Shithole Scandal

Ok folks. This is Trump scandal #99447. Oh hell, I've lost count of the number of times people have gone hysterical over Trump's comments.

Here are my thoughts on this.

  1. Trump is a vulgar man with no filter. It's just who he is. Having said that, Presidents say a lot of stuff in private, behind closed doors. The difference here is that Trump's public persona is virtually indistinguishable from his private one and that he has suffered from massive leaks of his private conversations.

  2. What Trump said was inappropriate but not necessarily inaccurate. The countries he mentioned are not places we would want to live in. They are for the lack of a better word, "shitholes." Now, one can debate why those countries are so poorly off (colonialism, abuse by Western powers, slavery, terrible government, corruption, etc.), but the fact remains that these are not pleasant places.

  3. Calling a country a "shithole" is not an attack on its people, nor is it a racist attack. For instance, one can say that he does not want to live in South Side Chicago because it's a "shithole." It does not mean that he is racist against blacks just because South Side happens to be mostly black.

  4. Most importantly, Trump's comment raises a fundamental question in the immigration debate. The primary purpose of a country's immigration policy is to benefit that country. Immigration is not a moral or legal right, and it is certainly not a charity case. Conservatives want to end the abuse of visa lotteries and chain migration and instead have a system based on skills and education.

  5. Trump should clarify his comment and reiterate the point in #4 more forcefully. The argument is not that Haitians or El Salvodreans are somehow inferior to Europeans; they obviously are not. The issue is that certain countries, on AVERAGE, are poorer, more unstable, and less educated, than others. As such, the % of people from those countries who are well educated and highly skilled will be lower than that of more developed countries.

 

We've had a lengthy debate on immigration in the past and clearly hold different views. I don't necessarily support your premise, but it's at least stated in a way that reflects a certain amount of thought and fluency.

One of the most disconcerting things about Trump and is that nearly everything he says appears to lack both of these. His statement was needlessly abrasive and controversial, and I'm tired of trying to be convinced that these guffs are calculated. More and more its becoming clear that the presentation of these statements is less a strategical choice, or an indifference to civil discourse, but instead a lack of mental acuity.

Perhaps its ideological bias creeping in, but I struggle to believe Trump could extemporaneously articulate, at any sort of depth, your sentiments as they are stated. At one point, I thought there was perhaps merit to the narrative of Trump the nth dimensional chess player. But that view becomes untenable if you read his transcripts with foreign leaders, his interviews on healthcare, etc. His reliance on rhetorical heuristics is not authenticity, it's declining fluid intelligence.

This is a dated quote, but it beautifully illustrates the point:

"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Trump is like a stick that the GOP picked up to beat liberals over the head with, and quite frankly, much of it is deserved. But at some point, they'll realize he's a snake and not a stick, and without the constant, careful handling, it may be them who ultimately gets bitten.

 

For the thousandth time, I agree with Ben Shapiro. To his point, if the Democrats were as smart as they think they are, instead of fighting Trump tooth-and-nail they'd flatter him with words, propose grand compromises to Trump heavily weighted in their favor, and win on policy. Trump isn't an ideologue and he certainly isn't a policy wonk. Why the Democrats have chosen opposition rather than "compromise" boggles the mind.

Array
 

For the most part I agree. If the Dems flip 24 seats in the house during primary season that would give them a majority. If they're smart, they'll use that as crowbar to pry Paul Ryan and his ilk away from the President's ear. Trump's hardcore base is largely populist, they are fiercely conservative on social issues, but not nearly as decisive on fiscal matters. There is a lot of opportunity and malleability there for Dems to help shape the forward going agenda if they can win the house, wrest some primacy away from the GOP, and get a seat at the table next to Trump.

 
Dances with Dachshunds:
For the thousandth time, I agree with Ben Shapiro.

You mean the guy who is Harvard law educated and could engage in meaningful political debate with his peers but prefers to tackle the low hanging fruit building his brand by "pwning" college freshmen who have taken one poli sci class? This is the intellectual sherpa for today's conservative youth?

Can I show up at freshmen orientation and wreck pre-business majors on topics of merger multiple arbitrage and how supply side economic theory is a proven fallacy?

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 
Schreckstoff:
We've had a lengthy debate on immigration in the past and clearly hold different views. I don't necessarily support your premise, but it's at least stated in a way that reflects a certain amount of thought and fluency.

One of the most disconcerting things about Trump and is that nearly everything he says appears to lack both of these. His statement was needlessly abrasive and controversial, and I'm tired of trying to be convinced that these guffs are calculated. More and more its becoming clear that the presentation of these statements is less a strategical choice, or an indifference to civil discourse, but instead a lack of mental acuity.

Perhaps its ideological bias creeping in, but I struggle to believe Trump could extemporaneously articulate, at any sort of depth, your sentiments as they are stated. At one point, I thought there was perhaps merit to the narrative of Trump the nth dimensional chess player. But that view becomes untenable if you read his transcripts with foreign leaders, his interviews on healthcare, etc. His reliance on rhetorical heuristics is not authenticity, it's declining fluid intelligence.

This is a dated quote, but it beautifully illustrates the point:

"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Trump is like a stick that the GOP picked up to beat liberals over the head with, and quite frankly, much of it is deserved. But at some point, they'll realize he's a snake and not a stick, and without the constant, careful handling, it may be them who ultimately gets bitten.

Very well said. We disagree on policy, but your posts are intelligent, respectful, and articulate, and greatly adds to the quality of discussion on WSO.

I don't think Trump is objectively dumb and mentally unstable because let's be frank, you can't become POTUS by being dumb. Not possible. However, I do think his old age, poor physical condition, lack of sleep, etc., have certainly played a role in his overall cognitive decline and disposition. If you look at his interviews from the 80's and 90's, he's fairly articulate. Also, his Playboy interview from the early 90's displays a surprising depth of thinking and life perspective.

In many ways, Trump is the consequence of Romney's defeat. In 2012 we nominated a brilliant successful man of outstanding character, whose most controversial detail in his personal life was pulling pranks on a kid in high school and putting the family dog on top of the car when they went on road trips. We watched in dismay as the media and the Left ruthlessly destroyed his character and actively sided with Obama. We realized that the 2016 election was going to be significantly more vicious and that we had no choice but to nominate a vulgar street fighting thug in Donald J. Trump. Also, let's not forget that the media gave Trump an inordinate amount of free air time, drowning out the most impressive GOP primary field since 1980, preventing highly qualified candidates from getting coverage. The media did this for entirely selfish reasons: 1) Trump was a gift for their ratings, and 2) they were convinced that Hillary would easily defeat Trump. Once Trump won the nomination, the media did a 180 and portrayed him as the second coming of Hitler. So yeah, lot of blame goes around for where we are at now.

