Media propagandist scrubbing their own references

[childeye 2]

There are so many here that already do such an amazing job of criticizing Trump and Republicans that it seems unnecessary for me to pile on. Suffice to say, I agree with many of the criticisms of Trump and the people who follow him blindly.

As long as we're confessing, I kinda liked when Trump went bingbingbing bongbong.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is another example of media scrubbing their posts and articles:

Politico Accused of Covering for Harris’ Past Vow to Ban Fracking

Politico is facing accusations it is trying to cover for Vice President Kamala Harris' past positions amid her current run

ijr.com

Politico is facing accusations it is trying to cover for Vice President Kamala Harris’ past positions amid her current run for president.​

​

On Monday, CNN’s Andy Kaczynski shared a screen shot a Politico article with a headline that read, “Harris campaign pledges she won’t ban fracking after Trump accusation.”​

​

“This is a bizarre framing — it’s not an accusation or allegation. She said it on record numerous times in 2019,” Kaczynski.​

​

He added, “The news is that she just recently changed her position publicly.”​

​

​

 

[probinson]

As long as we're confessing, I kinda liked when Trump went bingbingbing bongbong.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yet they keep trying.

I keep seeing this particular tactic - a post which quotes a talking point to vaguely agree with it all while ignoring the various discussion showing how the facts demonstrate the talking point is wrong. Does anyone know the name of this approach?

 

[childeye 2]

No headway was made. The problem got worse, not better. The argument seems to be that her actual assignment was to do nothing. To just stand back and watch it hemorrhage.

Well, maybe you're misinterpreting the data. CBP data on "encounters" is not the same as counting total migrants across the border. A single migrant can have multiple encounters with border patrol at multiple different points along the border in a single day, and each is counted as an encounter.

According to the border data provided in post#51 the flow from the three countries Harris worked with has slowed as much as 70% compared to 2021. But the problem is that other countries have skyrocketed such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, etc... For example, between October and September of 2021, U.S. border agents reported 225,000 apprehensions of Cubans.

The bottom line is everywhere there is oppression people are fleeing from those places.

 

[childeye 2]

I keep seeing this particular tactic - a post which quotes a talking point to vaguely agree with it all while ignoring the various discussion showing how the facts demonstrate the talking point is wrong. Does anyone know the name of this approach?

I think it's a statement based on a misunderstanding. People talking past one another?

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it's a statement based on a misunderstanding. People talking past one another?

I always viewed it as a way to attempt to distract from the factual issues raised about the talking point in question.

 

[childeye 2]

I always viewed it as a way to attempt to distract from the factual issues raised about the talking point in question.

Well the first person is saying there is no plausible deniability, and the second person is agreeing and saying, yet they still try.

Both of those statements are probably referring to the denial of the OVERALL rate of migration still being high, meanwhile the people they are talking about being in denial are remarking specifically about how migration from the countries that Harris worked with has decreased and are NOT even denying the overall rate of migration is still high.

Sometimes it is a debate tactic such as an ad hominem attack, or obfuscating or maybe even a misdirection, deflection, or red herring logical fallacy, but there are ways to discern that. Generally, when a person finds fault whether you're coming or going then there's probably some mischief. <--- The word implacable comes to mind.

 

[Servus]

Well, maybe you're misinterpreting the data. CBP data on "encounters" is not the same as counting total migrants across the border. A single migrant can have multiple encounters with border patrol at multiple different points along the border in a single day, and each is counted as an encounter.

According to the border data provided in post#51 the flow from the three countries Harris worked with has slowed as much as 70% compared to 2021. But the problem is that other countries have skyrocketed such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, etc... For example, between October and September of 2021, U.S. border agents reported 225,000 apprehensions of Cubans.

Ah the data. The same squiggly lines data that says crime is down, the economy is up, inflation is down etc. Despite what the public is actually experiencing, which is just anecdotal hallucinating.

The bottom line is everywhere there is oppression people are fleeing from those places.

They're all refugees escaping to a country that welcomes them with open arms and lots of free stuff.

 

[Belk]

I always viewed it as a way to attempt to distract from the factual issues raised about the talking point in question.

I think it is just tribal affiliation signaling.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ah the data. The same squiggly lines data that says crime is down, the economy is up, inflation is down etc. Despite what the public is actually experiencing, which is just anecdotal hallucinating.

That's right.

According to your profile, you live in Washington. What do you know about the border except for what you see in the media?

 

[childeye 2]

Ah the data. The same squiggly lines data that says crime is down, the economy is up, inflation is down etc. Despite what the public is actually experiencing, which is just anecdotal hallucinating.

I don't understand. The data shows the numbers and demographics of migration happening at the border, not the economy or inflation. Are you saying that you don't believe the official authoritative source?

They're all refugees escaping to a country that welcomes them with open arms and lots of free stuff.

It's not wrong to have compassion.

 

[childeye 2]

I think it is just tribal affiliation signaling.

It's nice to be loved.

 

[Servus]

I don't understand. The data shows the numbers and demographics of migration happening at the border, not the economy or inflation. Are you saying that you don't believe the official authoritative source?

I'm saying there's always the data that goes against what the public is experiencing, and the message is dismiss what you see happening and go with the official authoritative data instead. It strikes me as being quite Orwellian.

It's not wrong to have compassion.

It seems a majority of those saying it's about compassion would never consider housing a "refugee" and blue areas they've been bussed to turn them away. So that seems to really just be a narrative that's being repeated.

 

[Servus]

That's right.

According to your profile, you live in Washington. What do you know about the border except for what you see in the media?

I'm from California, and have a boatload of family living there going back decades.

 

[wing2000]

I'm from California, and have a boatload of family living there going back decades.

Los Conquistadores?

 

[Servus]

Los Conquistadores?

I don't understand the question.

 

[wing2000]

I don't understand the question.

Does your family go back to the earliest Spanish folks who arrived in California.....or even longer?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm from California, and have a boatload of family living there going back decades.

Fair enough.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm saying there's always the data that goes against what the public is experiencing, and the message is dismiss what you see happening and go with the official authoritative data instead. It strikes me as being quite Orwellian.

Well, yeah data is numbers, but that doesn't go against what people are experiencing. Every migrant is not just a number, but a person. What's actually happening to a populace because of the effects of massive migration are not meant to be, nor even can be reflected in the border numbers alone. I certainly don't see these numbers suggesting dismissing what we see happening. I see them as flashing red that something is very wrong.

It seems a majority of those saying it's about compassion would never consider housing a "refugee" and blue areas they've been bussed to turn them away. So that seems to really just be a narrative that's being repeated.

That's not a good thought. There's going to be many narratives that are partly-true, but there's only one truth that defines the right thing.
That's why, if we make the argument that we wish these people were not let in to the country, as some do, it will be hypocrisy to blame those "blue" areas for turning them away.

Subsequently there are blue areas that don't turn them away and we don't hear about it. There are also red areas that don't turn them away. There are also employers or others that exploit these people; and there are people who care and don't care.