|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The MAGA stance on healthcare is that "we all die anyway".
And only rich people should be allowed to live longer, because they can afford it.
|
On July 05 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2025 21:04 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 20:59 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 18:08 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 15:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 07:29 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 05:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 03:17 Magic Powers wrote:On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month. Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan). Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though? Trump assumed office on January 20th this year, so that's where the counting starts, not in September of 2024, and the counting ends "on Tuesday" (I assume that's June 10th since the article was updated on June 11th which was a Wednesday). That makes it a reported 207 000 deportations over 140 days, which is nearly 45 000 deportations per month. That would be around double of Biden's 2024 deportation rate. Furthermore, under Biden the removals were over 90% connected to people with a criminal record. The remaining deportations were not removals. Under Trump however, removals are far more indiscriminatory. He removes a lot more people with no criminal record, which is a key reason why total deportations are so high since he assumed office. It's honestly the same to me, I don't have a horse in this race. You are making an assumption though that the data refers only to the time that Trump was officially president, it doesn't actually specify in the article. To be perfectly honest, I didn't think this was a particularly good source. Of course I made that assumption. Why would the time frame include Biden's last few months as president? That would be pants on fire levels of misinformation by the Department of Homeland Security, which provided the numbers. Unless their data was deliberately misrepresented by Tricia McLaughlin. Sure, you can make that argument. I think that's not as likely, but also plausible considering the lies and incompetence of Trump's administration. If I'm talking with an academic and they're talking about "this year's student intake" they actually meant the students enrolled in 2024. If they count deportations within financial years (which seems to be implied by the Biden line) it is perfectly reasonable to refer to "this year so far" to include all deportations within that financial year. It would also make their number look bigger, so why wouldn't they? The source is not great because it's mostly commentary, the data isn't shown, and it is not clear to what it refers to. Alright, I'll just provide another source. PolitiFact has a left-center bias with high factuality. Should be good enough. As of April 29, the Department of Homeland Security said there have been more than 142,000 deportations since Trump started his second term, but has not released a detailed breakdown. https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/30/trump-immigration-injunctions-deportations142 000 reported deportations between January 20 and April 29. That would equate to 518 300 deportations during Trump's first year in office. Again, you can say Trump's administration generally spreads lies. Fine, make that argument if you want. But either they're lying or they're being truthful. If they're lying, then add that to the list of reasons why Trump supporters are mad fools. If they're telling the truth, then Americans need to buckle up as this term is gonna be a hell of a bumpy ride. I am not arguing for or against anything, just to be clear. I had a look at the source. It's about something else "Has Trump faced more deportation-related court injunctions than his predecessors?" The article isn't about deportation numbers, and was a bit of a turd to read, to be honest. It again quotes a random number given by someone at the department without providing further context about the data. I normally tell my students to cite primary sources, because otherwise you just have no idea what you're quoting. The same applies here. Hello? Is somebody at home? The source PolitiFact cites from is the Department of Homeland Security. WASHINGTON – In just 100 days, President Trump and Secretary Noem have delivered major victories addressing the crisis at the southern border, removing violent criminal illegal aliens from American communities, and stopping the flow of illicit drugs into our homeland. He’s accomplished more in 100 days than most presidents achieve in an entire term. Deportations have already exceeded 142,000—this is just the beginning. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/100-days-making-america-safe-again I clicked the link and opened up the page. It reads like a propaganda manifesto, no mention on how the data was collected, its context, or anything else. It's just a random number that is quoted as extracted from somewhere. I wouldn't consider that a good source. I don't understand why you would either, but I'm done clicking random links, im not reading another turd.
dhs.gov is the website of the Department of Homeland Security. That is the most official website you can find. You arrive there literally by clicking a link on usa.gov.
And of course it reads like a propaganda manifesto because the Trump administration entered the WH based on nothing but propaganda. What they say is what gets published on the official portal.
|
On July 05 2025 21:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 21:04 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 20:59 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 18:08 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 15:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 07:29 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 05:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 03:17 Magic Powers wrote:On July 04 2025 22:18 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
From that quote, assuming that the number in mid-June from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin is accurate and that it captures deportations from 30 Sept 2024 to 15 June 2025, Biden's deportation rate in 2024 was 22623/month, Trump's is 24352/month.
Which, even if taken at face value, is honestly not that different and underwhelming (if you're a Trump fan).
