Bloody hell, that was a well thought out trap that shows the bias.

It shows bias alright.

It's might show bias on both sides, but laying the trap in an intentionally deceptive way, shows bias. That's because it intentionally quashes the big picture truth.

If Senator Tillis had good faith, rather than ill-will, in asking the question he would have structured it differently.

Also, "objectionable" is subjective, and was the word used in the initial question by the senator. Then after the guy answered, not using the word "objectionable" or "immoral", senator Tillis inserted the word "immoral" in interpreting the answers. Tillis' dishonesty was a twofer.

The OP also inserts Tillis' word "immoral".

The OP is deceiving too.

Here's some truth:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...-christopher-kerosky

10/24/2020

DEPORTATION POLICY: COMPARING OBAMA, TRUMP AND BIDEN.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
It shows bias alright.

It's might show bias on both sides, but laying the trap in an intentionally deceptive way, shows bias. That's because it intentionally quashes the big picture truth.

If Senator Tillis had good faith, rather than ill-will, in asking the question he would have structured it differently.

Also, "objectionable" is subjective, and was the word used in the initial question by the senator. Then after the guy answered, not using the word "objectionable" or "immoral", senator Tillis inserted the word "immoral" in interpreting the answers. Tillis' dishonesty was a twofer.

The OP also inserts Tillis' word "immoral".

The OP is deceiving too.

Here's some truth:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...-christopher-kerosky

10/24/2020

DEPORTATION POLICY: COMPARING OBAMA, TRUMP AND BIDEN.

yep, i see the BIAS -- one rule for dems, one for GOP -- got it -- thanks for clearing that up

Reminds me of an old joke, Definition of a Tragedy. A bus load of lawyers going over a cliff, with one seat empty.

quote:

how many deported people is immoral?

This is a farce thread.

That wasn't the question the senator asked.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

how many deported people is immoral?

This is a farce thread.

That wasn't the question the senator asked.

except it actually was -- you are a canard, Maggy - the guy asked him if 1m was wrong . the guy changes his answer when he found out it was obama --

and the left keeps proving they have, at least, two sets of standards ... good night, Irene

I didn't need to listen to it all, and didn't.

It was a farce up front, and your premise and OP is a farce too.

Bait and switch.

You fell for it, just as much as the poor guy tricked.

Why did you fall for it? Could it be bias?

could be my bias .. except it shows the "interviewee"'s bias

Maybe we agree.

The senator intended to show the "interviewee"'s bias with a trap question, the bait and switch. But IMO, he discredited himself with the way he did it.

I think we all would prefer a world where "illegal" immigration didn't occur, however by humanitarian method. Then deportation would be less of a concern.

These border walls are bad for the environment and wildlife. That's immoral, IMO.

except entering the country illegally is actually a crime, so

Yea, Yea, I'm familiar with the argument.

I can wish, can't I?

I don't wish for more immigration. I wish for conditions in the world where people were safe and prosperous at home.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Yea, Yea, I'm familiar with the argument.

I can wish, can't I?

I don't wish for more immigration. I wish for conditions in the world where people were safe and prosperous at home.

They all are fleeing communist, socialist, or progressive government. The answer is freedom, less government regulation and progressive taxation.

Awh shit, Steve.

Corruption, exploitation, depravation, is not exclusive to so-deemed communist socialist or progressive govt.

Any form of government can become corrupt, etc. The Founders tried to fix that. It's often called A Grand Liberal Experiment.

It worked pretty good for almost 250 years.

We are now in a contest between the Founder's Dream and Trumpism.

quote:

We are now in a contest between the Founder's Dream and Trumpism.

I actually don't see the problem. A trap question is only effective if someone is being false.
Traps to display that are legitimate methods to show a persons true identity or meaning.
That dosing mean I'm naive enough to not understand the bias of the guy asking the question. But it gos to show motive and gives a idea of how much weight one should put on answers.

The immoral and criminal fact is entering a country ILLEGALLY!

It is no difference to breaking and entering a home!

I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for ILLEGALS!

Pack them all up and send them home!

There is nothing immoral about deporting illegal or unwanted individuals known as prohibited immigrants.

quote:

I actually don't see the problem. A trap question is only effective if someone is being false.

The guy answered the question based on "objectionable". We assume he would have answered in differently if it was clear up front that those were Obama's stats. Then the senator switched to "immoral". The question itself was false. The answer was honest.

quote:

There is nothing immoral about deporting illegal or unwanted individuals known as prohibited immigrants.

Provided it's consistent with law and humanitarian principles. Monsters like Steven Miller shouldn't be involved in it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

We are now in a contest between the Founder's Dream and Trumpism.

I'm certainly not the only one who can see this coming. And, BTW, I'm not making it up. I'm just going by what Trump says and other indicators such as Project 2025.

The thing is that I'm sure you already know about what the German ambassador is predicting, and you approve zealously. And you refuse to acknowledge it's fascism.