I support most of Trump's policies, but I never liked the guy personally and don't have much respect for him. I wanted the brilliant principled Ted Cruz. If Cruz were President, he would have transformed the GOP into the party of conservative intellectualism and constitutionalism. My fellow Republicans made a terrible choice in the primary.

 
Rufus1234:
In many ways, Trump is the consequence of Romney's defeat. In 2012 we nominated a brilliant successful man of outstanding character, whose most controversial detail in his personal life was pulling pranks on a kid in high school and putting the family dog on top of the car when they went on road trips. We saw in dismay as the media and the Left ruthlessly destroyed his character and actively sided with Obama. We realized that the 2016 election was going to be significantly more vicious and that we had no choice but to nominate a vulgar street fighting thug in Donald J. Trump.

To your point, in a way Trump is like a hired gun. He doesn't fit the character of a Bush or Reagan or Dole or Romney figure--he's a thuggish hired gun employed by people who are tired of being picked on by the media, Hollywood, professors, TV, musicians, public schools, Silicon Valley, etc.

Array
 
Rufus1234:
Schreckstoff:
We've had a lengthy debate on immigration in the past and clearly hold different views. I don't necessarily support your premise, but it's at least stated in a way that reflects a certain amount of thought and fluency.

One of the most disconcerting things about Trump and is that nearly everything he says appears to lack both of these. His statement was needlessly abrasive and controversial, and I'm tired of trying to be convinced that these guffs are calculated. More and more its becoming clear that the presentation of these statements is less a strategical choice, or an indifference to civil discourse, but instead a lack of mental acuity.

Perhaps its ideological bias creeping in, but I struggle to believe Trump could extemporaneously articulate, at any sort of depth, your sentiments as they are stated. At one point, I thought there was perhaps merit to the narrative of Trump the nth dimensional chess player. But that view becomes untenable if you read his transcripts with foreign leaders, his interviews on healthcare, etc. His reliance on rhetorical heuristics is not authenticity, it's declining fluid intelligence.

This is a dated quote, but it beautifully illustrates the point:

"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Trump is like a stick that the GOP picked up to beat liberals over the head with, and quite frankly, much of it is deserved. But at some point, they'll realize he's a snake and not a stick, and without the constant, careful handling, it may be them who ultimately gets bitten.

Very well said. We disagree on policy, but your posts are intelligent, respectful, and articulate, and greatly adds to the quality of discussion on WSO.

I don't think Trump is objectively dumb and mentally unstable because let's be frank, you can't become POTUS by being dumb. Not possible. However, I do think his old age, poor physical condition, lack of sleep, etc., have certainly played a role in his overall cognitive decline and disposition. If you look at his interviews from the 80's and 90's, he's fairly articulate. Also, his Playboy interview from the early 90's displays a surprising depth of thinking and life perspective.

In many ways, Trump is the consequence of Romney's defeat. In 2012 we nominated a brilliant successful man of outstanding character, whose most controversial detail in his personal life was pulling pranks on a kid in high school and putting the family dog on top of the car when they went on road trips. We watched in dismay as the media and the Left ruthlessly destroyed his character and actively sided with Obama. We realized that the 2016 election was going to be significantly more vicious and that we had no choice but to nominate a vulgar street fighting thug in Donald J. Trump. Also, let's not forget that the media gave Trump an inordinate amount of free air time, drowning out the most impressive GOP primary field since 1980, preventing highly qualified candidates from getting coverage. The media did this for entirely selfish reasons: 1) Trump was a gift for their ratings, and 2) they were convinced that Hillary would easily defeat Trump. Once Trump won the nomination, the media did a 180 and portrayed him as the second coming of Hitler. So yeah, lot of blame goes around for where we are at now.

I support most of Trump's policies, but I never liked the guy personally and don't have much respect for him. I wanted the brilliant principled Ted Cruz. If Cruz were President, he would have transformed the GOP into the party of conservative intellectualism and constitutionalism. My fellow Republicans made a terrible choice in the primary.

You can be elected being an idiot. His intelligence looks to have deteriorated significantly since the 80s. I remember that the team got him elected, with Bannon appealing to the racists/extremists and Kushner/Ivanka appealing to everyone else. And I think you're right that conservatives had a chip on their shoulder with the way Romney was treated, as well as conservatives held a grudge towards Obama's approach to the economy and regulation. But all of this was part of the equation with Trump being a constant, only contributing one very linear thing--an anger and vitriol towards the same people that were proponents to the anti-Romney and Obama era. Trump was the x factor, but not nearly because he himself was intelligent or competent for the job. I distinctly remember one of my friends saying that he didn't like Trump, but he "loved the way that guy talks".

Ted Cruz is an advocate for an idea of American exceptionalism. That's not what most of the base wanted. And, advocates or idealists are not always the best for running the country. The American president has always been more of a symbol, representing what the consensus of the people is.

 
Schreckstoff:
Trump is like a stick that the GOP picked up to beat liberals over the head with, and quite frankly, much of it is deserved. But at some point, they'll realize he's a snake and not a stick, and without the constant, careful handling, it may be them who ultimately gets bitten.
Bingo. And we don't need a stick, we need boxing gloves. They're not the enemies, they're victims of moral panic, and we need to shake them out of it. (Which will take a few punches to the face, but we don't want it to leave any long-term damage)
 

Agreed. Trump's problem is that he has a pretty well documented history of racism. This in particular isn't that bad in a vacuum. The idea that we don't want people from countries that are bad is a sentiment I find anti-American and just flat out bad. But that is a separate issue.

 

I actually take the very opposite view of you. Racism is evil and is bad, even in a vacuum (because it's a cancer to the person who is racist), but I also think that we should do what every other country does on planet Earth, which is make immigration tied to a nation's economic needs. We don't need a million more Salvadoreans flooding into our country--they don't possess the skill sets that our country needs precisely because they are from shitty places. Although, I'm not arguing that Trump sees it with such nuance.

