Misleading or false claims by the media

[cherrypoptart]

This media just never stops.

https://news.yahoo.com/abc-omits-obama-criticism-open-191003930.html

ABC News omitted former president Obama’s claim that open borders are “unsustainable” from the televised portion of his interview with the network.

“Immigration is tough. It always has been because, on the one hand, I think we are naturally a people that wants to help others. And we see tragedy and hardship and families that are desperately trying to get here so that their kids are safe, and they’re in some cases fleeing violence or catastrophe,” Obama said in a segment of the interview that was edited out of the televised version but appeared online.”At the same time, we’re a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can just have open borders is something that . . . as a practical matter, is unsustainable.”

---------------------------------------------------

If the media left that part in then Democrats might start to wonder if this guy is some sort of racist and if he isn't that puts them in an even tougher spot because everyone against open borders is supposed to be one.

[TheDrake]

Is this news? A good use of a limited time slot? To date, nobody has advocated open borders for the US in the way that Belgium and France have an open border.

The Cato Institute can help you with this.

Biden’s Border Policy Is Not “Open Borders

Practically since his first week in office, President Joe Biden has faced repeated criticisms from Republicans and some Democrats that his border policy amounts to “open borders.” This criticism is not simply inaccurate: it is unhinged from reality in a way that distinguishes itself from normal political hyperbole. Indeed, U.S. immigration policy is effectively closed borders, and Biden’s immigration policies and goals are largely the same as those of President Donald Trump.

This isn't the big gotcha moment that you are fantasizing about.

[cherrypoptart]

If that were true then why would Obama even need to bring up the topic of open borders or mention that they are unsustainable? And then why would the media lie by omission about it?

One useful thing would be a definition of open borders.

If it means that everyone who wants in gets in then sure we do not have open borders and never will.

But if it means that the vast majority of economic migrants get in when they want to and the longer they stay the more protections they get then we certainly do have open borders and as long as the Democrats have anything to say about it we always will especially with the media constantly lying for them.

[Wayward Son]

The media didn't report it because Democrats and the media know that Democrats don't want open borders either.   IOW, nothing newsworthy about it.

The Conservative Media doesn't report it because it contradicts their lie that Democrats want open borders.

I use the term "open borders" above to mean everyone who wants to get in gets in.  I believe that is how Obama was using the term, too.

Now, by stretching the term to mean, "the vast majority ... get in when they want to..." perhaps you could say he wasn't telling the truth.  But, as I said, I don't think either he or the media was using the term that way.

And if we use the term that way, who decides what a "vast majority" is?  Is it 80 percent?  60 percent?  40 percent?  10 percent?  It's a fuzzy line we're drawing there. And if we agree it is 60 percent, and Democrats only allow 59 percent to come in, are the borders then "closed?"   I suspect that Republicans will settle on the definition of "5 percent less than what Democrats allow in the country." 

Besides, Conservatives have gotten it into their heads that the only reason Democrats allow refugees into the country is to overwhelm Republican votes.  They have even co-opted a racist term for it: Replacement Theory.  So it will never really matter how many refugees the Democrats let in.  They will only be here to take away Republican votes in Republicans eyes.  It will never matter how desperate these people are.

Don't try to redefine "open borders" to make the Republican lies sound plausible, Cherry.  It means "allowing everyone in at once," or it doesn't mean anything.  And both Democrats and Republicans are against open borders.  It's old news.  The only question is how many we allow in at any given time, and whether we treat them like animals or human beings. 

[cherrypoptart]

"It means "allowing everyone in at once," or it doesn't mean anything."

That's nowhere close to what it means. Not even in the same solar system.

Democrats are so Orwellian in the way they repurpose language to confuse, obfuscate, and outright deceive.

So if you let in all the economic migrants who want to come, especially when they bring their children, but you keep out terrorists, cartel assassins, and international war criminals who have warrants out for their arrest from the Hague, then that's not considered open borders?

