Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[carpedm9587]

How many people are going to take the time to spot check a claim?

Why does that matter? I know I do. Others can make their own decisions.

See there’s a rather amusing example during the election where Trump and Sanders said the same thing and were both fact checked. Trump was rated mostly false while Sanders was rated mostly true. If you want to trust those hacks because they tell you what you want to hear, go ahead. I prefer to point out that they are yet another group of hacks, pretending to be impartial. The truth-o-meter is just opinion based journism at its finest mascerading as factual based.

Link, please. For the Trump/Sanders story.

Some can be objectively measured and others can’t be. I would hope you know that.

I do.

Interesting how you’re trying to wave away all the issues that have been brought up as a matter of opinion. Fact is acting as impartial while being a bunch of hacks, playing politics is a problem. Carrying the water of your preferred candidates is a problem. Changing up statements to something else, is a problem. Bury your had in the sand, but these issues are not going away.

Yes, all of these are problem. And another problem is the people on each side who think their outlets are not doing the same thing. Fox, Brietbart, CNN, and Mpther Jones are all notorious. But the left defends CNN and Mother Jones and the right defends Fox and Brietbart.

It's why I work as hard as I do to filter claims and sources, and eschew the worst of the lot.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know how useful spot checking claims is anymore since people will dismiss them out of hand.

One co-worker of mine was repeating the urban legend that Fred Rogers had a bunch of vulgar military tattoos from his youth, thus him wearing a cardigan. I told him that Snopes showed a picture of him shirtless (from an episode where he went swimming) and that he had no tattoos. He dismissed everything I said because of the word "Snopes". Even though Snopes is biased, in this case they provided photo evidence that directly refuted his claim, but he was unwilling to consider it. (This was especially odd since his claim had nothing to do with politics.)

Fred was wearing tattooless sleeves in that photo!

[Starlight]

You mean he chooses to... enforce the law as written?

He's choosing a "zero tolerance" policy that enforces the maximum possible penalties, with zero consideration for families and children.

The nerve of that guy!

Yes, the choice to have zero empathy and give zero compassionate consideration to families or to mothers weaning babies, is diabolical, literally.

I know, a president who actually believes in the rule of law

Prosecutors, judges, etc have always had the ability to use their judgement as part of the rule of law. A zero-tolerance, zero-compassion system is not the rule of law, it's just the rule of evil.

[lilpixieofterror]

My broader point is that it seems like people are letting sources think for them. The other day, I saw somebody on here refuse to look at paragraphs (with citations) from a fact checking site because the site was too partisan, then quoted Breitbart later in their own post, which I think is fair to call a partisan site as well. These sites can be wrong but they generally cite their sources. Looking at them can be considered an exercise in critical thinking, even if one is disinclined to take them at face value. It seems that people don't want to use critical thinking anymore, but rather just believe claims if the source is something they're inclined to believe in the first place.

I’m sure they are, but that still doesn’t change the fact the media did it to themselves by carrying the water of their preferred candidates while being far harder on those they don’t like. Snopes had a pretty good thing going before they decided to become yet another group of partisan hacks.

[Terraceth]

How many people are going to take the time to spot check a claim? See there’s a rather amusing example during the election where Trump and Sanders said the same thing and were both fact checked. Trump was rated mostly false while Sanders was rated mostly true. If you want to trust those hacks because they tell you what you want to hear, go ahead. I prefer to point out that they are yet another group of hacks, pretending to be impartial. The truth-o-meter is just opinion based journism at its finest mascerading as factual based.

I still think the actual fact-checking articles themselves are generally fairly accurate (if often biased in presentation), but I agree their ratings they take from the articles are highly problematic and they're far more lenient in grading liberals. In fact, even setting aside any bias, the ratings "Mostly False", "Mostly True", and "Half-True" are way too subjective and should all be coalesced into just one rating of "Partially True". Or better yet, just get rid of those ratings entirely.

I'm curious, though. What was the claim that they gave those disparate scores for?

[lilpixieofterror]

Why does that matter? I know I do. Others can make their own decisions.

So you don’t care that a group of partisan hacks are trying to pass themselves off as impartial judges of truth?

Link, please. For the Trump/Sanders story.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ic-unemployme/

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...nemployment-r/

I do.

Glad you do.

Yes, all of these are problem. And another problem is the people on each side who think their outlets are not doing the same thing. Fox, Brietbart, CNN, and Mpther Jones are all notorious. But the left defends CNN and Mother Jones and the right defends Fox and Brietbart.

And can you show where I said this isn’t an issue on both sides?

It's why I work as hard as I do to filter claims and sources, and eschew the worst of the lot.

And yet you show a history of being far harder on sources from the right vs the left.

[lilpixieofterror]

I still think the actual fact-checking articles themselves are generally fairly accurate (if often biased in presentation), but I agree their ratings they take from the articles are highly problematic and they're far more lenient in grading liberals. In fact, even setting aside any bias, the ratings "Mostly False", "Mostly True", and "Half-True" are way too subjective and should all be coalesced into just one rating of "Partially True". Or better yet, just get rid of those ratings entirely.