Array
 

This is not a real scandal. It's more fake news meant to incite fake moral outrage . It's another opportunity for the drones to signal their fake intellectual and moral superiority. It's just a repeat of the "Trump banned 7 words at the CDC" fake news story that did the same. The media just keeps regurgitating this story (in various forms) to keep the pressure on the president. Nothing to see here.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

"1.Trump is a vulgar man with no filter. It's just who he is. Having said that, Presidents say a lot of stuff in private, behind closed doors."

Let's just clarify, though: this wasn't said to a buddy or aid in confidence. This (allegedly) was said during a bipartisan meeting on immigration.....I think that distinction is noteworthy

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].
 

There's definitely a better word than "shitholes" to call countries like El Salvador and Haiti, so I disagree with your "for lack of a better word" comment. Also, I don't care about this, he's Donald Trump, let's move on.

EDIT: Per your #3, that's fair, one can call a place a shithole without that being a statement against that place's residents... but Trump didn't make the distinction. He is saying BECAUSE those countries are shitholes (according to him), the PEOPLE from those countries should not be allowed into the United States. I'd definitely say that's a direct attack on the people who reside in those places.

Array
 
BobTheBaker:
EDIT: Per your #3, that's fair, one can call a place a shithole without that being a statement against that place's residents... but Trump didn't make the distinction. He is saying BECAUSE those countries are shitholes (according to him), the PEOPLE from those countries should not be allowed into the United States. I'd definitely say that's a direct attack on the people who reside in those places.

Couldn't have expressed it any better. And I believe that is why it has grown to become such a huge controversy. It can be agreed that these countries are not the most viable places to live and as a result, are "shitholes", however the fact that he didn't make this distinction and instead said that because those places are shitholes we shouldn't let people in from those countries and then on top of it, recommend that we let more people from Norway instead is why it's an issue.

 
Best Response

This is only news because it's the lowest common denominator. How many people out there would understand a detailed article about the new tax policy? But you write a click bait article about Trump calling someone/group a "shithole" and everyone's going to listen.

Happens all the time. Did most people know anything about Mitt Romney's policy? No, but they did know he had "binders full of women".

 
ironman32:
This is only news because it's the lowest common denominator. How many people out there would understand a detailed article about the new tax policy? But you write a click bait article about Trump calling someone/group a "shithole" and everyone's going to listen.

Happens all the time. Did most people know anything about Mitt Romney's policy? No, but they did know he had "binders full of women".

Amen. The American people have become dumb, lazy, and hysterical. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle only perpetuates this.

 

I wonder if Bernie Sanders realizes that Norway's model only works because Norway is a small, close-knit Germanic society with high social trust, strict immigration controls, a highly-educated population, and a culture of thrift.

The modern United States isn't anywhere close to this. Way too many freeloaders, idiots, and ethnic political groups that encourage division instead of a single shared sense of Americanism.

To go an a tangent, diaspora politics should be outlawed.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
 
Yankee Doodle:
I wonder if Bernie Sanders realizes that Norway's model only works because Norway is a small, close-knit Germanic society with high social trust, strict immigration controls, a highly-educated population, and a culture of thrift.

The modern United States isn't anywhere close to this. Way too many freeloaders, idiots, and ethnic political groups that encourage division instead of a single shared sense of Americanism.

To go an a tangent, diaspora politics should be outlawed.

Correct. The Scandinavian model can only work in homogeneous countries. Humans are tribal, and as soon as a country has too many different groups, the people will not be willing to pay higher taxes to benefit "others."

Diversity in itself actually has little value; it simply is a means to an end, not the end in itself. Liberals believe otherwise. To them, the value of a society or institution is inextricably linked to how diverse it is. Even then, they are disingenuous because the only care about diversity when it affects certain groups (blacks and latinos, not Asians) and in certain places (elite schools, lucrative industries such as tech).

 

This reflexive defense of any Trump action or quote by so many people on this website continues to baffle me. This website is supposedly made up of some of the brightest young minds in the finance world, but yet partisan tribalism has ravaged logic from the brains of many of this site's commenters.

Surely you possess enough mental dexterity to distinguish between Bernie's fondness for certain government social welfare programs in Norway and Trump's shithole comments.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

Behold liberal-speak in action

onemanwolfpack:
This reflexive defense of any Trump action or quote by so many people on this website continues to baffle me.

Attempts to substantiate his view by ridiculing and shaming as opposed to a presentation of facts and application of reason.

onemanwolfpack:
This website is supposedly made up of some of the brightest young minds in the finance world, but yet partisan tribalism has ravaged logic from the brains of many of this site's commenters.

Continuance of ridiculing and shaming by putting our intellectual abilities to question (in first part of the sentence). Takes moral high ground by feigning objectivity in second portion of sentence.

onemanwolfpack:
Surely you possess enough mental dexterity to distinguish between Bernie's fondness for certain government social welfare programs in Norway and Trump's shithole comments.

Continuance of ridiculing and shaming without presentation of facts or argument. Avoidance of addressing argument directly.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 
onemanwolfpack:
This reflexive defense of any Trump action or quote by so many people on this website continues to baffle me. This website is supposedly made up of some of the brightest young minds in the finance world, but yet partisan tribalism has ravaged logic from the brains of many of this site's commenters.

Surely you possess enough mental dexterity to distinguish between Bernie's fondness for certain government social welfare programs in Norway and Trump's shithole comments.

Did you not read any other comments from me in this thread? I clearly stated the comments were inappropriate. It's not contradictory to point out the rank hypocrisy of the people who are most enraged by the comments.

Array
 

Most Prestigious Shithole Countries To Vacation At

Bosses Only: Zanzibar, Belize, Barbados, Cape Verde Make Your Back Office Co-Workers Jealous With Your Instagram Pics: Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica Ballin' On a Budget but Not Impressing Anybody: Florida (Not a Country; Still a Shithole), Mexico (Cancun),

 

The Commander in Chief, Chief Executive, 'leader of the Free World', called the people's homes he's supposed to be representing a shithole, in an official capacity. That's very inappropriate.

But I think it's the context that ignited this into this type of story. He's negotiating a deal and rejected a piece to it because of his personal stance on it. If you add it to the stuff that happened in Charlottesville, the Muslim ban, Mexican hombres and border wall, he's doing a pretty bad job of proving that he's not legislating on a racist bias. This is supposed to be a country where people are free and believe in equality, so his lack of sensitivity puts everything in the light.