Here's a nice lady who provides the perfect example. She's making a living, making ten dollars an hour in Mexico. Sure it's tough but she's no asylum seeker or refugee, just a good hard working mom who wants a better life for her children.

https://news.yahoo.com/single-mother-expelled-to-mexico-recalls-the-lessons-learned-from-her-journey-181605604.html

And in the last sentence they explain the most important lesson she learned:

"Torres said she will make her second attempt to enter the U.S. during the cooler months, and when she does, she plans on bringing her three children with her."

If she would have had her children with her there's an excellent chance she wouldn't have been expelled. And when she comes next time with her children she'll very likely be getting in to stay. She's not a refugee. She's not an asylum seeker. She's an economic migrant.

And when she gets in the next time with her three children Democrats will still say see that's not open borders because she was expelled the first time when she didn't know she had to bring them with her.

People can define words however they want to but I don't care what you say that's still open borders.

My definition is when you let in massive numbers of economic migrants who not only have no claim to asylum but never even make any such claims and you let them stay then that is open borders. DACA is open borders. Biden's policy not deporting people just for being undocumented if they haven't committed other serious crimes is open borders. Ignoring the immigration laws that are on the books is open borders. If you want to argue all of those things are great then that's fine but if you want to say that's not open borders then it's just unbelievable. Maybe we can both agree on one thing at least: “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”

[cherrypoptart]

I finally decided to stop being so lazy and sure enough the internet and wikipedia ride to the rescue.

"An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is lacking substantive border control. A border may be an open border due to intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

"Few or no restrictions..." Few OR no. What we currently have are few.

"... that is lacking substantive border control..."

"... lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border..."

Check, check, and check. Open borders. Verified.

[cherrypoptart]

Saying that open borders means everyone gets through makes as much sense as saying that closed borders means no one gets through. Which is to say, it makes no sense at all. If a ninja got through the North Korean border with South Korea and started handing out pocky candy sticks to North Korean farmers that wouldn't mean their border wasn't closed. And just because we stop some people from getting through our border doesn't mean we don't have open borders either.

[Fenring]

"Few or no restrictions..." Few OR no. What we currently have are few.

Oh man, you must not cross the U.S. border very much if you think there are only 'few' restrictions. The U.S. customs agents are really serious about not only vetting everything, but they apparently even have a mandate to intimidate everyone just to shake them up and see if it knocks loose a lie or omission. IMO when encountering this type of scrutiny, as well as certain types of domestic security forces (like NYC officers armed with machine guns in Grand Central Station), it hits you as being quite high security. If you want to see a much more lax border you can find many examples around. I'm not precisely addressing the law itself, but more its public-facing side, but damn it does not come across as being like an open border that you can just cross without much restrictions.

[cherrypoptart]

That reminds me of a story. Yeah the customs people are very serious about that illegal bologna epidemic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-customs-found-194-pounds-of-illegal-bologna-in-mans-car-2021-2

"US Customs and Border Control agents working in New Mexico seized nearly 200 pounds — 22 rolls — of bologna being smuggled into the country from Mexico.

Agents discovered the contraband meat in a 2019 Nissan Rogue crossing the border at Columbus, New Mexico. Rolls of bologna were discovered both in the trunk of the car and in the man's luggage.

The CBP destroyed the bologna and fined the driver $500."

-----------------------------------------------

So I agree with the customs aspect of the border being locked up tight. My sister in law got busted at customs trying to smuggle in a piece of Japanese fruit.

It might be tempting to make light of it when you look at all the human smuggling we facilitate but I won't. I'm sure there are good reasons and I'm even more sure it's a good thing when the laws are enforced. But we certainly don't see the same stringent application of the law when it comes to illegal immigration. Biden just said for the most part to ignore the law. And it's fascinating how illegal immigration might be the only case in law where the longer you have been violating the law the better it is for you. Violate it long enough and you get off scot-free.

If it's your first offense, your first day being in America illegally then Biden says you need to be punished but if you've been breaking the law every day for the past twenty years Biden says that's cool, keep on keeping on and you be you.

[Wayward Son]

"...few..."
"...adequate..."
"...substantive..."

These are fuzzy words with no strict definition.

You have basically declared it is an open border because you feel it is an open border. 

