how much Biden is paying him to cover for his cokehead son?

sags...just imagine your hero Trudeau facing removal from office because someone who worked for the opposition had an opinion on a phone call they never even heard.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

You know Prairie Guy, sometimes when something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. I don't know how anyone can look at his background and listen to Donald Trump and not know that he is a duck who would lie, cheat and sell his own grandmother as they say, to get what he wants. 

When someone with a background like that of Bill Taylor who testified yesterday and has been in positions to know what was going on, simply reports the facts of what someone said to him, it would be impossible for me to even think that he is lying. Yet here you are, slandering Bill Taylor by suggesting he has been paid to say what he said. Really? 

When he said, 'this person said this to me' you believe he is lying, is that right? He isn't a witness telling you what he heard first hand? He is being paid to say that someone said something when in fact that person did not say that to him? 

The Republicans and you I guess want to say that anything someone did not witness themselves is 'hearsay'. Well, that's true but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of what they are saying they did see or hear first hand. If someone heard a phone call and then tells me what they heard, I can say what I heard them say to me and that is first hand. There is a difference between saying, 'this is what a person told me' and saying, 'this is what that person heard'. You cannot deny what a person 'told me' unless you actually believe I am lying about what they told me.

What the two witnesses yesterday gave was their FIRST HAND testimony as to what they saw and heard personally. Neither of them would be drawn into any comments as to what they were told was true or not. Both were very careful to stick to the facts of what they saw and heard personally.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Even Republicans know Trump doesn't have the morality, courage or ability to be President, but he is doing their bidding like a good little lap dog.

Conservatives judges...you got it. Tough on immigrants...okay with me. Lower taxes for wealthy...how soon can I begin.

No wonder the Republicans are the three monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil, use Trump to get what you want and then ditch him.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Geneva (Reuters) - A Nov 18 story headlined "US has world's highest rate of child detention - in UN study" is withdrawn. The United Nations issued a statement on Nov 18 saying the number was not current but was for the year 2015. No replacement story will be issued"

No replacement story will be issued...why? Because the goal the entire time was to smear Trump.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> When someone with a background like that of Bill Taylor who testified yesterday and has been in positions to know what was going on, simply reports the facts of what someone said to him, it would be impossible for me to even think that he is lying. Yet here you are, slandering Bill Taylor by suggesting he has been paid to say what he said. Really?


Someone lied under oath. This is the actual testimony from the hearing:

Taylor: "I learned about the overheard call last Friday"

Holmes: "I told everyone in the embassy (inc Taylor) multiple times since August".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Oh oh....."directed by the President".......Trump is done.

Rudy Guiliani will start talking soon. Nobody wants to end up like Roger Stone.

Trump and Pence will have to resign to save their butts.

President Nancy Pelosi ?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Democrat witnesses are lying under oath and no one in the media seems to care. That's not incorrectly reported news...it's partisan propaganda.

I'm sure LTA can explain why the guy he praised lied under oath and shouldn't be put in jail.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Global News description of the man who stopped the shooter in a Texas church began like this: 

"The gunman who opened fire in a Texas church on Sunday..."


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> Democrat witnesses are lying under oath and no one in the media seems to care. That's not incorrectly reported news...it's partisan propaganda.
> 
> I'm sure LTA can explain why the guy he praised lied under oath and shouldn't be put in jail.


if you love trump so much why dont you move to the US? trump is a vile human and got impeached because he got caught. there is no telling how many other schemes like this played out. democrats were right to impeach on this as it gave an avenue for other WB to come out. trump has done nothing worthy of note for the US or the world except for cause turmoil, uncertainty, and inflate the debt.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

redsgomarching said:


> if you love trump so much why dont you move to the US? trump is a vile human and got impeached because he got caught. there is no telling how many other schemes like this played out. democrats were right to impeach on this as it gave an avenue for other WB to come out. trump has done nothing worthy of note for the US or the world except for cause turmoil, uncertainty, and inflate the debt.


Only the Senate can impeach. They haven't done so, therefore Trump has not been impeached.

If you haven't noticed, the topic is incorrectly reported news so I posted incorrectly reported news. if you think I was wrong try a factual response instead of a childish rant....that is, if you're even capable of having a factual debate


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Presidents Nixon and Clinton were both impeached by the House of Representatives and it remains as part of their legacy as it will on Trump's as well.

The Senate looks at the evidence from the impeachment and decide if the President should be removed from office.