Trump being debated on whether he's a racist or not seems like an everyday topic. I'll conclude it by just stating what that means: he is a racist. If you have to debate it, then it's probably true, more than likely. How much flirting on the line does Trump need to do before it is more clear what he is. But, whatever his biases are, he's still too wreckless in action. I can't believe someone can be this silly of a person and not get called out on it. I know Republican congressmen don't want to be the ones to do it and they'll fight the Dems to eternity because they have no choice. But as a regular citizen, fuck it, a duck is a duck

 
iBankedUp:
Trump being debated on whether he's a racist or not seems like an everyday topic. I'll conclude it by just stating what that means: he is a racist. If you have to debate it, then it's probably true, more than likely.

Emphasis is mine but here's the epitome of the old "a lie told often enough becomes truth."

Just keep repeating the same line about your ideological opponent over and over again until you wear them down. It's an old tactic created by the old left but still very effective. Facts become completely irrelevant; just keep repeating yourself in a smug way and eventually your opponents give up. The cost for telling a lie is minimal but the cost to refute one is enormous.

The fact that Trump's policies are helping the African American community enormously are irrelevant as well as the praise he received from black activists in the 80s and 90s. The fact that almost all Republican presidents and many Democratic politicians supported a southern border wall until recently, also irrelevant. Look how effective it was on Sessions. Here's a guy who literally took down the KKK in his state and had the leader executed. Still painted as a racist and he's been entirely ineffectual at the DOJ.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much evidence and counter evidence is provided, assholes like you will still mindlessly regurgitate your talking points and hurl accusations of racism. You don't even try to hide it. You openly acknowledge that if "people are talking about it," it must be true!

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

I'm not arguing left vs right politics. You took me on too many tangents, although I'm speaking specifically of the context of this one recent incident.

I simply believe that the world is a balance. Most people are aware that Trump's behavior is abhorrent and incorrect. But you probably chalk up the differences between you and him as him just having some 'no filter' and not caring about being PC. What I see is a privilege to be above social norms; Trump is simply not worried about fitting in. It's an ignorance to think that your actions and how you're perceived doesn't matter, which is a flaw. The same flaw that is what breeds racism in the first place.

Sound policy is another natural balance. When something is working, it works and other benefit. It's one of my main principles on being a moderate. But when policy is executed at the right time, in the right way, it can provide more benefits than harm. So, again, not arguing the politics of anything. I just know that Trump displays a level of uncanny disposition when it comes to people who are not 'his kinda people'. And economics is the only policy that has shown some discipline, but that's probably because it was an Executive team action and Congressional action.

 

Apparently having control over your own borders is a crime these days.

That being said, calling those countries shit holes is entirely appropriate. The fact that it was leaked out to the public is not - doesn't anyone ensure that whatever happens in meetings stays there?

List of shithole countries:- Afghanistan, Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Congo, Zaire, El Salvador, Haiti, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Stans, North Korea, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, Mauretania, some Eastern European countries, Laos, Palestine?, etc. In some cases, it's because of a crappy economy and crappy resource availability (Haiti, El Salvador, Afghanistan), in other cases because of the people (Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan), yet in other cases it's because of crappy governance and rampant corruption (Venezuela, Stans, Bangladesh)

tbf, if he had called Saudi Arabia a shithole country (for its outstanding human rights record), he wouldn't have received much flak either. But hey, Saudi money is Saudi money for the Trump Organization.

GoldenCinderblock: "I keep spending all my money on exotic fish so my armor sucks. Is it possible to romance multiple females? I got with the blue chick so far but I am also interested in the electronic chick and the face mask chick."
 

Basically sums up the political climate in this country right now

Never ending moralizing, ridiculing and shaming, void of all reason and facts. Pure emotion. The conservative had about 3 seconds to speak before he was squelched. They literally made him apologize for speaking his mind. This is the best they could find in a 4 liberal, 1 conservative panel. This is worse than any banana republic form of propaganda.

Here's the guy threatening to "gut" the one conservative on the panel "like a fish" for holding his views:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0gtRwgMhJU

Here's a real conservative on the issue:

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

My whole issue is, it would be as if you are invited to interview for Evercore, Moelis, PJT Partners, JPM, GS, MS, and then some unknown bank like Needham & Co by a recruiter, and asked to explain your level of interest so they could help you select the ones to put you in front of. If you describe your excitement for recruitment by talking up the great names of the first 6, then singling out that one as the 'shithole' bank of the group, you're going to be judged based on that one presumption that you made.

When you're in an official meeting where professionalism should prevail, that's where you're expected to hold a high degree of professionalism. The similar case where Mitt Romney is different because this was a 47% comment that was obviously shot off the hip, and the footage of it was taken out of context, because Romney was also not president at the time. He also used that language during an unofficial meeting speaking with a block of donors that did not represent the whole population. Not to mention it sounded like pure hyperbole to disparage the DNC, not necessarily any persons directly.

What I don't like about Trump's comment is that 'shithole' is not even a word that captures any significant meaning. Rather, it's meaning is wholly meant to be derogatory. It's just something, to me, that shows his disdain towards these places. To use it during official negotiations augments the negative amount of power that we have entrusted into someone that can't exercise self-control and sound judgement, devoid of his own biases.

The only argument that I could give to someone defending Trump is the one about the countries involved and not the people. Maybe Trump has a strong disinterest in other countries and merely saw these places, as a whole, as shitholes, and didn't view the people as representing that on a whole. But, again, bringing the conversation to an end without facts is what has him here in this debacle. The program that admitted a lot of these people into the country was used for people taking cover from misfortunes in their homes. If there's an economic reason to end the program or a logical one as to why it should be ended since those misfortunes have ended, then using the term 'shithole' gives immigration advocates a golden opportunity, because their advocacy is in place to fight perceptions just like that one, and so now there's a compelling reason to judge in favor of the advocates and immigrants.

Just stupid, ignorant, possibly racist Trump, being Trump again.

 
iBankedUp:
My whole issue is, it would be as if you are invited to interview for Evercore, Moelis, PJT Partners, JPM, GS, MS, and then some unknown bank like Needham & Co by a recruiter, and asked to explain your level of interest so they could help you select the ones to put you in front of. If you describe your excitement for recruitment by talking up the great names of the first 6, then singling out that one as the 'shithole' bank of the group, you're going to be judged based on that one presumption that you made.