How about comparing our border security to those of a) actual open borders, and b) closed borders, in other countries, or even our own?   I think that would be a better measure as to whether we have "open borders" now or during the previous Administration.  And how effective those measures are.  I suspect that, when you compare us to other countries, we actually do have quite a few restrictions and rather substantial enforcement, even during the Biden Administration. 

As to whether it is adequate, I suspect you'll find, when compared to other countries, that there may only be open borders in this world.  Or that we would need to be far more blood-thirsty than any American is willing to be to make them closed.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/cannot-believe-700-000-us-100041987.html

So here's another example of media head games. Over 700,000 dead now. Cannot believe it.

Sure enough, Trump is mentioned. Got to put his name in there to associate blame. You'll never guess whose name is never mentioned. Or maybe you will. Of course. Biden.

It's also never mentioned how we had the delta surge right after, some might wonder if it was because or at least made much worse by Biden overeagerly celebrating a delusional victory and telling "vaccinated" people (including if you gender-identify as vaccinated) that it's safe to take off the masks. Boy was he mistaken. But we can't have his name associated with his failures.

When you know what to look for and you know what they're likely to leave out it makes their deceptions even more glaringly obvious.

[Fenring]

So I agree with the customs aspect of the border being locked up tight. My sister in law got busted at customs trying to smuggle in a piece of Japanese fruit.

But it's not just that the customs aspect is only one piece of the puzzle. I think that in places with open borders (e.g. the EU) the main driver or perk to wanting this is the ease of access and feeling of being welcome in, rather than there specifically being few laws involved. It's the feeling of just driving across that makes it feel open, rather than whether or not there are also restrictions coming along with that freedom. For instance you could have a border crossing with many regulations but where they're on an honor system (or maybe with random checkpoints but not a permanent customs office), and it would still feel open as a driving experience. Whereas the opposite, having an extremely regimented, armed, and intimidating border crossing, where you need to justify your visit, show paperwork, and may be refused for any reason with no appeal, and yet having relatively few regulations involved, that will definitely not feel like an open border. I know you're addressing borders more as an immigration issue rather than a border crossing experience issue, but IMO places with open borders are more about the border crossing experience. There may be open borders between EU countries but that does not mean anyone staying in Greece (for example on vacation) is just automatically a citizen of Macedonia if they cross the border. The rules are still strict, even though driving across may be easy. But that's an open border. In the case of the U.S. there will be a strong closed border no matter what federal policy is, but I see the range as being strict on immigration versus free with immigration. The term 'open border' doesn't sound right to me in this context.

[cherrypoptart]

If you close certain parts of your border though like where they are doing the customs checks but leave other parts undefended enough for thousands of people to just walk across it then that seems like a pretty open border. Top that off with letting twenty million or more stay in the country illegally without any asylum or refugee claims and you definitely get into the territory in the definition including "a border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border."

[TheDrake]

You should use that dictionary to look up what majority means cherry, or are you actually contending that over 50% of those attempting entry are successful?

[cherrypoptart]

The news is the gift that just keeps on giving.

https://news.yahoo.com/u-no-longer-deport-illegal-121642017.html

"U.S. Will No Longer Deport Illegal Immigrants Based on Undocumented Status Alone

Per a Thursday directive from Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, immigration officials can no longer detain and deport migrants based on their illegal status alone."

When you no longer deport people "just" for being here illegally that is open borders. I'm not even sure how we're still debating this. All there is to argue over are semantics but by any common sense definition of open borders we're living it.

[LetterRip]

"U.S. Will No Longer Deport Illegal Immigrants Based on Undocumented Status Alone

Illegal crossing is sufficient grounds.  So anyone who crosses illegally will still be detained and deported.  Looks like less enforcement effort will be put on long term visa overstays who have employment.

[NobleHunter]

Snow backs rejoice!

My aunt was an illegal immigrant to the US from Canada until one of the amnesties. Oddly enough no ones seems upset about people like her.

[Fenring]

My aunt was an illegal immigrant to the US from Canada until one of the amnesties. Oddly enough no ones seems upset about people like her.