People like Steve consider it an affront to communism and socialism, cleaning up the progressive mess, etc. The Far-Right indoctrinated menaces don't even know what liberalism is or what they, the Far Right have become in contrast.

Here's an article explaining:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...8ed4fe331d5c8b&ei=39

German ambassador warns of Trump plan to redefine constitutional order, document shows
Story by Sabine Siebold and Friederike Heine • 9h • 3 min read

BERLIN - Germany's ambassador to the United States has warned that the incoming Trump administration will rob U.S. law enforcement and the media of their independence and hand big tech companies "co-governing power," according to a confidential document seen by Reuters.

The briefing document, dated Jan. 14 and signed by Ambassador Andreas Michaelis, describes Donald Trump's agenda for his second White House term as one of "maximum disruption" that will bring about "a redefinition of the constitutional order - maximum concentration of power with the president at the expense of Congress and the federal states."

"Basic democratic principles and checks and balances will be largely undermined, the legislature, law enforcement and media will be robbed of their independence and misused as a political arm, Big Tech will be given co-governing power," it says.

Trump's transition team had no immediate comment on the ambassador's assessment.

The German foreign ministry said U.S. voters chose Trump in a democratic election, and it would "work closely with the new U.S. administration in the interests of Germany and Europe."

The outgoing government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz has largely refrained from direct public criticism of Trump since the election, but the ambassador's confidential assessment offers a blunt view from a senior German official.

Ambassadors are not replaced automatically with the formation of a new government, unless a change is deemed necessary for diplomatic or other reasons.

The document cites the judiciary, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, as central to Trump's attempts to further his agenda, but says that despite the court's recent decision to expand presidential powers, "even the biggest critics assume that it will prevent the worst from happening."

Michaelis sees control of the Justice Department and FBI as key to Trump reaching his political and personal goals, including mass deportations, retribution against perceived enemies and legal impunity.

He says Trump has broad legal options to force his agenda on the states, saying "even military deployment within the country for police activities would be possible in the event of declared 'insurrection' and 'invasion'."

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars the federal military from participating in domestic law enforcement, with some exceptions.

Michaelis also foresees a "redefinition of the First Amendment," saying Trump and billionaire X owner Elon Musk are already taking action against critics and non-cooperating media companies.

"One is using lawsuits, threatening criminal prosecution and license revocation, the other is having algorithms manipulated and accounts blocked," he says in the document.

Musk's repeated endorsement of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) ahead of the Feb. 23 national election has drawn ire in Berlin, but the government has stopped short of unanimously leaving his platform.

Berlin endured a particularly difficult relationship with the United States during the first Trump administration, facing costly tariffs and criticism over its failure to meet the NATO target on defense expenditure.

quote:

Trump plan to redefine constitutional order,

Steve Bannon's and Heritage Foundation's 50,000 shock troops:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...238d1ff4154b34d&ei=9

How Trump plans to cement control of government by dismantling the 'deep state'
Story by James Oliphant and Steve Holland • 2h • 4 min read

By James Oliphant and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Donald Trump is poised to seize greater control of the federal government than any modern president before him when he takes office on Monday, charging ahead with plans to dismantle what he and his allies call the "deep state," according to two sources familiar with transition discussions.

The effort could get underway as early as Trump's first day as president, according to one of the sources, with an executive order aimed at stripping job protections from an estimated 50,000 career federal employees, allowing their replacement by handpicked loyalist appointees.

The Trump administration will also push to fill the thousands of political appointments across government as soon as possible, another source told Reuters.

The goal is to inject political loyalists deep into the workings of government, perhaps more so that any other recent president.

In a harbinger of what may lie ahead, Trump's team has requested the resignation of three senior career diplomats who oversee the U.S. State Department's workforce and internal coordination, Reuters reported this week.

Trump allies blame bureaucrats they deem disloyal for thwarting his agenda during his first term in the White House by slow-walking initiatives in the Justice Department, the Department of Education and other agencies.

Nearly a dozen of Trump's top appointees for his second term have been given an explicit mandate to shake up the federal workforce or expressed support for those plans, according to personnel announcements and media interviews reviewed by Reuters.

Russell Vought, nominated by Trump to return as director of the Office of Management and Budget, played a central role in crafting an earlier version of the reclassification order, known as Schedule F, as Trump was leaving office in 2020.

The revived executive order on Schedule F would allow agency officials to reclassify positions from career posts to political appointments, one of the sources familiar with transition planning said.

That would enable the agencies to fire career employees without cause and replace them.

Vought will be aided during Trump's second term by Sergio Gor, who was nominated to head the White House personnel office.

FIRING LINES

Others tasked with eradicating the "deep state" include Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi, the possible next FBI director, Kash Patel, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, national security adviser, Mike Waltz, education nominee Linda McMahon, and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will head up Trump's government efficiency effort, the Reuters review found.