When you're in an official meeting where professionalism should prevail, that's where you're expected to hold a high degree of professionalism. The similar case where Mitt Romney is different because this was a 47% comment that was obviously shot off the hip, and the footage of it was taken out of context, because Romney was also not president at the time. He also used that language during an unofficial meeting speaking with a block of donors that did not represent the whole population. Not to mention it sounded like pure hyperbole to disparage the DNC, not necessarily any persons directly.

What I don't like about Trump's comment is that 'shithole' is not even a word that captures any significant meaning. Rather, it's meaning is wholly meant to be derogatory. It's just something, to me, that shows his disdain towards these places. To use it during official negotiations augments the negative amount of power that we have entrusted into someone that can't exercise self-control and sound judgement, devoid of his own biases.

The only argument that I could give to someone defending Trump is the one about the countries involved and not the people. Maybe Trump has a strong disinterest in other countries and merely saw these places, as a whole, as shitholes, and didn't view the people as representing that on a whole. But, again, bringing the conversation to an end without facts is what has him here in this debacle. The program that admitted a lot of these people into the country was used for people taking cover from misfortunes in their homes. If there's an economic reason to end the program or a logical one as to why it should be ended since those misfortunes have ended, then using the term 'shithole' gives immigration advocates a golden opportunity, because their advocacy is in place to fight perceptions just like that one, and so now there's a compelling reason to judge in favor of the advocates and immigrants.

Just stupid, ignorant, possibly racist Trump, being Trump again.

We are all in agreement that Trump should not have used that word.

There are several issues though. First, it was incredibly shitty for the person (a Democratic aide) to leak just that one small portion of an hours-long negotiation, just to inflict damage to the President. Without seeing the full transcript, we don't know what exactly was said and the underlying context. The aide's intention was obviously not driven by a noble desire to bring transparency to a closed-door negotiation.

There is a fundamental distinction between the following 2 scenarios: 1) Trump gratuitously brings up Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations and calls them shithole, 2) The Democrats refuse to budge on TPS, visa lotteries, chain migration, and Trump out of frustration uses the shithole comment. Simply put, there is not enough information for us to judge the full context of what was being said and discussed when this word was uttered.

Second, Trump has been fairly consistent on eliminating visa lotteries and chain migration and moving over to a point based system similar to the one used by Canada. The GOP's RAISE Act does exactly this, but the media has barely covered the details of this proposal and engaged in an honest dialogue regarding its pros and cons. Instead, it goes nuts over the shithole comment, blasting that word 24/7, and turning the immigration debate into full-fledged hysteria. If the media and the Left thinks RAISE is a bad idea and does not serve America's core interests, then let's have that debate.

Third, one can plausibly argue that Trump inflicted the damage on himself. True to an extent. But at this point, cognitive bias reigns supreme, whereby people are convinced that Trump is a racist and that any attempt to reform our immigration system is tantamount to an assault on non-whites. Let's not forget that the Democrats want amnesty and citizenship for illegals so they can add millions of new voters to their ranks. They have a long-term vested interest in this, so it's not clear to me that they want to meet the GOP halfway in passing meaningful reform. Thus, anything Trump says on this topic will be portrayed as racist, and there really isn't a damm thing we can do about it.

Fourth, you argue that Trump brought the conversation to an end without facts. Huh? Was shithole literally the last thing Trump said before he ended the negotiation talks? We don't have the full transcript, so I don't know what you mean by this. Trump also sent out multiple twitter posts to clarify his position on this issue. Immigration is actually one of the few issues where Trump has been fairly consistent since he launched his campaign for the Presidency.

At this point, we are all dealing with incomplete information. We are talking about one word that was said in a negotiation that lasted for quite some time, with 2 unverified sources (only 1 of whom was actually at the meeting). Unless an entire transcript of the talk came out, arriving at premature conclusions and indulging hysteria is dangerous.

 
Rufus1234:
We are all in agreement that Trump should not have used that word.

There are several issues though. First, it was incredibly shitty for the person (a Democratic aide) to leak just that one small portion of an hours-long negotiation, just to inflict damage to the President. Without seeing the full transcript, we don't know what exactly was said and the underlying context. The aide's intention was obviously not driven by a noble desire to bring transparency to a closed-door negotiation.

There is a fundamental distinction between the following 2 scenarios: 1) Trump gratuitously brings up Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations and calls them shithole, 2) The Democrats refuse to budge on TPS, visa lotteries, chain migration, and Trump out of frustration uses the shithole comment. Simply put, there is not enough information for us to judge the full context of what was being said and discussed when this word was uttered.

Again, you're arguing about what Dems and Republicans in Congress are doing. They're fighting for their job, so it's obvious what they will do and the reason as to why. I, personally, don't care, because I know that there's probably some member of their constituent on either side who will agree and praise their actions.

I like this argument about incomplete information. Although, your argument is really weak and I'll show you that it is. In either of those scenarios, if Trump refers to those countries as shitholes, no matter which one, he will not find himself off the hook, to me. In the former, it's obvious that attacking these countries would be irreversibly malicious, and in the latter, maybe it was out of anger, and this is to the more forgivable case, as anger is a sign of strong passion for the topic. But, it was still a lapse in judgement that I think could hurt him. Trump, in this case, exposed his thoughts about these places, and the discovery is a very ugly view that Trump holds about people from Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa.

Rufus1234:

Second, Trump has been fairly consistent on eliminating visa lotteries and chain migration and moving over to a point based system similar to the one used by Canada. The GOP's RAISE Act does exactly this, but the media has barely covered the details of this proposal and engaged in an honest dialogue regarding its pros and cons. Instead, it goes nuts over the shithole comment, blasting that word 24/7, and turning the immigration debate into full-fledged hysteria. If the media and the Left thinks RAISE is a bad idea and does not serve America's core interests, then let's have that debate.

Why are supposedly intelligent, reasonable, educated people so concerned with the media? You're talking about an industry filled with fancy pants, shiny shoe wearing, fairies whose job is to appeal to the cheap masses of the lower classes. Who cares what these people do. It's on the people to be informed by paying attention to the sources that provide truthful and insightful information. You also have to remember that anything the media makes a fuss over is what will get the most criticism.