Neither Nixon or Clinton were removed by the Senate, but they were still impeached.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

From CBC news:

"Universities across Canada are planning to observe a moment of silence for the Tehran plane crash victims in exactly one hour, at 1 pm ET"

"plane crash"??


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

sags said:


> Presidents Nixon and Clinton were both impeached by the House of Representatives and it remains as part of their legacy as it will on Trump's as well.
> 
> The Senate looks at the evidence from the impeachment and decide if the President should be removed from office.
> 
> Neither Nixon or Clinton were removed by the Senate, but they were still impeached.


Whoops, I was wrong.

Nixon resigned before he was impeached. Unless Trump resigns before the Senate trial begins, he will officially be impeached and as Nancy Pelosi said....impeached is forever.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Trump HAS been impeached. Resigning now will not change that. Impeachment is similar to an indictment. Impeachment is not removal from the office. This is why Pelosi said impeachment is forever......He has been impeached, regardless of the senate vote/decision. just as Clinton and it will follow both forever.

The general public equates impeachment with removal from office, which is not the case.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, my mistake. Nixon resigned before the House investigation was completed.

Too late for Trump to resign now. His goose is cooked and he is bringing down a lot of people with him.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Only the Senate can impeach. They haven't done so, therefore Trump has not been impeached.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the topic is incorrectly reported news so I posted incorrectly reported news. if you think I was wrong try a factual response instead of a childish rant....that is, if you're even capable of having a factual debate


Senate holds the trial and decides whether to remove from office. House impeaches (and Trump has formally been impeached).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> From CBC news:
> 
> "Universities across Canada are planning to observe a moment of silence for the Tehran plane crash victims in exactly one hour, at 1 pm ET"
> 
> "plane crash"??


That is quite the euphemism! It's like calling 9/11 a series of plane crashes!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> That is quite the euphemism! It's like calling 9/11 a series of plane crashes!


Would you rather they said, 'for the Tehran plane blown out of the sky by Iran.' The point of the sentence was to say there was to be a moment of silence observed. It wasn't intended to be a political statement or condemnation, which would have changed the focus and given the sentence a different meaning altogether. 

So in terms of 'fake news' which is the subject of this thread, it was in fact NOT fake news. It actually gave the factual message it was intended to give. There was to be a moment of silence observed. Full stop. It was not intended to ignore or point out blame etc.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

The title of the thread is "incorrectly reported news" not fake news. The plane was shot down, it didn't crash, therefore my post was exactly on topic.

And yes, the wording was chosen for a specific reason. Perhaps you need to work on your critical thinking skills?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

'Crash' implies that it was an accident. It was a rocket attack.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> 'Crash' implies that it was an accident. It was a rocket attack.


Forget the semantics people. 

The news was not incorrectly reported Prairie Guy, the NEWS was a moment of silence was going to be observed. The 'shot down' or 'crashed' plane was NOT the news being reported. We already knew about that news. It is only YOUR interpretation of what the message being conveyed was that is incorrect.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Yes, my mistake. Nixon resigned before the House investigation was completed.
> 
> Too late for Trump to resign now. His goose is cooked and he is bringing down a lot of people with him.


Do you really think they'll convict him?
He's a massive fundraiser and can mobilize voters.

Also the Democratic nominees are getting progressively crazier and more offside with mainstream voters.

Secondly assuming they remove Trump from office, they get President Pence.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> Forget the semantics people.
> 
> The news was not incorrectly reported Prairie Guy, the NEWS was a moment of silence was going to be observed. The 'shot down' or 'crashed' plane was NOT the news being reported. We already knew about that news. It is only YOUR interpretation of what the message being conveyed was that is incorrect.


It wasn't a plane crash...the plane was shot down with missiles. YOUR interpretation is 100% wrong.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

You can add CTV news to the "incorrectly reported news" list:

"Bodies of 11 Ukrainians killed in Iran plane crash sent home"

Next post...LTA defending the headline as "semantics" :biggrin:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What is wrong with that headline ?

After checking the CTV headline.......they were Ukrainians sent to Ukraine.

As to the "plane crash", it is accurate as well.

The missiles that hit the plane didn't totally destroy it and it is likely the passengers perished when the plane crashed into the ground.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

We can all play the headline game:

"Obama forced out of office January 2016"

There's nothing wrong with that headline either. It's completely accurate.


----------