Racism is always the implies culprit, but really you need look no further than money. The U.S. is very happy to have people over who bring in money, and this is true for all countries. You can even look at some nations who outright have a policy of granting permanent residency (and even citizenship) to people who simply pay a steep fee, or who open a business, or other things like that. I believe the U.S. does not grant a green card for cash money anymore (I believe they used to), but for opening up a significant business they still do. Snowbirds who go to Florida or Arizona are bringing money and spending with them, so duh, no one has a problem with this. So while it's often framed as America wanting to keep Mexicans out, it might be more appropriate to say it's about keeping poor people out.

[LetterRip]

My aunt was an illegal immigrant to the US from Canada until one of the amnesties. Oddly enough no ones seems upset about people like her.

Racism is always the implies culprit, but really you need look no further than money.

Europeans and Canadians on visa overstays are far more likely to compete for 'good paying jobs'.

[Fenring]

Europeans and Canadians on visa overstays are far more likely to compete for 'good paying jobs'.

Although I, personally, do have concerns about competition for jobs, my hunch has always been that the issue about Mexican immigrants wasn't so much the job competition, but the fact that they are poor and desperate. This comes with a few potential things certain people could be displeased about. One is the job situation, but not so much that they're competing for 'good paying jobs' but rather that they drive the labor price down due to being willing to work for peanuts. This either incentivizes certain sectors to use the illegal labor and pay sub-minimum wage, or else otherwise to keep legitimate wage prices near the floor due to the market being glutted. So this argument isn't about competition so much as a race to the bottom by introducing desperate workers into the mix. If you did the same thing and introduced workers into the mix competing for, let's say, wall street jobs, it would not drive high finance salaries to sub-minimum wage no matter how much competition there was, because people with that expertise would refuse to work for below a certain amount; or we could perhaps say the industry itself would see a major upheaval if such a thing happened. Whereas for day laborer work no one is going to go to bat for that.

Another thing is the argument about them taking up public resources. I've heard many counter-arguments to this particular line, so obviously there is disagreement about whether in fact poor Mexican immigrants leech off the system or contribute to it, but either way middle class people on visa overstays are clearly not a threat in that regard since they have money already. And lastly I think there's a thing that annoys people (maybe conservatives more than liberals) about sharing a long border with Mexico and that fact alone being a reason why there is a perceived threat coming from there. It's a security/wholeness issue, where America is open and vulnerable. Even if, numerically, there were equal numbers of people trying to get in with visa overstays from Serbia, the fact that Serbia is not actually adjacent to the U.S. makes a difference to some people. Maybe it's like, you're our neighbors and now you're taking advantage of that fact to break our laws, sort of thing.

[cherrypoptart]

There are many issues and another one is simple chaos. The people whose job it is to keep order, to enforce our laws, to defend our borders, and in the long run to raise the standard of living for Americans and our children are not doing their job.

You've also got man-made climate change. If what the left says is true about it they certainly aren't acting like they believe it because the carbon footprint of the illegal immigrants they are welcoming in as they acclimate to the American lifestyle is many times that of what it would be in their home countries. Maybe that's not fair that we live better here than they do there but the climate doesn't care. And maybe the point is that Americans need to lower our standard of living and if so let's just be honest about it instead of forcing it by necessity with rapid overpopulation. Now I don't necessarily buy into the man-made climate change but I definitely do buy into man-made pollution, and water shortages, and increased flooding due to more development like the housing and businesses that a larger population requires, and more crime, and also bringing in diseases with or without a pandemic when thousands of people are allowed to cross every day with no check on them at all because we never see them crossing. I do believe in law and order. I believe in having an orderly process that we control. And this isn't that. What we have instead is government approved anarchy and chaos. We are betrayed.

It's only hubris that assumes our civilization is immune to a rapid decline if not total collapse due to massive unchecked illegal immigration as one contributor to it among many. And many of the others are being ushered in simultaneously like profligate spending we can't afford, massive debt, and now pretty much undeniably high inflation. Add in supply chain problems and a pandemic along with a government that doesn't care about the law and things start to look very ungood, even as our lying media assures us that our rations of chocolate have gone up.