Rufus1234:

Third, one can plausibly argue that Trump inflicted the damage on himself. True to an extent. But at this point, cognitive bias reigns supreme, whereby people are convinced that Trump is a racist and that any attempt to reform our immigration system is tantamount to an assault on non-whites. Let's not forget that the Democrats want amnesty and citizenship for illegals so they can add millions of new voters to their ranks. They have a long-term vested interest in this, so it's not clear to me that they want to meet the GOP halfway in passing meaningful reform. Thus, anything Trump says on this topic will be portrayed as racist, and there really isn't a damm thing we can do about it.

Trump supports RAISE and reducing immigration because he thinks it will raise wages to his supporters. If this is true, then that should've been the argument he stuck with, so I can't see why you're arguing with me on him using the type of comment he did use, which has 0 value and only adds to the perception that Trump's motives are actually motivated by his own biases.

The Republican party has traditionally been the more organized and rational party to me, but this oompf is throwing that tradition out the window. When Dems base their policies on ideas more than an Uber unicorn, the GOP has always been the Warren Buffett, cashflow-dependent legislators. The only way Trump's and a conservative stance works, is if it is devoid of bias, but is instead done in complete openness and with a desire to implement sound policy that benefits all people. Entering into a negotiation that directly impacts people based on their race and ethnic background and bringing your biases, is a disastrous recipe.

Rufus1234:

Fourth, you argue that Trump brought the conversation to an end without facts. Huh? Was shithole literally the last thing Trump said before he ended the negotiation talks? We don't have the full transcript, so I don't know what you mean by this. Trump also sent out multiple twitter posts to clarify his position on this issue. Immigration is actually one of the few issues where Trump has been fairly consistent since he launched his campaign for the Presidency.

At this point, we are all dealing with incomplete information. We are talking about one word that was said in a negotiation that lasted for quite some time. Unless an entire transcript of the talk came out, arriving at premature conclusions and indulging hysteria is dangerous.

Semantics here. As I said before, the use of that word to describe someone is generally just inappropriate. And, if the transcript shows more context that describes a situation where Trump was genuinely angry with Dems, then you're right that's much better. But, still can't just turn away to the fact that there's something weird going on with the way he's viewed every situation involving a different people in such a negative way.

 

1) The news has lost all credibility. It is worthless garbage and you actually are less informed if you watch or read CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

a. They did it to themselves by not taking the time to research a source or writing articles on rumor.

2) Because of the fact the news has no credibility, I instantly ignored this joke story.

3) I personally think Trump would say something like this though so I will roll with it.

That being said, have Democrats and the media lost their minds? They literally have zero idea how to act strategically. If you think people in Ohio, Wisconsin, central PA, the Florida Panhandle describe Haiti as anything other than a "shithole" you are sorely wrong. I'd imagine most Haitians would agree as well. In fact, the only people who are upset about this shit (besides Haitians) are NYC and California liberals.

In conclusion, who fucking cares. We are on our way to 4% GDP growth, driven by the long overdue tax cuts, Trump cutting or rolling back regulation and a President who is 100% driven by jobs. It is wonderful to see someone elected who does what he says.

Shithole countries. Man, I almost spit my drink out when I saw it at the bar. Laugh riot.

 

1.) The news is still more credible than Donald Trump, no matter how you slice it. 2.) That's fine, not that big of a story 3.) He has no verbal discretion, basic ettiquette, or common decency. Of course you would roll with it.

I notice you always go to the default "this won't win elections" argument. That's fine, it's not always about winning elections. Additionally, who was arguing this would win elections? No one on this thread. There is no need to debate yourself.

People care, sitting presidents should not conduct themselves in such a manner in diplomatic sit-downs. I know you are eager to brush his man-child behavior off but his temperment is appaling. As for 4% growth, we'll see. He doesn't seem to be 100% driven by jobs, the guy can't stay on topic with basically anything. Crediting him for tax cuts is a joke, I could be president and sign that bill through, give the credit where it's due. Paul Ryan and Mitch catalyzed tax reform. Trump gets credit for being elected as a republican president so he could rubber stamp the bill.

Array
 

My family is Kenyan and honestly, our reaction was "Well. he's not wrong." Speaking of a lot of African countries, yes colonialism really disrupted the way of life, but it would be willfully ignorant to not think that our current leaders are responsible. I think leaders everywhere are terrible, but the lack of strict laws also means that in Africa, they can get away with everything. Corruption is rampant because there is very little policing of it. On this note, America too has very shitty places. On that note, I love it in America, oh but if I could get a good income, I would love to move back home for a year or two. You don't realize what a beautiful country you live in until you are no longer there. I would go to the beach constantly, explore the glorious wildlife. I would do a month of every single national park we have. We have so many that I was astounded at how many we have.

 

Where I disagree with Trump's sentiment--assuming he said what he said, something that greater doubt is being cast on with each passing day--is in the fact that the U.S. actually does tend to take Africa's best and brightest via immigration. My 2nd boss out of college was this brilliant, well educated--and dead sexy--Ethiopian woman with this killer sexy British-lite accent. My African immigrant acquaintance in high school was a first generation immigrant (with the full African accent still) and he ended up a dentist. In fact, I can't think of a single African immigrant that I personally know of who has not succeeded wildly in this country.

So, I don't super agree with Trump's (alleged) sentiment of not wanting more African immigrants because their countries suck as those immigrants are some of our best. The Latin America (and, specifically, the Salvadorian) diaspora, however, tends to send over migrant workers illegally, so that sentiment I do tend to agree with (why do we need more low wage workers?). I just visited a manufactured home facility in Pennsyvlania last week where a bunch of white Americans were doing jobs--blue collar home building jobs--for $15/hour that we've been told U.S. citizens won't do. So I reject the premise made by the American left that we need more migrant workers.

Array
 

I forgot to touch on that point, but this is spot on. My whole family has been pretty successful in America and I also rarely meet any Africans who are not successful because especially in the Kenyan community, if you happen to not do well. It will be in the circles that you are a bum. Also, heavens forbid you date someone who is not up to par career wise or money wise, you will never be at peace.

 
Rimu5:
My family is Kenyan and honestly, our reaction was "Well. he's not wrong." Speaking of a lot of African countries, yes colonialism really disrupted the way of life, but it would be willfully ignorant to not think that our current leaders are responsible. I think leaders everywhere are terrible, but the lack of strict laws also means that in Africa, they can get away with everything. Corruption is rampant because there is very little policing of it. On this note, America too has very shitty places. On that note, I love it in America, oh but if I could get a good income, I would love to move back home for a year or two. You don't realize what a beautiful country you live in until you are no longer there. I would go to the beach constantly, explore the glorious wildlife. I would do a month of every single national park we have. We have so many that I was astounded at how many we have.

