It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News Savagely Fact Checked trumps border speech

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Well there are facts and good research on various topics, it's just difficult to know when we are being told them or not, unless one works in a related field or has the requisite expertise.


originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: iplay1up2

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Irishhaf



“The government’s statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population,” he said.



I laughed when I saw that originally... 330 million people versus 10-20 million people yea the general population should do a higher percentage of the crime.


Classic manipulation of facts, wrapped into a shiny package and shoved down the mouths of those with no critical thinking.

But, it works for some people.
Oh, so trumps alternative facts are correct, but the government statistics are wrong. Did you even watch the video, or just stick your head in the sand?

How cute, you actually believe there’s absolute facts in the political arena. Who’s heads in the sand?




posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


While that is a fair point, the point of the wall and reducing illegal immigration isn't just crime. It's also aimed at reducing the impact on local economies, job availability, wages, public service use, etc.

That expanded menu doesn't mean the wall is the most effective route.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
As to your number 3, it seems it has produced results in several other countries.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.

1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.

2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.

3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.

4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AtlasHawk


The thing is, I think that most rank and file really are doing it from a place of in their minds, social justice. I work and hang out with these people all day long. In most of their minds, there really isn't any problem to mass illegal immigration, or refugee waves, and that criticizing or analyzing the impacts on existing communities and their concerns is racist, fascist, you name it. There is a certain level of idealism and lack of pragmatism too. Just last night a guy was telling me that western countries such as the US can't enforce borders or deport because we took the land, colonized various places, and so on. While that's true, many groups have done that over history, and regardless it's a pretty ideological and impractical in the present to say then that nobody can or should enforce borders.

What I'm unsure about though is the real motives for these narratives by establishment leaders, whether here or in Europe. That's what scares me more.



posted on Jan, 9 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   
No,that would be a misinformed idea...

I know that's a popular amateur viewpoint, but it's not accurate.

Do many leaders and organizations misrepresent or manipulate data for their own ends? Yes.

Is that was statistics and especially cautious, rigorous, well-researched, well-modeled stats do? No. The whole point is to get to the closest least biased model one can given current tech, science, data access, etc.


originally posted by: Irishhaf
the funny thing is watching both sides quote statistics saying the others facts are just manipulated data..

I thought the entire point of statistics was about manipulating the data..



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: ScepticScot

Testimony Prepared for the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform link was provided in one of my earlier posts that you obviously ignored.

The Cost of a border wall vs cost of illegal immigrants

Can a border wall pay for itself? Testimony

Edit add: I will apologize when you provide a study that shows a wall will be most ineffective in deterring illegal immigration. You have only based your views on Opinion and not actual facts.


Even ignoring my earlier point about the bias in that source neither of those links actually shows, or even claims to show, that the Wall would be an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. In fact both clearly contain statement 'if the wall reduced imigration'.

I am pretty sure the onus is on those backing the multi billion $ expenditure to provide the evidence.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm not a proponent for the wall but I have certainly seen experts say it will work.


They may well have done. There may be a good study to show it would be effective. I find it curious however that if so it hasn't been linked to in this thread.

If you are going to spend multi billions on a project I would expect there to be fairly extensive cost benefit analysis.
edit on 10-1-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join