I'm curious, though. What was the claim that they gave those disparate scores for?

I gave the post above, but in short both Sanders and Trump cited too high of a figure for black unemployment rates. Issues is how the two were than read. Sanders was taken as being figurative and given a mostly true rating while Trump was taken literally and given a mostly false rating for citing too high of a stat. That is a pretty big problem for a group claiming to be impartial. They found a way to give their preferred candidate a true rating while their hated one a false rating.

[Mountain Man]

He's choosing a "zero tolerance" policy that enforces the maximum possible penalties, with zero consideration for families and children.

Yes, the choice to have zero empathy and give zero compassionate consideration to families or to mothers weaning babies, is diabolical, literally.

Prosecutors, judges, etc have always had the ability to use their judgement as part of the rule of law. A zero-tolerance, zero-compassion system is not the rule of law, it's just the rule of evil.

You're such a drama queen. The children are kept in clean, comfortable facilities, given healthcare, meals, an education, receive counselling, and engage in socially and culturally enriching activities. How evil.

Or maybe you would rather that Trump kept them crammed in stark, unfurnished cages like Obama.

[lilpixieofterror]

You're such a drama queen. The children are kept in clean, comfortable facilities, given healthcare, meals, an education, receive counselling, and engage in socially and culturally enriching activities. How evil.

Or maybe you would rather that Trump kept them crammed in stark, unfurnished cages like Obama.

Don’t think, feel! You should be outraged because you will not be thinking and can be controlled by your emotions.

[demi-conservative]

Basically the memo says "don't imprison kids and separate families, unless all the choices we've made - which are reaffirmed in this memo - end up meaning you need to do so". So, no change as far as I can see.

Sounds good! Why change?

[Tassman]

I see Trump's just signed an executive order that he claims will stop the family separations (on my reading of it, it won't, but we'll see), and his administration managed to achieve a misspelling in the title of the signed order, because of course.

Why won't Trump's order solve the problem? Because the problem is caused by:
1. The Trump administration's choice to criminally prosecute everyone caught crossing the border for the first time rather than treating it more lightly (it's only a misdemeanor) like past administrations.
2. The Trump administration's choice to not let these people out on bail while their cases are pending, and to hold them in custody.
3. Past court rulings saying it's inhumane for the government to hold families with children in custody for longer than 20 days.
4. The Trump administration's choice to very legally dubiously 'get around' that ruling by breaking up families, and then claiming it's not holding the family in custody.

The memo says: Keep doing #1, keep doing #2, ask the courts to change their ruling on #3 so we can imprison families for longer than 20 days, don't do #4 unless it turns out that you have to in order to satisfy #1 through #3 (which it currently does, so no change).

Basically the memo says "don't imprison kids and separate families, unless all the choices we've made - which are reaffirmed in this memo - end up meaning you need to do so". So, no change as far as I can see.

Yes that's correct. Trump’s executive order to end family separation will run afoul of the 1997 Flores agreement that strictly limits the government’s ability to keep children in immigration detention for longer than 20 days. So all Trump has done is postpone the problem.

[Starlight]

I gave the post above, but in short both Sanders and Trump cited too high of a figure for black unemployment rates.

Sanders included both underemployment (employed people doing menial or part time jobs who despite having qualifications and skills can't find the full-time jobs they want matching those qualifications and skills) and unemployment in his statement (and was quite specific and careful about doing so), while Trump was only talking about unemployment. So, apples and oranges. Sanders was right, Trump was wrong.

Black unemployment was around 25%, black underemployment was around 25%. Sanders said unemployment and underemployment combined were at 51% which was pretty much bang on. In fact, I think it's totally unreasonable that the fact checkers only gave Sanders "mostly true" rather than completely true. Trump claimed black unemployment was at 59%, which is bonkers. The fact checkers themselves are mostly at a loss for where he might have pulled such a wild claim from. I think it's totally unreasonable the fact checkers only gave that a "mostly false" rather than completely false. I would attribute both to their ongoing biases as they try to bend over backwards to try to be 'fair' to Republicans while being particularly harsh on Sanders.

[rogue06]

It's why I work as hard as I do to filter claims and sources, and eschew the worst of the lot.

I don't think that I've ever seen you merely dismiss anything as a left-wing meme.

[rogue06]

Yes that's correct. Trump’s executive order to end family separation will run afoul of the 1997 Flores agreement that strictly limits the government’s ability to keep children in immigration detention for longer than 20 days. So all Trump has done is postpone the problem.

That ought to give Congress time to do their job.

[Roy]

No, it's not an ad hom fallacy, I'm attacking your position as someone who doesn't really know the situation. Your in the UK right? So you DON'T have a border that pours 11 million ILLEGALS across your border annually.

Nor do you.