This message was self-deleted by its author

[riversedge]

This message was self-deleted by its author (riversedge) on Sat Sep 14, 2019, 08:31 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[orleans]

1. pResident bonkers won't be affected

from what i can tell he galumps around the white house and stands in front of a helicopter to fuck with the press. (it's not like he goes out on the town in d.c., or out for a drive)

[Lonestarblue]

2. Growth in many communities would come to a screeching halt without immigrants.

The unemployment rate in Texas (3.4%) is slightly lower than the national average, but Texas is second only to California in the number of undocumented people here so obviously those people are not hurting the labor market. Indeed, almost every retail establishment I visit has signs saying “Now Hiring.” Without undocumented workers, much of the public work here—landscaping, road building, and construction—either would not happen or would drive up public costs because of no one to do the work.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. It won't only be in D.C. Many places will be affected.

[machoneman]

4. Sorry, the headline is quite wrong....the restrictions will or may hit.....

I really hate when a writer essentially lies about the topic. Nothing has 'hit' the D.C. area yet. It may and will do so in the future but one would think it already has. Poor journalism at best!

[Igel]

6. It's more "impactful."

Future things are present.

Things affecting a small area are universal.

Something with an effect from $0 to $50,000 costs everybody $50,000 it's a bad thing, $0 if it's a good thing. If a measure might create 1000 jobs or 100,000, it has created 100,000 already.

Possible things are certain.

It's not uncommon to read a story one day where something has been suggested and a month later the effects of the new policy are measurable. Except that the suggestion never became a formal proposal to be acted on and the new policy was never actually implemented.

I consider that kind of thing to be fake news not because all the information isn't there, but because most people won't ever read what amounts to the "fine print"--often if you read to the end of the article and check for updates you get the actual story, not what the reporter really wants you to believe. I remember one often-cited NYT article where the article's text all but required the reader to reach a certain conclusion, but the data tables/graphs with the article gave the lie to that conclusion. Yes, all the information was there, but the spin was extreme and only unspun by those nasty numbers and graphs. But it's not a new thing, just a far more common thing. In the '70s I was amused reading the Baltimore Sun front to back (except for sports and entertainment ... not my thing) and finding corrections buried deep in one of the later sections of the paper for articles I'd read in previous days. Then the mistakes were sometimes just honest mistakes and sometimes due to overzealous reporters; these days, "overzealous" is the baseline for many reporters who confuse themselves with advocates.

[Farmer-Rick]

5. Well, maybe wages for labor will increase with the shortage.

Isn't that how capitalism is suppose to work? When something is in short supply the price for it goes up. If labor is experiencing a shortage, then wages should be seeing a vast improvement. I'm NOT holding my breath.

Funny how people never apply that economic principal to paying you, but are quick to apply it when they want to sell you crap.

[riversedge]

7. moving this to GD