I listened to probably a little less than half of it. What I did hear, I liked and generally agreed with. Much of what I heard I sort of thought that agreement would be almost universal if you're an American.
Then I was listening to much of the "fact check" type analysis. It seemed even for the liberal slant, there was difficulty in picking significant holes and even some were conceding good points. That was shocking.
One that made me
was the counter regarding statistics on impact of illegal immigrants. The counter was a study that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US citizens, so cutting down on illegal immigration would not impact that. To me that was TOTALLY missing the point. Any crime by an illegal immigrant is too much. If they weren't in the country, the wouldn't be able to commit a crime. If that crime impacts a US citizen, even worse. One is too many in my mind. They seem to argue that in terms of anti-gun stuff, so how is illegal immigration different.
Then NPR coverage this morning about a stat about deaths from illegal drugs crossing the southern border. The analysis was on Trump's statement that increased security measures in between ports of entry would result in less drug related deaths. The NPR guest countered with a stat that a large quantity of drugs are confiscated at ports of entry, so increased security measures in between those ports of entry would not have an impact. Huh? If you don't have security measures in between ports of entry, you don't know what is coming through. That's the point! One which I can't see why so many can't get that through their heads. . .