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.

Hi Anonymous Monkey, upload your resume and land a job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (166)

Best Response
Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 20
    • 13
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 12, 2018

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.

Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 3
Jan 12, 2018
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?

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 7
    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
onemanwolfpack:
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?

A short list of people Ben Shapiro has debated in the last 24 months (just off the top of my head):

  • Joe Scarborough
  • Cenk Uygur
  • Richard Fowler
  • Sam Harris
  • Kshama Sawant
  • Joe Rogan
  • Blaire White
  • Dave Rubin

And a long list of liberals on CNN and Fox News. Your move, asshole.

Jan 15, 2018

Yes I'm well aware of those debates. And yet I re-assert that Shapiro is famous because he decided to leave racist Breitbart only once it became racist Trump apologist Breitbart, and pwning 17-year olds in youtube compilations.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
Jan 16, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

Yes I'm well aware of those debates. And yet I re-assert that Shapiro is famous because he decided to leave racist Breitbart only once it became racist Trump apologist Breitbart, and pwning 17-year olds in youtube compilations.

In other words, you were factually wrong about Shapiro because he does engage in debates--frequently--with his peers. Not sure why it's a sin for Shapiro to also embarrass college students.

Jan 16, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

Yes I'm well aware of those debates. And yet I re-assert that Shapiro is famous because he decided to leave racist Breitbart only once it became racist Trump apologist Breitbart, and pwning 17-year olds in youtube compilations.

Shapiro left Breitbart because Corey Lewandowski manhandled Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, and the site did not side with her. That's the reason he left, not because the site is supposedly racist (HINT: it's not racist).

    • 1
Jan 16, 2018

yes, that's what I was referring to. Also, any website with a section called "Black Crime" is racist; no need to debate that further. (I'll wait for the 'facts don't care about your feelings' reply)

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
Jan 16, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

yes, that's what I was referring to. Also, any website with a section called "Black Crime" is racist; no need to debate that further. (I'll wait for the 'facts don't care about your feelings' reply)

Covering the fact that blacks are 13% of the U.S. population but account for 50% of violent crimes is racist? Breitbart in general covers crime and terrorism more extensively than "mainstream" news sources because that is one of the issues they care about.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2018

There it is! I'm not going to waste any more time helping you try to see something you don't want to see.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
onemanwolfpack:
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?

Good lord. Stop embarrassing yourself. How much do you know about Ben Shapiro? I've been following the guy for years and listens to his podcast nearly daily. You don't have to agree with him, but he is intelligent and articulate and has engaged in debate with anyone willing to take him on. The Q&A with college kids gets the most attention on YouTube and the media at large, but there is way more to what Shapiro does.

On a side note, Shapiro's podcast is the most popular political podcast and 2nd most listened to podcast overall after Oprah's.

    • 3
Jan 12, 2018

Double post

Jan 12, 2018

Those are the words of a stable genius. Very stable!

Jan 12, 2018
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.

    • 6
Jan 12, 2018
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.

Jan 12, 2018
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.

    • 3
Jan 13, 2018

Man is your entire life centered around making obnoxiously long posts on WSO?

come on my man even i am not this pathetic lmao

also this pats game sucks

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 14, 2018
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)

    • 3
Jan 15, 2018

I would love to eat out Daddy Trump's shithole..

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

This one's not interesting to me. I'm sure every President has said similar shit behind closed doors.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 1
    • 6
Jan 12, 2018

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.

Jan 12, 2018

US immigration can have dual goals. We can allow migrants to fill economic needs while we also provide opportunity to those who lack it. Millions of people from "shitty" countries have come to the US and created a better life for themselves and future generations. The quality of someones country does not determine the quality of the person.

    • 1
Jan 13, 2018

immigration is the most important issue by far and it's not even close

that's why trump won

imagine if DACA passes and we get a democrat super majority by like 2040 due to changing demographics? how do you think that will go?

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 15, 2018
ThaJuice:

US immigration can have dual goals. We can allow migrants to fill economic needs while we also provide opportunity to those who lack it. Millions of people from "shitty" countries have come to the US and created a better life for themselves and future generations. The quality of someones country does not determine the quality of the person.

Immigration never has been and shouldn't be about how it can help foreigners. It should be about how foreigners can help the United States. With limited entries each year, why in the world should we allow a random person to come to the U.S., along with his cousin, aunt, and uncle, and to take the spot of a well educated physician? That just defies commonsense. The left's position is just so intellectually bankrupt that it's breathtaking.

Jan 16, 2018

Or people understand that contributing to the US is not solely about what one can provide economically. Or people understand that immigrants tend to come here and thrive regardless of their country of origin. Or people understand that immigrants who come here and gain skills sometimes return to their "shithole" countries and help to develop and stabilize them helping to reduce things like poverty, terrorism, and deadly disease.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2018
ThaJuice:

Or people understand that contributing to the US is not solely about what one can provide economically. Or people understand that immigrants tend to come here and thrive regardless of their country of origin. Or people understand that immigrants who come here and gain skills sometimes return to their "shithole" countries and help to develop and stabilize them helping to reduce things like poverty, terrorism, and deadly disease.

The left always refers to conservatives as "extremists" but your policy position, if honestly explained, is a completely extremist position, a policy that almost no other country in the world implements (in fact, I can't think of another). Your position is that in the zero sum game of immigration, it's completely ok to deny a highly educated professional in favor of someone who will go onto and stay on welfare. That's just an incredibly extremist position.

Jan 16, 2018

Being a nuanced thinker doesn't make my position extreme. Your assumption that the only value immigrants can provide is economic based is a wrong one. Your assumption that only immigrants from wealthy countries make economic contributions is wrong. Your assertion that most immigrants go onto and stay on welfare is not correct. Your view of US immigration is uninformed by history, fact, and logic. There are a number of other considerations I won't even begin to touch upon but being narrow minded is not a benefit.