[msquared]

Is this a false claim?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-slammed-bulls-headline-224403744.html

Fox News runs a story about how Duckworth has not paid property taxes on her main residence in IL, the implication that she is avoiding the taxes.  Now of course she is taking advantage of a state exemption for wounded military, regardless of income level or net worth.  I wonder if Fox News thinks that a double amputee is wounded enough for this exemption? I mean she can still get around in a wheel chair.

For a network that claims to support our troops they sure seem willing to throw those who are not conservative members of the military under the bus.

[cherrypoptart]

Yeah, I'd say that's misleading. Even if the point is that super rich people are taking advantage of exemptions as they seek to raise taxes, that wouldn't much apply to her either as the internet says her net worth is only in the hundreds of thousands so she would probably still qualify for the exemption even if it was means tested.

Maybe the point is that if Democrats want to pay higher taxes there is nothing stopping them from doing so personally but they choose instead to take advantage of every earned exemption for which they qualify. The headline could have went there though instead of its chosen direction which was misleading. And I doubt any Republicans are for means testing that particular exemption anyway or for anyone who qualifies for it choosing not to take it as some matter of principle.

The headline was also misleading in another way which caused me to totally ignore it when I first saw it because I thought that since it was entertainment and it said Bulls and it was in Illinois that it had something to do with the basketball team the Chicago Bulls so I just didn't care.

[NobleHunter]

Europeans and Canadians on visa overstays are far more likely to compete for 'good paying jobs'.

True but my Aunt is in fine arts, slightly creepy ceramic sculptures specifically. Well paying it is not, despite the price tag per piece. She cleaned houses before she got legal status.

Good paying jobs are also less likely to overlook irregularities about residency.

[TheDrake]

Yeah, I'd say that's misleading. Even if the point is that super rich people are taking advantage of exemptions as they seek to raise taxes, that wouldn't much apply to her either as the internet says her net worth is only in the hundreds of thousands so she would probably still qualify for the exemption even if it was means tested.

Maybe the point is that if Democrats want to pay higher taxes there is nothing stopping them from doing so personally but they choose instead to take advantage of every earned exemption for which they qualify. The headline could have went there though instead of its chosen direction which was misleading. And I doubt any Republicans are for means testing that particular exemption anyway or for anyone who qualifies for it choosing not to take it as some matter of principle.

The headline was also misleading in another way which caused me to totally ignore it when I first saw it because I thought that since it was entertainment and it said Bulls and it was in Illinois that it had something to do with the basketball team the Chicago Bulls so I just didn't care.

I guess you're not familiar with the free rider problem. It's simply stupid to say "hey if you think you there should be single player Healthcare, nothing stopping you guys from finding it on your own"

The other problem is that if some people somehow just donated extra money to the federal government, Republicans would try to use the surplus to fuel more tax breaks.

[LetterRip]

Europeans and Canadians on visa overstays are far more likely to compete for 'good paying jobs'.

True but my Aunt is in fine arts, slightly creepy ceramic sculptures specifically. Well paying it is not, despite the price tag per piece. She cleaned houses before she got legal status.

Good paying jobs are also less likely to overlook irregularities about residency.

The 'taking good paying jobs' is a complaint many make about illegal immigrants.  The reality is that the demographics most likely to do so are actually visa overstays from Canada and Europe.  This wasn't mean to be a comment about your aunt.

[Wayward Son]

The headline was also misleading in another way which caused me to totally ignore it when I first saw it because I thought that since it was entertainment and it said Bulls and it was in Illinois that it had something to do with the basketball team the Chicago Bulls so I just didn't care.

Of course that is the headline about the headline.  The Fox headline simply said: Democrat Tammy Duckworth slammed for getting tax break on her Illinois home.

A more interesting article that Fox could have written is why the quoted article in the Chicago Sun Times decided to lead off with Tammy Duckworth, a decorated combat veteran who is missing both legs and whose house is worth a modest $250,000 or so.  She is the most outrageous example of a veteran who shouldn't get a tax break??  Give me a break! 

[msquared]

Hell my house in a suburb of a small mid west city is worth $250,000.

[Wayward Son]

I always knew you were part of the rich elite, msquared. 

And, no, you cannot ask how much my modest home near San Diego is worth today.     