Wasn't BJ's point that you should probably not take numbers originating from the department at face value, though? Trump assumed office on January 20th this year, so that's where the counting starts, not in September of 2024, and the counting ends "on Tuesday" (I assume that's June 10th since the article was updated on June 11th which was a Wednesday). That makes it a reported 207 000 deportations over 140 days, which is nearly 45 000 deportations per month. That would be around double of Biden's 2024 deportation rate. Furthermore, under Biden the removals were over 90% connected to people with a criminal record. The remaining deportations were not removals. Under Trump however, removals are far more indiscriminatory. He removes a lot more people with no criminal record, which is a key reason why total deportations are so high since he assumed office. It's honestly the same to me, I don't have a horse in this race. You are making an assumption though that the data refers only to the time that Trump was officially president, it doesn't actually specify in the article. To be perfectly honest, I didn't think this was a particularly good source. Of course I made that assumption. Why would the time frame include Biden's last few months as president? That would be pants on fire levels of misinformation by the Department of Homeland Security, which provided the numbers. Unless their data was deliberately misrepresented by Tricia McLaughlin. Sure, you can make that argument. I think that's not as likely, but also plausible considering the lies and incompetence of Trump's administration. If I'm talking with an academic and they're talking about "this year's student intake" they actually meant the students enrolled in 2024. If they count deportations within financial years (which seems to be implied by the Biden line) it is perfectly reasonable to refer to "this year so far" to include all deportations within that financial year. It would also make their number look bigger, so why wouldn't they? The source is not great because it's mostly commentary, the data isn't shown, and it is not clear to what it refers to. Alright, I'll just provide another source. PolitiFact has a left-center bias with high factuality. Should be good enough. As of April 29, the Department of Homeland Security said there have been more than 142,000 deportations since Trump started his second term, but has not released a detailed breakdown. https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/30/trump-immigration-injunctions-deportations142 000 reported deportations between January 20 and April 29. That would equate to 518 300 deportations during Trump's first year in office. Again, you can say Trump's administration generally spreads lies. Fine, make that argument if you want. But either they're lying or they're being truthful. If they're lying, then add that to the list of reasons why Trump supporters are mad fools. If they're telling the truth, then Americans need to buckle up as this term is gonna be a hell of a bumpy ride. I am not arguing for or against anything, just to be clear. I had a look at the source. It's about something else "Has Trump faced more deportation-related court injunctions than his predecessors?" The article isn't about deportation numbers, and was a bit of a turd to read, to be honest. It again quotes a random number given by someone at the department without providing further context about the data. I normally tell my students to cite primary sources, because otherwise you just have no idea what you're quoting. The same applies here. Hello? Is somebody at home? The source PolitiFact cites from is the Department of Homeland Security. WASHINGTON – In just 100 days, President Trump and Secretary Noem have delivered major victories addressing the crisis at the southern border, removing violent criminal illegal aliens from American communities, and stopping the flow of illicit drugs into our homeland. He’s accomplished more in 100 days than most presidents achieve in an entire term. Deportations have already exceeded 142,000—this is just the beginning. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/100-days-making-america-safe-again I clicked the link and opened up the page. It reads like a propaganda manifesto, no mention on how the data was collected, its context, or anything else. It's just a random number that is quoted as extracted from somewhere. I wouldn't consider that a good source. I don't understand why you would either, but I'm done clicking random links, im not reading another turd. dhs.gov is the website of the Department of Homeland Security. That is the most official website you can find. You arrive there literally by clicking a link on usa.gov. And of course it reads like a propaganda manifesto because the Trump administration entered the WH based on nothing but propaganda. What they say is what gets published on the official portal. Once it being an official government page meant something.
today, it no longer does.
|
I think the raw numbers are pretty unimportant. There is a major difference between Trumps and Biden's policy in both intent and in practice. Whether he has ramped up to more or is just doing slightly less in a way more inhumane number seems life difference without distinction to be.
|
United States24676 Posts
On July 05 2025 21:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2025 21:44 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 21:04 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 20:59 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 18:08 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 15:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 07:29 Magic Powers wrote:On July 05 2025 05:44 EnDeR_ wrote:On July 05 2025 03:17 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Trump assumed office on January 20th this year, so that's where the counting starts, not in September of 2024, and the counting ends "on Tuesday" (I assume that's June 10th since the article was updated on June 11th which was a Wednesday). That makes it a reported 207 000 deportations over 140 days, which is nearly 45 000 deportations per month. That would be around double of Biden's 2024 deportation rate.