This is overly apologetic. Either way, you can’t negotiate with, “this place is a shithole”. There’s no compromise that can be had there. Worrying about whether it’s true in form or in part is not even the topic. The conversation was about who comes into the country, which should be individual base.

 
iBankedUp:
The conversation was about who comes into the country, which should be individual base.

There is unmistakeable irony in your words here. Reportedly, the context of the conversation and "shithole" comments was about the "diversity lottery" where the U.S., since 1965, has set aside individual assessment and instead takes random people from "under-represented" countries. Reportedly, Trump was arguing against this program and for individual assessment based on skill set. If you're going to argue for the diversity lottery and taking in random people blind of their ability to contribute to the U.S., then it's only logical to acknowledge that sh*t countries are going to produce immigrants who are not as desirable to the nation.

Array
 
Rimu5:
My family is Kenyan and honestly, our reaction was "Well. he's not wrong." Speaking of a lot of African countries, yes colonialism really disrupted the way of life, but it would be willfully ignorant to not think that our current leaders are responsible. I think leaders everywhere are terrible, but the lack of strict laws also means that in Africa, they can get away with everything. Corruption is rampant because there is very little policing of it. On this note, America too has very shitty places. On that note, I love it in America, oh but if I could get a good income, I would love to move back home for a year or two. You don't realize what a beautiful country you live in until you are no longer there. I would go to the beach constantly, explore the glorious wildlife. I would do a month of every single national park we have. We have so many that I was astounded at how many we have.

No no no. Your actual opinion doesn't matter. All the matters is the liberal's opinion, the one that they put in your mouth and force onto us all.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 
BobTheBaker:
I'll take "what is the appeal to authority fallacy" for 500 points Alex.

I never said she was an authority. I'm merely pointing out that there are different perspectives on this issue, even within the black community. We just have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes racism or what makes someone a racist.

 

Trump is a racist because liberals say it over and over again. Anyone coming out saying he isn't a racist is instantly brushed a side.

What is good is that the word racist has lost all meaning. It is a joke statement basically used to attack someone who isn't a liberal.

Remember when Trump was attacked because David Duke supported him, yet Hillary got away with a photo of her kissing and hugging Byrd? It is comical.

 
TNA:
Trump is a racist because liberals say it over and over again. Anyone coming out saying he isn't a racist is instantly brushed a side.

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its pants on."

But the real key to all of Democrat party ideology is this:

"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

Array
 

@Rufus1234"

Side comment, but we should all really be talking about Feinstein release transcripts of testimony without any permission, for an on going investigation and they apologizing because she has a cold.

Or how FISA was used to spy on Trump, based off of an unverified and fake document.

We have Democrats actively trying to subvert an investigation that should cause all of us concern.

Or how about we have Democrats in Congress trying to push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President because he hurts their feelings. Once that happens, Democracy is completely dead.

I'll say this and leave, but the claims that Trump and Russia colluded do have some merit. But it wasn't Trump. Democrats are working with Russia to destroy and weaken this nation. Very sad in deed.

 

What is bullshit?

Has the Fusion GPS report been verified? Didn't the HRC campaign pass on it because it couldn't be verified? Was that report not the basis for the FISA warrants? 3

What has Trump done that is illegal and can cause impeachment? We still have nothing from the Mueller investigation. We also have nothing functional that Russia did to help Trump win outside of a couple thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.

And releasing transcripts before an investigation is complete is a serious issue because everyone else deposed will now be able to get on the same page and not contradict the story.

So which is unverified? Or maybe you are just uninformed.

 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/company/trilantic-north-america>TNA</a></span>:
@Rufus1234"

Or how about we have Democrats in Congress trying to push for impeachment of a lawfully elected President because he hurts their feelings.

You nailed it, man. This is exactly while Democrats in Congress and millions of Americans find Trump unfit for office. Because he hurts our snowflake feelings. Not because of his declining mental faculties, general disregard for his intelligence agencies, assault on the free press, and his personal effect debasing our country in the eyes of the worlds citizens. Good job ANT.

"I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."
 

Wow, a trained doctor. Props. Another unsubstantiated claim.

Intelligence agencies that lied and led us into the Iraq war? That spy on innocent Americans? That used an unverified, comical report as "evidence" to spy on members of a Presidential campaign team?

Assault on the free press? You mean the press that continually puts out fake reports based on anonymous sources? Or that runs a buzzfeed report that even HRC wouldn't touch?

Debasing our country in the eyes of the world? By standing up for the US, renegotiating 25 year old trade deals that hurt average american workers?

This has to be a joke post. Or one that is completely oblivious.

Free press and insulting our intelligence agencies. Holy fuck this is rich.

 

Holy fuck

1) Oh, so now it is more than just Manafort, as you misrepresented in your first post.

"Besides Manafort, the officials include former Trump advisers Carter Page and Michael Flynn. Last week, we discovered multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official."

Manafort, Page, Flynn AND THEN multiple transition officials.

But lets look at what the ever honest CIA has done in the past, from the same article you just glossed over.

1) In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.

2)There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

3) The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News.

So in conclusion, this happens often and more than just Manafort (and your revised "other people") within the Trump camp were monitored. And the story continues to develop.

2) Really? I mean fucking wow. You are so intellectually dishonest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pickering_(judge)

In 1795 he was showing signs of mental deterioration.

By 1800, Pickering had begun to show definite signs of mental deterioration. This became severe enough of an impediment that on April 25, 1801 court staff wrote to the judges of the United States Circuit Court for the First Circuita requesting that they send a temporary replacement.

1) Definite signs 2) So severe that a replacement was requested.

But that wasn't what got him impeached.

"On February 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the House of Representatives against Pickering, accusing him of having made unlawful rulings and being of bad moral character due to intoxication while on the bench in connection with a libel for unpaid duties against the Eliza. "

Unlawful rulings. Being drunk while on the bench.

The House voted to impeach Pickering on March 2, 1803 on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings.

His impeachment was based on criminal charges.

3) It was during the primary. It showed the DNC to be corrupt. Once again you fail and stretch the truth.