[msquared]

Not a 1% but probably 10%, especially now that the kids are out of the house and on their own.  Just paid the house off in July.

[cherrypoptart]

I agree there is a story there about the modest living and modest means of some members of Congress to be contrasted with the multimillionaires.

And that's not necessarily to say that the modest people are so great either. One can be impressed by their apparent integrity since they haven't seemed to make money off of their offices but be a little bit less impressed with their business acumen since there are other ways to make money and they haven't managed to do it.

[Wayward Son]

I'm just surprised that the writers would think that people would be more outraged when they heard someone of modest means in a modest house was getting a tax-break.  You'd think they would lead with someone who was much richer and could more afford the taxes.

It's like they had some other reason for choosing Tammy as their lead example... 

[msquared]

Cherry

Why is business acumen a reason to judge them?  Why not by her service to our country?  I mean she lost both legs in battle and then decided to serve as a public servant. And that is a bad thing?

Not every one knows how to run a business.

[cherrypoptart]

You don't need to know how to run a business to have more money that she apparently has after that many decades of work. Wise investing should have her doing better than she is now. I appreciate her service and her sacrifice but there's something to be said for knowing how to make money. If she can't manage her own financial affairs any better than this then what makes her or anyone think she can manage the finances of an entire country? And if you look at the financial state our country is in it makes sense that we've got people like her making our money decisions. That doesn't take anything away from her as a person or a patriot but it's obviously just not her strong suit and it shows. On the other hand we don't want a bunch of grifters like "the big guy" Biden selling influence that his son can cash in on in office either.

Anyone could have put a small portion, less than 5%, of their investment portfolio into crypto five or ten years ago and could be doing very well right now. I know I did back in 2018 a bit before I first brought up the topic here. That she didn't have the vision to seize that opportunity is telling, and now many of those in power want to kill something just because they don't understand it. We need visionaries leading us, not people who can't see the future.

And crypto reminds me of another form of media manipulation. This is just conspiracy theory stuff I'll admit, but I'm not alone is seeing a pattern connecting their fud to what is very likely to be coordination with rich investors to hit their targets for options and other short term investment goals. In retrospect it was pretty obvious with what they did with Facebook and the whole Data Analytica story they ran with just long enough to push the price down for their co-conspirators and then dropped the story when it was time to let the price go back up. The same thing happens over and over again in the crypto market, known as whales playing their whale-ish games. I won't say it's the media lying. The stories are real enough, but the timing and intensity of how they are pushed and pulled seems like there is more under the surface. Access to the people in charge of making the decisions about which stories to run, to run hard, and when to run them and then run away from them and their contacts in the financial world would be interesting to know about but that's probably never going to happen. The best we can do is probably look and wonder and speculate on "things that make you go hmmm...."

[msquared]

Maybe she was busy doing something else, like protecting the country? Getting shot down and recovering from getting both legs amputated?

What a load of horse hockey.

[Fenring]

If she can't manage her own financial affairs any better than this then what makes her or anyone think she can manage the finances of an entire country? And if you look at the financial state our country is in it makes sense that we've got people like her making our money decisions.

She's not on budget or finance committees, she works in veteran affairs. You think every member of the Congress needs to have sharp business acumen to have some role to play in government? What do you think the Congress is, an investment firm?

[msquared]

He's one of those people who think the Government should be run like a business with a profit and loss statement and dividends paid out. 

[cherrypoptart]

She votes on the budget just like the rest of them. She's as responsible for the national debt as anyone else over there. Yeah I'd say most of the people in charge don't know what the hell they're doing and if you want proof just look at the state of our country. The response to the Covid pandemic was pathetic. National debt through the roof. About to default. Borders overrun. Not enforcing our immigration laws or protecting our borders. Murder rates sky high. Afghanistan fail. Inflation gearing up. Our so called press is a bad joke. Police destroyed while statues honor the criminals. And on and on and on. If this is the best we can do then it's obvious we don't have the best people doing it.

[Fenring]

She votes on the budget just like the rest of them. She's as responsible for the national debt as anyone else over there.

But they vote on veteran affairs just like she does, and are responsible for taking care of the nation's vets too, even though they may be totally ignorant or even disinterested in the topic.

