CNNs latest ratings booster could backfire - Free Chat, Mobile Dating Forums

Community Recent My Topics

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: CNNs latest ratings booster could backfire

msharmony

Sat 05/12/18 06:07 PM

I didnt say you did, I was comparing Deportation under Bush and previous Administrations compared to Obama.

Okay. Bush was in office in 2000, which was the year referenced, so there is not disagreement.

I lived in Kuwait 1997-2000. Just after Clinton was re-elected. Our tv satellite/cable was out of Cyprus, the only cable news we could get was CNN, although we also got the major US networks.

It was called Clinton News Network over there, 21 yrs ago.

The Kuwaitis couldn't believe we had re-elected such a slime ball.

Edited by GalaxyStarz on Sat 05/12/18 06:14 PM

Toodygirl5

Sat 05/12/18 07:54 PM

msharmony

Sat 05/12/18 11:27 PM

The Kuwaitis couldn't believe we had re-elected such a slime ball.

there are always those who disagree with our choices, around the world there is similar sentiment about Trump being elected AT ALL

Redrider1500

Sun 05/13/18 05:23 AM

This is a typical Trump is bad, obama good argument.The only thing the last potus did was improve his golf score during his tenure. I happen to be one that doesn't care what europe or anybody past our borders thinks about us. Or, for that matter, I could care less what my neighbors think about me. Don't like it? Tough cookies, take a flying leap. You run your life, I'll run mine. You want to come tell me how to run my life? Ok, get ready for your fat lip that's coming your way for butting into my business. obama was, is, and always will be a moron.

undrboss

Sun 05/13/18 07:38 AM

I agree with most of what you've said, I don't agree Obama was a moron, he was far from a moron, I would agree with feckless , indecisive while being a nice guy.

That isnt what we want in our leader.

Trump with all of his character flaws is a leader , I dont think presidential material but lets talk at the end of his term and see where America is.

And Trump is and will always be better than HiLIARy any day of the week.

Dodo_David

Sun 05/13/18 07:52 AM

I didnt say you did, I was comparing Deportation under Bush and previous Administrations compared to Obama.

Okay. Bush was in office in 2000, which was the year referenced, so there is not disagreement.

Point of Information:

George W. Bush was not in the Oval Office until January 20, 2001.

msharmony

Sun 05/13/18 02:41 PM

I didnt say you did, I was comparing Deportation under Bush and previous Administrations compared to Obama.

Okay. Bush was in office in 2000, which was the year referenced, so there is not disagreement.

Point of Information:

George W. Bush was not in the Oval Office until January 20, 2001.

thank you for the correction, he was in office during my reference period but not IN 2000

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 08:32 AM

but it doesnt change the facts, deportation under Bush and previous administration meant one thing and deportation under Obama means another.

Turning people away at the border shouldnt count as deportation, its custom agents doing their job, agents picking up people, detaining them , vetting them processing them and showing them the border door is what deportation is about.

If I visit Canada and they refuse to let me in after a few hours of interrogation isnt deportation in my books.

If I visit Canada and decided to stay and their authorities pick me for whatever reason , vet me, fingerprint me and then kick my azz out of their country that is deportation.

msharmony

Mon 05/14/18 08:46 AM

Well, I believe the definition changed under BUsh, when people were no longer merely being 'turned away' but fingerprinted and recorded as deportations

The deportations still count people being apprehended and not just 'visiting' across the border.

but in either case, if in deed actual numbers are not able to be verified, there is no real way to argue whether the border is any more or less safe than before, except by accepting one side's bias or the other ...

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 09:32 AM

Ms.harmony.

Im sorry but you are wrong , first thing the term Deportation changed during the Clinton Administration

prior to 1996 if the government tossed your azz out of the country that was considered deportation

Then there was "exclusion" which meant if you come to the border and you're denied entry it was considered "exclusion" Clinton rolled it all into one package in 1996.

Today Deportation has no official meaning

You have "removals" and "returns"

Bush had more returns than Obama, and Obama has more removals then bush

what is the difference?

A removal means you have a court order to return someone to their country and they are not eligible for a period time to return to the US.

A return doesn't require a court order, you grab them and toss them out, but they are free to comeback legally or most will try and sneak in again.

this is why the numbers show illegal immigration is on the decline, which isn't the true number of factor.

So again I ask , how do you show a decline in illegal immigration when you are using different stats?

look at the yearbook tables from the DHS website

https://www.dhs.gov/keywords/immigration-statistics-yearbook

msharmony

Mon 05/14/18 09:46 AM

If the semantics have been changing, there is no way to compare or say one admin has done better or worse ...

unless one buys into one side's bias or the other, there is no proof the border is any less or more safe than it has been prior ..

which was my last point ...

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 09:56 AM

I know we are getting off topic, so I hope the OP of thread doesnt get ticked off that we are monopolizing their thread.

that was my point Leftist say Bush deported More than Obama, Right wingers say Obama deported more than Bush .

I just go by facts, Obama changed the deportation game , yes he has more Removals than Bush, but he also got rid of Bush's previous policies like Workplace enforcement operations.

Bush had more returns as I mentioned, his catch and release program was controversial

and more facts, Bush counted Returns and removals in his numbers , and Obama counted Removals for his numbers but added Exclusions.

Here is where I will give Obama credit, he focused on Removals as a priority but I dont agree with his counting of exclusions.

Am I making sense?

msharmony

Mon 05/14/18 12:12 PM

The terms get blurry to be honest. If they were apprehended on this side and sent back, whatever the proceeding, it should probably count as deported.

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 01:26 PM

msharmony

Mon 05/14/18 04:15 PM

I say this as someone who went through the immigration to attempt to get my husband here. it took three long years and he was simply denied. there was no procedure for 'exclusion', so what that actually means in terms of when it happens and who it is happening to is unclear to me.

I wouldn't think we should count as deported those who have legally applied and been turned down before arriving. I think deportation should be those who have

1. arrived in AMerica.

and

2. been sent back to their home country.

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 04:45 PM

Exclusion applies to people trying to get into our country physically they are stopped at the border driving in , boating in or flying in.

Not people who apply and were denied.

msharmony

Mon 05/14/18 06:10 PM

Okay. so they arrive here without proper papers and are sent back... that sounds about right.

the immigration process is complex. But i still think the borders have been consistently safer than election year politicians and pundits make them out to be, and that stormy doesn't matte ...lol.

And I still fully appreciate your capacity for disagreement that is mature and light hearted and void of childishness and name calling happy

Edited by msharmony on Mon 05/14/18 06:12 PM

undrboss

Mon 05/14/18 06:28 PM

Exclusions has nothing to do with proper papers, I mean you need a passport to get into Canada and Mexico.

If you're driving to the border and they pull you over for secondary and do a check, same thing with flying, they might suspect something or pull you over randomly and they do a background check and they find the person has a criminal record so they are refused entry. That is exclusion or they used to say you can voluntary withdraw your attempt to enter the country.

I went to my sister's wedding in Vancouver Canada 5 years ago, my cousin and the rest of the family flew into Vancouver and he was asked to go to secondary and they wouldn't let him in because of a DUI, that is an exclusion not a deportation.