"Nobel already created dynamite to make civilization more efficient. Then as soon as the new guy comes along with dogemite and actually wants to have fewer mouths to feed, people start complaining about the children, conveniently ignoring that Nobel started it!"
Temu's whole grift was subsidized products and subsided shipping and both of those things are no longer available why would they continue to worry about the US?
The difference is what the bias tends towards. Jon Stewart made this point a decade ago, and I don't think anything has changed. Fox New is biased in partisan way – specifically protecting and advocating towards the goals of a political party.
NYT, CNN, etc are biased towards other things first (conflict, spectacle, consensus) and while the majority of their staff likely have a liberal bias, they are not actively partisan.
Oh? I hadn’t heard that Stewart got his company a 780+ million dollar settlement in large part because he had texts stating he knew he was lying to the public.
Someone should do something about that Stewart fellow if he keeps getting away with the stuff
I was being sarcastic. Tucker is a proven in court liar and propagandist and the person I was replying to was stating that John Stewart’s biases are equivalent in magnitude
I never argued otherwise. But implying that just being biased towards one side is equivalent to Tucker Carlsons level of dedication to the cause in spite of the truth is where you are wrong.
Eh, wrong is too weak. I think you fully understand the false comparison you are making and how it influences public discourse
Carlson, in contrast to Stewart, is probably one of the better examples of the strength of freedom of the press in the United States.
Where Stewart has and does continue to work successfully with several mainstream media channels, Carlson is so dislikable he can only be heard because he founded his own podcast. Truly, it is a great country that has the laws protecting that man's right to keep being heard.
I believe Carlson was one of the most popular hosts on one of the most popular channels till he was sacked. Keeping your job in the mainstream media, is no badge of honour.
It just means you're happy to sacrifice your independence and submit to the demands of the media biz (and mainstream groupthink).
Indeed, whether it is a badge of honor to be so professionally dislikable you can no longer hold employment in the entertainment sector under anyone but yourself is something reasonable people can disagree on. But what a great country it is that guarantees him the right to still be so self-employed!
I think there is a very big difference between Stewart and Tucker.
You might not agree with Stewart's principles, but he has them and will fight his own party over it. Tucker flew over to Russia to kiss Putin's behind and even Putin made fun of how bad it was. He then tried to show how awesome it was in Russia and made it obvious that he hasn't been in a grocery store in ages.
I was at a company that let people keep laptops (after they were wiped) largely because the severance was so meager it seemed they expected people to sell the laptops for some extra cash. :p
Visa holders have all of what most would consider "foundational rights" as any citizen. They have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, due process, etc.
The government revoking a visa based on categories of behavior which are protected by those foundational rights is appalling.
I have looked into the legal basis of this. As a visa holder, you are enjoying a privilege, not a right. And to keep holding that privilege, you cannot openly support enemies of the state. Whether this is actually enforced or not is immaterial- that's the law as it currently stands.
As a citizen, you can verbally support enemies of the state, but you cannot financially support them.
INA § 237(a)(4)(A): If a visa holder engages in activities that endanger public safety or national security, including endorsing terrorist organizations or inciting violence, they can be deported.
Material Support Clause (INA § 212(a)(3)(B)):
Even verbal or symbolic support of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) can count as “material support,” which is grounds for both inadmissibility and deportation.
Overstay or Status Violation: If someone is already skating close to the edge (e.g., questionable employment, status lapse), political speech supporting enemies of the state can provide the cherry on top for ICE to act.
Discretionary Revocation: The U.S. can revoke a visa for virtually any reason, especially if the person’s presence is deemed “contrary to U.S. interests.” That doesn't require proof of a crime—just bureaucratic will.
It's always been like this... But now it's controversial, apparently.
The student in question participated in a protest in support of Palestinians, not Hamas. There is no evidence presented they provided material support to Hamas, and there is no evidence they provided verbal support of Hamas.
So yes, it's controversial that a student, participating in a student protest, protesting a war, was deported without due process.
And this is before we mention the government has admitted, in court document, that they illegally deported a visa holder to El Salvador, and "oops" since he's already in a prison overseas there's nothing our court system can do about it.
So yes, controversies abound with the way this administration is "enforcing" immigration law.