[cherrypoptart]

If her defense is that she's in charge of Veterans' Affairs then that fails too because the VA is a disgrace.

[Fenring]

He's one of those people who think the Government should be run like a business with a profit and loss statement and dividends paid out.

Well my point isn't so much that it shouldn't be run like a business, but that you don't actually need every Congress person to be a business person. They should ideally have a diverse set of skills.

[Mynnion]

Very few companies are run strictly by financial experts.  They usually have representatives from whatever fields they specialize in such as a chief medical officer, chief information officer, human resources director......  These individuals may have a financial back ground but their primary contribution is their specialties.

[Wayward Son]

She votes on the budget just like the rest of them. She's as responsible for the national debt as anyone else over there.

Exactly.  She is as responsible as the rest of them.  No more and no less.  Actually, probably less than some, such as Mitch McConnell and the Republicans, who are leading this country and the rest of the world into a depression because he won't sign off on spending money that Congress spent during the Trump years.    If you want to talk about idiots who don't understand economics, they're the ones you should be talking about.

And then there is Donald J. Trump, who could have made more money by putting the $260 million his dad gave him in the stock market than trying to manage it himself.  There's a financial idiot if there ever was one.  Heck, he wanted to charge negative interest on treasury bills so that you would be paying companies to borrow your money.    What a maroon!

So, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.

So why pick on a war hero who lost both her legs defending our country, just because she gets a tax break because of it?  If it's so valuable to you, why don't you join the army and have your legs shot off?  Then you, too, could enjoy the financial largesse of our nation by saving the taxes on your $250,000 house.   

There's only one reason she's being picked on: she's a Democrat.  If a Republican had been singled out for this, Fox News would have dumped on the writers like a ton of bricks.  But because he's a Democrat, there are no holds barred.  You could be a war hero, a police officer, or a saint and it wouldn't matter.  If you don't support the Republicans--which mean these days that you don't support Donald J. Trump (just as Liz Cheney)--you're crap.  You don't deserve anything, even a vote. 

This is just another example of how low the Republican Party and Republicans in general have sunk.  All the things they stood for--morals, truth, decency, fiscal responsibility, the military, the police, sanity--everything gets sacrificed on the altar of that golden calf called Donald Trump.  They gladly spit on a wounded veteran if he doesn't kiss the Don's ring.

Republicans used to congratulate themselves on how much smarter they were than Democrats.  Those days are long gone.  Now we can only try to tolerate those fools who kowtow to everything the Donald says: the fools that follow the fool, as Obi Wan would say.  And try to keep them from destroying our country. 

[wmLambert]

Very few companies are run strictly by financial experts.  They usually have representatives from whatever fields they specialize in such as a chief medical officer, chief information officer, human resources director......  These individuals may have a financial back ground but their primary contribution is their specialties.

Actually the stereotypical business usually follows the same history: An inventor designs and creates a product and hopes to make money from it. He/she usually needs help to run the company, and the bean counters take over rather quickly. Many people who created the company are thrown out. Gutenberg's financial sponsor, Fust, fired Gutenberg, and then brought in Schoeffer, a calligrapher from the University of Paris. who actually created the first printed material.

In present day times, when Chrysler was running in the red, they did a big never done thing and brought in an engineer, Iaccoca, to change the company. It was an innovative idea, and he sparked changes in the design paradigm as well as stopping the stupid rule of only going with the lowest bidder, regardless if that bidder could do the work without outlandish change orders that raised the price higher than if an honest and  historically proficient bidder was awarded the opportunity. GM saw what Iacocca accomplished and hired Lutz to save their company. A decade or more since, the bean counters are back in charge.

No, specialist rarely run their company - but are included simply as after-thoughts to lend advice. Of the dozen or so inventors of Microsoft, only Bill Gates made much money off it, by making a contract that stood up. Since then, entrepreneurs are careful to write contracts that prevent bean counters from wresting control out from under them. Bezos and Musk come to mind, but are really the exceptions to the rule.