Furthermore, under Biden the removals were over 90% connected to people with a criminal record. The remaining deportations were not removals. Under Trump however, removals are far more indiscriminatory. He removes a lot more people with no criminal record, which is a key reason why total deportations are so high since he assumed office. It's honestly the same to me, I don't have a horse in this race. You are making an assumption though that the data refers only to the time that Trump was officially president, it doesn't actually specify in the article. To be perfectly honest, I didn't think this was a particularly good source. Of course I made that assumption. Why would the time frame include Biden's last few months as president? That would be pants on fire levels of misinformation by the Department of Homeland Security, which provided the numbers. Unless their data was deliberately misrepresented by Tricia McLaughlin. Sure, you can make that argument. I think that's not as likely, but also plausible considering the lies and incompetence of Trump's administration. If I'm talking with an academic and they're talking about "this year's student intake" they actually meant the students enrolled in 2024. If they count deportations within financial years (which seems to be implied by the Biden line) it is perfectly reasonable to refer to "this year so far" to include all deportations within that financial year. It would also make their number look bigger, so why wouldn't they? The source is not great because it's mostly commentary, the data isn't shown, and it is not clear to what it refers to. Alright, I'll just provide another source. PolitiFact has a left-center bias with high factuality. Should be good enough. As of April 29, the Department of Homeland Security said there have been more than 142,000 deportations since Trump started his second term, but has not released a detailed breakdown. https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/apr/30/trump-immigration-injunctions-deportations142 000 reported deportations between January 20 and April 29. That would equate to 518 300 deportations during Trump's first year in office. Again, you can say Trump's administration generally spreads lies. Fine, make that argument if you want. But either they're lying or they're being truthful. If they're lying, then add that to the list of reasons why Trump supporters are mad fools. If they're telling the truth, then Americans need to buckle up as this term is gonna be a hell of a bumpy ride. I am not arguing for or against anything, just to be clear. I had a look at the source. It's about something else "Has Trump faced more deportation-related court injunctions than his predecessors?" The article isn't about deportation numbers, and was a bit of a turd to read, to be honest. It again quotes a random number given by someone at the department without providing further context about the data. I normally tell my students to cite primary sources, because otherwise you just have no idea what you're quoting. The same applies here. Hello? Is somebody at home? The source PolitiFact cites from is the Department of Homeland Security. WASHINGTON – In just 100 days, President Trump and Secretary Noem have delivered major victories addressing the crisis at the southern border, removing violent criminal illegal aliens from American communities, and stopping the flow of illicit drugs into our homeland. He’s accomplished more in 100 days than most presidents achieve in an entire term. Deportations have already exceeded 142,000—this is just the beginning. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/29/100-days-making-america-safe-again I clicked the link and opened up the page. It reads like a propaganda manifesto, no mention on how the data was collected, its context, or anything else. It's just a random number that is quoted as extracted from somewhere. I wouldn't consider that a good source. I don't understand why you would either, but I'm done clicking random links, im not reading another turd. dhs.gov is the website of the Department of Homeland Security. That is the most official website you can find. You arrive there literally by clicking a link on usa.gov. And of course it reads like a propaganda manifesto because the Trump administration entered the WH based on nothing but propaganda. What they say is what gets published on the official portal. Once it being an official government page meant something. today, it no longer does.
At least my government content published online will remain accurate for the time being…
|
This admin isn't exactly known for their accuracy. Didn't Doge officially say something like they'd made 1t savings (I'm exaggerating) and it turned out to be bullshit?
|
This is pretty grim Texas begins grim flood recovery with at least 27 killed and dozens missing, including children https:
Rescuers by Saturday had begun the grim task of recovering the bodies of children who were swept away in a deadly flash flood in Texas, caused by a powerful storm that killed dozens of people.
Do people in Texas still think it was a great idea to gut the forecasting service?
After media reports & experts warned for months that drastic & sudden cuts at the [NWS] by Trump could impair their forecasting ability & endanger lives during the storm season, TX officials blame an inaccurate forecast by NWS for the deadly results of the flood,” Ron Filipkowski, editor in chief of the liberal news website MeidasTouch, wrote on X.
|
Republicans didn't care when dead children were in schools they won't care now they're at summer camps. Their parents will probably still vote Republican. Uvalde went for abbot despite him not doing a thing after their kids died.
|
The NYT reported when Mamdani applied to Columbia university he checked the box indicating he was Black or African American. Obviously an attempt to get a leg-up on any race-based affirmative action criteria. He has justified it by saying he was born in Uganda and he was trying to explain the complexities of his identity. Sounds about as bullshit of an excuse as Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Native American because her family has "high cheekbones." There's something about lying about your identity to take advantage of racial incentives that I find exceptionally despicable, especially if they are likely to support such policies.