When asked, Trump's transition team would not provide details on a timeline for the planned shakeup, which could take months due to federal rule-making procedures.

"The Trump Administration will have a place for people serving in government who are committed to defending the rights of the American people, putting America first, and ensuring the best use of working men and women's tax dollars," said spokesperson Brian Hughes.

Critics and the unions that represent federal workers say there is no such thing as a "deep state," and that Trump and his allies are trafficking in a conspiracy theory to justify an executive-branch power grab.

James Eisenmann, a lawyer and expert on federal workforce policy, said in an interview that Trump is mistaken that most government employees harbor an ideological agenda and noted that under current law, underperforming or insubordinate workers can be fired.

Schedule F, he said, would create a culture of silence and fear that could affect job performance.

"People are going to be afraid to speak up or even suggest something helpful out of fear of getting fired," Eisenmann said. "When people are afraid, it's not easy to get them to do stuff."

Steve Lenkart, executive director of the National Federation of Federal Workers, said in an interview that the new classification was aimed at creating "a secret police" within the federal government.

"The incoming administration admits they will use Schedule F to subject professional employees to professional or to political loyalty tests and will get rid of the undesirables," he said.

Hughes, the Trump transition spokesperson, did not respond to questions about what role individual nominees would play in carrying out Trump's agenda, or to the "secret police" allegation.

FINDING TARGETS

During Senate confirmation hearings on Wednesday, Vought and Bondi expressed support for the policies behind Schedule F.

Vought testified that he believes portions of the federal government have been "weaponized."

He declined to answer questions about whether he had advised Trump to conduct mass firings, but said reclassifying career employees would ensure the president has individuals in a policy-making role "who are responding to his views, his agenda."

Bondi, during her hearing, said Special Counsel Jack Smith's probe of Trump was evidence of partisanship within the Justice Department.

She vowed not to use the department to target people based on their politics, but dodged direct questions about investigating Trump's political adversaries.

The Biden Justice Department has long denied that it pursued criminal cases against Trump for political reasons. It did not respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The process of identifying members of the federal bureaucracy whose views could be at odds with the incoming administration has already begun.

In December, the American Accountability Foundation, which operates with support from the conservative Heritage Foundation, sent a letter to Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth naming 20 leaders across the U.S. military whom it deemed to be overly focused on diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has defended such efforts, saying the diverse military reflects the diversity of the United States.

The Pentagon referred a request for comment to the Trump transition team.

The American Accountability Foundation also published a "Top 10 Targets" list on its website of career employees at the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department it claims are resistant to increased border-security efforts.

There are more names to come, said Yitz Friedman, a spokesperson for the group.

ME,
Your perception is not reality and nuts usually come packaged 100s to a can.

What part of the above two articles isn't a good assessment of reality and predicting where this will go?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4ea114f21f54b3&ei=13

How Donald Trump Could Change the Legal System
Story by Sean O'Driscoll • 3d • 3 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...bda3703191fdc1&ei=12

The Marshall Plan was created to defend democracy in 1948. We wrote a new version for 2025.
Opinion by Norman Eisen • 12h • 5 min read

"Our organization, the Brookings Institution"

(This article is important due to the source and its tether to reality for over 100 years.)

It is no secret that American democracy is in crisis. From the 2020 flood of actions and disinformation that culminated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, to the repeated threats to weaponize the rule of law and fire civil servants to replace them with loyalists, we are clearly in a renewed moment of democracy crisis. We are in danger of losing our rights and freedoms unless we act boldly and swiftly. Unfortunately, too many are sleepwalking through our present moment and not understanding or doing anything about this threat to America.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=50

'Unelected tech bros’ are 'nightmare scenario' for Founding Fathers

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
What part of the above two articles isn't a good assessment of reality and predicting where this will go?

Better question: Should any American give a rat’s @$$ what the German Chancellor’s opinion is?

I play in German/Luxembourg/Swiss private equity. Informed/smart money from that region is NOT betting against the next 4 years of US economy or dominance.

"Animal Spirit" Reaping the rewards of chaos:

https://youtube.com/shorts/xr0...?si=Xgeyf8U2OCLTrE9X

MNSBC Hosts Weren’t Expecting This Answer

=========================================

And all along, you thought it was another kind of "Spirit".

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
What part of the above two articles isn't a good assessment of reality and predicting where this will go?

Better question: Should any American give a rat’s @$$ what the German Chancellor’s opinion is?

I play in German/Luxembourg/Swiss private equity. Informed/smart money from that region is NOT betting against the next 4 years of US economy or dominance.

Lichtenstein Trust?

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Thankfully the Native Americans weren't as harsh....the city of LA pays more into the Federal government than 47 states !! Maybe they should without payment.

ah, assuming you meant withhold -- there's 87,000 brand new IRS agents, ready to build a reputation

say, are the californians taxed at the same rate? that's the power of numbers, aint it