[cherrypoptart]

Not the biggest deception by a journalist but more along the lines of what goes on all the time and we never even know.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088027/Katie-Couric-admits-editing-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-interview-protect-late-justice.html

In new memoir, Going There, Couric writes that she edited out a part where Ginsburg said that those who kneel during the national anthem are showing 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.'

--------------------------------------------

I never had a reason not to trust her. It just goes to show you how you just never know about people. Journalists are like Catholic priests that way, I suppose. Sure there must be some good ones out there, but many insinuate themselves into the positions of power and influence that allow them to get away with their deceptions to molest innocent, trusting, and largely helpless people's bodies in the case of priests or realities in the case of journalists. And we also see the same type of defenses and coverups from their superiors and the people who are supposed to keep them honest and keep the public safe.

[TheDeamon]

Very few companies are run strictly by financial experts.  They usually have representatives from whatever fields they specialize in such as a chief medical officer, chief information officer, human resources director......  These individuals may have a financial back ground but their primary contribution is their specialties.

When the Finance People take over a company, that typically is when the company begins to die.

Commodore was taken over by bankers in the mid-late 1980's, they were bankrupt by 1992, and little more than a memory not long after that. Even though they arguably had the most superior home pc product on the market. The Finance people couldn't understand why they'd need to spend the money on R&D.

Many video game companies/publishers have run into comparable problems, Blizzard Entertainment is probably one of the higher profile examples of this over the past 15 years after Activision took over from Vivendi. As each year went by, the finance side started asserting ever increasing control over the company until they eventually forced out the company's founder, among other things.

Those are just two examples I can come up with offhand.

I seem to recall there being a Steve Jobs quote about the lifecycle of a company where he also had a very low opinion of the finance people being put in charge.

[TheDrake]

Thing is, usually a company has hit serious trouble already when they have to sell, or the board removes a CEO. Usually one or more key metrics has tanked. I can't speak to commodores full history, though I did have an amiga. Like the Dec alpha the problem wasn't R&D it was marketing. Nobody understood why they should get one. It was beloved by enthusiasts while Wintel cornered productivity and Apple nailed creativity and education.

[wmLambert]

...the main use of political media these days is to strawman issues and people....

That is a true supposition - but please add to that the media's use of non-coverage to help pet issues not be viewed pejoratively.

In Vegas, this week, Jeff German's probable murderer was arrested by Clark County police when his DNA was found. According to The Las Vegas Review Journal (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/las-vegas-police-dna-match-203316498.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall) Robert Telles was arrested. It seems Jeff German did his job and uncovered massive dirt and criminal acts by Telles, which led to the Democrat's loss at the polls. A few days ago he was slashed to death. A suspect was videoed walking down the Street in an oversized Panama Hat and Bright pink thigh-length smock, evidently masquerading as a woman.

Telles was seen sanitizing his vehicle, that was also witnessed leaving the scene. His DNA was found at the scene, and German's blood was found on Telles' shoes. The wide-brimmed Panama hat was found cut into pieces. Great visuals for any story that covered it.

The point to ponder is why this particular crime is not being discussed. The only TV coverage I've seen is from a Fox News political pundit. Where is the wall-to-wall coverage? The Saudi Prince gets 24/7 diatribes from USA media launched against him for the murder of a reporter who was not even US - but this gets nothing?

[Tom]

I've seen this reported in multiple outlets. To be fair, with Queen Elizabeth's death this afternoon, you had to be reading the news in the morning in order to get it "above the fold." Since noon, most media have had other fish to fry.

Also: you do understand that the issue with Khashoggi's murder, and what distinguishes it from German's death in terms of national interest, was that it was state-sponsored assassination ordered by a head of state, right?

[TheDrake]

It is covered, but I guess that's not what you mean. I guess you mean why aren't all the tv news outlets breaking it as the biggest story. I would guess because they recognize that it is a tragic aberration, and not the smoking gun truth of the corruption and murderous ways of the Democratic party as a whole.

This guy wasn't a governor or a senator. He didn't orchestrate a hit using his security detail. He was a minor political player, a bad boss who got beat by his own employee in an election reported on by the journalist. It looks like it might not even have been premeditated, and it was more revenge than cover-up.

Why do you think this should take on national prominence, wm?