"I'll say this and leave, but the claims that Trump and Russia colluded do have some merit. But it wasn't Trump. Democrats are working with Russia to destroy and weaken this nation. Very sad in deed."

Democrats are 100% working to weaken this nation by pushing this comical claim that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election. By airing our dirty laundry daily, it makes this country look like a joke. Even the idea that Russia could influence our elections, something we do to shithole countries, it embarrassing.

 

1.) Please support your statement that the FISA warrant was obtained solely/ majorly due to Fusion GPS, this is the core of the argument and you've somehow sidestepped it. Understood regarding other officials but, again, support your statement on Fusion GPS. Let the story continue to develop, thus far we have people being surveilled for alleged criminal activities and then being charged.

2.) I quoted various others and you just ignore them in favor of Pickering, cool. In essence, the "high crimes and misdemeanors" you refered to simply does not mean literal misdemeanors. There is debate about what it does mean so this is up for interpretation, as quoted in my previous response. Do you have any way to refute this?

3.) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/ru…

my conclusion hasn't changed: Russia hacked the DNC in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

4.) "Democrats are working with Russia to destroy and weaken this nation"

You can say they are weakening the nation (laughable) but this is a matter of opinion. But you go a step further and say they are "working with Russia"... this is meritless and without basis so I called it bullshit... because it is.

Round and round we go. Welcome back @TNA"!!!

Array
 

1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-t…

"The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455267/christopher-steele-dossier…

One from CNN, one from National Review.

This unverified, salacious document was an important part in requesting and getting the FISA warrants as well as other intelligence attention on numerous members of the Trump campaign during the election and during the transition period.

2) You included on case and a bunch of interpretations and opinions. Removing the President for pissing people off and impeaching a state judge who had a long history of mental deterioration (which isn't defined, but I would imagine it is far more than saying off color things) AND being drunk on the bench, etc, is a far different case.

High crimes and misdemeanors means criminal acts. Is this not clear. Yes, people can interpret things however they want (as you always do), but impeaching the President because enough members in Congress don't like him isn't what was intended.

Furthermore, how on earth are you advocating for this. Because trust me, once we go down this path, I am going to be clamoring for every Democrat to be impeached no matter what. I am going to be donating and advocating for it every time they are in power. And like it or not, about 40% of this country is going to see the person they elected being impeached because it doesn't fit what liberals want.

And this idea that Trump would go quietly, or that Republicans wouldn't fight tooth and nail, is ridiculous. Trump, Fox News, every conservative outlet and billionaire contributor, would go nuclear.

Democrats trying to impeached a President for no reason but hyperbole. Man, that is a reputation that will stick ha ha.

If you clean your neighborhood and I take out the trash, are we both not working to keep our city/country clean? If we both pay taxes are we not working to fund this country?

Working for the same goal and being on someones payroll are two different things. Democrats and their actions are weakening and dividing this country. The end result is a weaker USA, a goal Russians directly have and a goal the Democrats are oblivious they are working towards.

So cool. What is the Democrats goal? To get proof that the US is a joke and Russia can influence our election. And are we to not believe that they have done this before? If Russia is all about hacking and bribing out country, why is it so far fetched to believe that Bill and Hillary weren't influenced. What about Obama? Or Bush. If this level of skullduggery is going on, why is it just Trump.

 

How simplistic is this response.

So Trump tweeting is worse than a major political party doing everything possible to prove to the world that the USA can be influenced by Russia, something we do to much smaller counties. Are you really saying that?

We have Democrats leaking private conversations to the press that hurt our relationships with other countries (to be fair, I am sure Republicans are doing it as well). We have all of our major news outlets running stories from unnamed sources, continually attacking the elected leader of this country.

And Trump's tweaks are the worst thing going? I suggest you think about this further.

 

Blanditiis dignissimos dolor et. Numquam est ipsum et rerum veritatis. Suscipit qui quia in. Ut ipsam nesciunt et unde reiciendis ut nostrum aut. Minima quia in blanditiis.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Et itaque laudantium magnam sit voluptatem. Dicta sed molestiae cum architecto fugit dolorem velit. Repellendus est architecto quia pariatur minima debitis. Facilis tempore aliquid quasi quis itaque nihil velit. Aliquid ut sit hic possimus et voluptates laborum architecto.

Qui quae ad omnis quia quisquam quia et. Sunt placeat ut at accusantium. Quos nostrum et iste nihil rem non provident voluptatibus. Ipsa vero tempore odit aliquam.

Qui odit magnam et. Voluptatum incidunt ducimus sed libero velit in et consectetur. Commodi quis natus necessitatibus nisi cupiditate non. Occaecati laborum ut distinctio vero repudiandae dolor soluta.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Optio dolore quis sapiente maiores in. Labore fugit officia eos rem. Nulla expedita placeat enim consequuntur eius.

Quas et et fugiat sed consectetur qui beatae. Sint iste quaerat quam enim quibusdam. Quo molestiae veritatis modi est facere dicta ipsum. Quia consequatur nihil accusamus voluptatum. Id qui aperiam perspiciatis qui et in nihil.

Cum autem qui vel consequuntur iste. Delectus vel molestiae voluptatum dolores. Culpa qui exercitationem pariatur tempora.

 

Voluptas suscipit totam aut rerum impedit voluptates. Qui debitis quis eaque asperiores. Consequatur tempora libero id sit. Id maiores ut veritatis vitae voluptatem. Ea ipsa et dolorem. Pariatur veniam soluta ea dolorem ex velit debitis.

Minus consequatur est delectus ex possimus veritatis. Explicabo earum et inventore quos et non a molestiae. Dolore amet iste assumenda ipsam. Aut cupiditate impedit maiores ex. Expedita voluptatum aliquid molestiae tempore. Id alias dicta vero. Corporis suscipit fugiat illum numquam.

Voluptas molestias non quod id et nam. Eius vel quia delectus eveniet ratione. Aut rerum modi cupiditate accusantium odio placeat. Iure id suscipit deleniti aliquam qui sit dolor.

Praesentium et unde earum qui. Qui aut iure quo reprehenderit voluptatem at eum. Est veritatis aliquam deserunt pariatur eaque sed alias. Quaerat eligendi quos non. Consequatur consequatur expedita neque veniam soluta necessitatibus amet non. Maiores voluptatibus vero est ducimus. Fuga consequuntur qui rerum repellat et.

26 Broadway where's your sense of humor?

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
5
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
10
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”