She is right....hey white folks are going to learn that they will be paying dearly for their white supremacy purchase.
Oh well.
UPDATE: Donald Trump Takes Office as the 47th US President
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
She is right....hey white folks are going to learn that they will be paying dearly for their white supremacy purchase.
Oh well.
They won't be the only ones being affected.
The entire premise is flawed. Dems talked about kitchen table issues constantly but voters didn't listen to them, they listened to the narrative of lies that Trump and MAGA told about dems, which Elon and TikTok & other social media amplified. Fear of a Black Woman President also played a role.
Yes dems are for lgbt and trans rights, but that wasn't their main message. It was however all the other side talked about, just like the trolls on here constantly worried about gay folk.
Prices were dropping because of a fear of dems holding hearings on price gouging. Kroger and others had already admitted they inflated prices. All that changed as soon as Trump won and now I'm paying more than I did during the pandemic. They know there will be no accountability to the GOP.
I'm not even convinced pain will make them see the light. I think social media will program them to think it's somehow noble or somehow the dems fault.
There's going to come a point where someone is going to look at Maga and say "BITCH YALL GOT ALL THE POWER BUT SHIT IS GETTING WORSE!" and it'll come sooner than you think but will they go to the polls and vote the right way? That remains to be seen.
I’m not going to delve into the second article, but it’s evident both articles lump ALL immigration together in their statistics. Let’s be clear: President Trump isn’t calling for an end to every form of immigration. So if you’re asserting that illegal immigration is, on balance, a net positive for the United States, then I challenge you—show me the numbers. Prove it with hard data that specifically demonstrates how unauthorized immigration benefits the country overall.
4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy
President Donald Trump’s characterization of immigrants, as people who are a drain public resources, is not backed by the data.www.pbs.org
CHATGPT EVALUATION FOR BIAS
- Article Focus
The piece is framed around debunking “myths” about immigrants’ economic impact. Its stated purpose is to counteract claims made by then-President Trump, who had recently delivered speeches and tweets suggesting immigrants (particularly unauthorized immigrants) place major burdens on the U.S. The article sets out to systematically refute these claims with research findings.- Potential Bias in a “Myth vs. Fact” Approach
By labeling certain views as “myths,” the article asserts from the outset that Trump’s statements are factually incorrect. This can be interpreted as a strong editorial stance.
Selective Evidence
While the sources listed are credible, they tend to produce research that highlights the economic benefits of immigration. The article does not equally delve into opposing studies or data suggesting any negative or mixed effects (for instance, localized impacts on low-skilled native-born workers in specific industries or communities). The lack of counterbalancing evidence could be perceived as bias by omission—presenting only the research that supports its central premise.
Phrases like “Trump’s characterization of immigrants… is not backed by the data” rely on authoritative claims about what “the data” show, but the article does not explore data that might partially align with Trump’s concerns (for instance, short-term displacement effects in certain job markets).
Acknowledging Some Costs
The article does mention that “first-generation immigrants cost the government more” than native-born Americans in the short run and that there can be additional costs for local governments (e.g., educating children of immigrants). It also points out that unauthorized immigrants are “harder to survey,” so exact fiscal effects are difficult to measure.
Omission of Other Viewpoints
The piece does not include interviews or data from experts who may view immigration as more of a mixed blessing economically. It doesn’t offer much discussion on how specific local labor markets might be affected by large immigration inflows or how wage competition can affect lower-skilled U.S.-born workers in certain industries.
Macro vs. Micro Effects
The article focuses on broader national trends (like overall GDP impact, net contribution to Social Security, and labor force growth). That’s valuable context but may minimize local or short-term strains on certain communities, which can feed perceptions (whether accurate or not) of negative impacts.
Lean Toward Debunking Trump’s Claims
- The tone, title, and structure suggest the piece is meant to correct misconceptions, especially those emanating from presidential rhetoric. Because it positions itself against Trump’s statements, the reader should expect the article to have a clear stance.
Well-Sourced, but One-Sided- The data cited are credible, coming from reputable researchers and institutions. However, the article does not explore in depth any economic or social challenges associated with immigration, which may be relevant to a more fully rounded discussion.
Fact-Based Yet Advocacy-Oriented
- The article is rooted in factual studies about immigration’s overall positive economic contributions, but the framing and the selection of evidence have an advocacy flavor—one that defends immigrants’ role in the economy and refutes Trump’s arguments rather than dissecting the complexities of immigration policy from multiple angles.
BTW, Mexico has detention centers, border police, and deports illegal immigrants. They do let illegal immigrants in if they are looking to cross our border, but monitor them to ensure they don't stay in Mexico.
No they won’t. Are you alive and well? Then how can they be happy if you’re alive and well?
I remember Biden mentioning this.
Bump
I posted another version of this last night and I heard a lot of Trump supporters have been calling their house members. Republicans are in a crossroads right now because they know what’s going to happen in two years.
Last edited:
We know what’s going to happen. The Dems will take back control of the house and senate at midterms and nothing will get done for two years. Lol.
Which may be a good thing at this point. Because Trump is already a lame duck president out the gate.
IMO, the best possible case is the nation take this two year L, and nothing get done the two years after that.
Or nothing gets nothing done at all because people aren’t going to listen to him and the people he appoints.
So I just got out of a meeting for a govt agency I work for (I'm a contractor). They still dont have any concrete guidance for us contractors but they are requiring our Fed counterparts to return 100% to office. We actually might lose a few people which wouldn't be good because we are full speed ahead on a lot of projects. I know program and project managers who are currently working from out of state. Our team has been just as productive as we were in the office and haven't fallen off at all over the last 4 years.
I'm not too worried because I stacked up a gang of dollars, but I don't look forward to a commute. The people I see complaining about work from home are pasty cracker bootlickers with shitty jobs.
I'm not too worried because I stacked up a gang of dollars, but I don't look forward to a commute. The people I see complaining about work from home are pasty cracker bootlickers with shitty jobs.