|
On July 06 2025 10:15 BlackJack wrote:
The NYT reported when Mamdani applied to Columbia university he checked the box indicating he was Black or African American. Obviously an attempt to get a leg-up on any race-based affirmative action criteria. He has justified it by saying he was born in Uganda and he was trying to explain the complexities of his identity. Sounds about as bullshit of an excuse as Elizabeth Warren claiming to be Native American because her family has "high cheekbones." There's something about lying about your identity to take advantage of racial incentives that I find exceptionally despicable, especially if they are likely to support such policies.
He was born in Africa, so that's probably relevant to his demographics, just like how his parents' heritages are also relevant. So what?
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
Truly a new low in US politics, outrageous stuff amidst a veritable den of propriety and ethics
|
Bj under the impression that the only people who live in Africa are blackskinned is on brand.
Being envious of another groups given advantages while never agnowedging their disadvantages from society is also on brand.
|
Uganda had a south asian population brought in by the british colonialists to build their railroads, they were then later expelled by notorious monster Idi Amin, if Im not mistaken.
|
On July 06 2025 11:18 Sermokala wrote:
Bj under the impression that the only people who live in Africa are blackskinned is on brand.
Being envious of another groups given advantages while never agnowedging their disadvantages from society is also on brand.
I read this and immediately laughed. The ignorance/bigotry is comical.
|
On July 06 2025 11:18 Sermokala wrote:
Bj under the impression that the only people who live in Africa are blackskinned is on brand.
Being envious of another groups given advantages while never agnowedging their disadvantages from society is also on brand.
That last paragraph is related to the point. What disadvantage did he have? when his claim of being black is that he was born in Uganda but barely lived there and had two well to do parents who moved to the US? We know what the point of the box checking is for, as you said, it's about "disadvantages". Which ones did he face? That's the point. Only the most extremely dishonest person would pretend that they wouldn't be offended if he wasn't the political belle atm.
|
On July 06 2025 13:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2025 11:18 Sermokala wrote:
Bj under the impression that the only people who live in Africa are blackskinned is on brand.
Being envious of another groups given advantages while never agnowedging their disadvantages from society is also on brand. That last paragraph is related to the point. What disadvantage did he have? when his claim of being black is that he was born in Uganda but barely lived there and had two well to do parents who moved to the US? We know what the point of the box checking is for, as you said, it's about "disadvantages". Which ones did he face? That's the point. Only the most extremely dishonest person would pretend that they wouldn't be offended if he wasn't the political belle atm.
Why is it offensive for someone from (born in) Africa who moved to America to include "African-American" as part of their identity? Because he's not poor too?
|
Mandami is doing well if all they could find was that he ticked a box that was somewhat relevant to his background.
I ticked the Latin background on my box when I applied to the US for professorial positions. I took that definition to mean literally what it says. I'm whiter than milk.
|
I don't think Introvert knows about 9/11 guys how are we going to tell him about it?
|
On July 06 2025 14:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2025 13:27 Introvert wrote:On July 06 2025 11:18 Sermokala wrote:
Bj under the impression that the only people who live in Africa are blackskinned is on brand.
Being envious of another groups given advantages while never agnowedging their disadvantages from society is also on brand. That last paragraph is related to the point. What disadvantage did he have? when his claim of being black is that he was born in Uganda but barely lived there and had two well to do parents who moved to the US? We know what the point of the box checking is for, as you said, it's about "disadvantages". Which ones did he face? That's the point. Only the most extremely dishonest person would pretend that they wouldn't be offended if he wasn't the political belle atm. Why is it offensive for someone from Africa who moved to America to include "African-American" as part of their identity? Because he's not poor too?
Let's not play dumb, we know why this would considered no good if someone else did it. He checked the boxes "Asian" and "Black or African American". But I guess we can pretend he did it because he's a stickler for biographical accuracy based on what his birth certificate says. I guess we should also start referring to Elon as an African-American. "Well he was born in Uganda" is the thinnest of gruels.
And re the point about "doing pretty well" I don't think so. He's been criticized for lots, this is just another thing, and it's thing that strikes at something normally the identity left would care about. You wonder if his dad who is a professor at that school in "the study of colonialism, anti-colonialism and decolonisation" would find something distasteful about it. Probably asking for too much.
|
Man born in Africa living in America considers himself African-American, the audacity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