The worldbank has some great data on immigrants from "shithole" countries. They tend to come to the US and do fairly well especially relative to the average person in their home country. African and middle eastern immigrants on the whole tend to come to the US and become highly educated. A decent number of immigrants return home and work to improve their home countries making the world a little safer.

By your logic we should have universal healthcare and use the metric system.

    • 1
Jan 16, 2018
ThaJuice:

Being a nuanced thinker doesn't make my position extreme.

Ah yes, the last refuge of the intellectual scoundrel--claiming intellectual superiority and ability to think with "nuance."

ThaJuice:

Your assumption that the only value immigrants can provide is economic based is a wrong one.

That's not what I said. I said in an immigration system that is necessarily zero sum, it's asinine to not more highly value tangible skills rather than to blindly admit people based on...existing? Being the cousin to someone else who won the lottery? Nothing at all?

ThaJuice:

Your assumption that only immigrants from wealthy countries make economic contributions is wrong.

Not sure you read anything I've written in this thread, but I have an entire post dedicated to how America tends to take in Africa's best and brightest and how they are actually quite good immigrants. I don't know how I could be more clear in what I'm saying--individual assessment of each immigrant is key. What the left is advocating for is blind immigration of anyone for any reason based on an arbitrary quota system. I'm happy to take in Haiti's best and brightest. Like most rational people, I'm not happy to take in anyone from, say, Poland just because they won the lottery, or from Uzbekistan because not enough Uzbekis got in through the merit-based legal immigration system.

ThaJuice:

Your assertion that most immigrants go onto and stay on welfare is not correct.

Wrong. For one, I never asserted "most" immigrants are on welfare. Many LEGAL immigrants, however, do use the welfare system--up to 49% of legal immigrants in 2012 were using at least one welfare program. Granted, this is a conservative thinktank that did the study, but cut the number in HALF and 1/4 of legal immigrant households are on welfare.

https://cis.org/Heavy-Welfare-Use-Legal-Immigrants...

ThaJuice:

Your view of US immigration is uninformed by history, fact, and logic.

I'm gonna go ahead and wager that I know a little bit more American history than you...

ThaJuice:

There are a number of other considerations I won't even begin to touch upon but being narrow minded is not a benefit.

The second to last refuge of the intellectual scoundrel is to accuse your opponent of being "narrow-minded."

ThaJuice:

The worldbank has some great data on immigrants from "shithole" countries. They tend to come to the US and do fairly well especially relative to the average person in their home country. African and middle eastern immigrants on the whole tend to come to the US and become highly educated. A decent number of immigrants return home and work to improve their home countries making the world a little safer.

Of course they do because they come through our legal immigration process, which still generally weights qualifications. What the left is arguing for is a continuation and expansion of the diversity lottery and chain migration, which are policies completely divorced from national interest.

Jan 16, 2018

i didn't say anything about economics, serious question if democrats get amnesty for all of the DACA people won't demographics be in their favor by like 2040?

Serious question what do you think will happen if Democrats get a supermajority based on demographics? Will this be a good or bad thing?

Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 8
    • 12
Jan 12, 2018

"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].

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

jesus f christ

Jan 12, 2018

In reply to Rufus:

Here's my issue. All of us agree that the countries named are shitholes; it's just not the kind of thing that the chief diplomat of our country should say, especially knowing that everything he says or does will be leaked.

Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 12, 2018
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.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

Either intentionally or unintentionally, you are mis-paraphrasing. He asked why we should allow more people to immigrate from the shithole countries, not that they shouldn't be allowed at all. There is a difference

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

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".

    • 8
Jan 12, 2018

Completely on point +1SB

Jan 12, 2018

You know who else couldn't understand a detailed article about the new tax policy? Our shithole president.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 7
    • 3
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

You know who else couldn't understand a detailed article about the new tax policy? Our shithole president.

Very few Presidents understand the detailed aspects of super complex policies, including your messiah-Barack Obama-and Obamacare.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

You're talking to a Bush-McCain-Romney voter who seems to be in the minority of previously self-identified Republicans that can look at the current GOP and call a spade a spade. Otherwise, you nailed it.

And while I didn't vote for him either time, Obama could run intellectual circles around current POTUS.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 4
Jan 12, 2018

Who cares about running intellectual circles around anyone, you infant. Trump is pushing through the policy that his constituency elected him for. He's getting it done. Your messiah Obama's ability to speak pretty words and stroke it to his own abstract philosophical bullshit is not nearly as cool to the grownups as you think it is.

    • 2
    • 3
Jan 12, 2018
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.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

Godzilla Won't Attack Haiti

Jan 12, 2018

I've never seen that before, that is awesome.

Jan 12, 2018

Let's be real, the average American thinks these places are shitholes too. This is pretend outrage.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
    • 4
    • 1
Jan 13, 2018

Its because they are, in fact, shitholes. Like anyone in this thread would even for a second contemplate living in Haiti or El Salvador. What a joke.

Jan 14, 2018

They are total shitholes - The Libs are too pussy to say it aloud, but they without a doubt know those countries are shitholes. It's just another chance for those jackasses to jump at Trump, and he much like the idiot he is obliged.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 12, 2018

Funny that this happened 24 hours after Twitter employees were caught admitting to censoring conservatives, calling conservatives "shitty people."

Also, funny that Bernie Sanders has made the point repeatedly that America needs to model itself more after...wait for it...Norway.

Jan 12, 2018

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
    • 7
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
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).

    • 3
Jan 12, 2018

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.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

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.

    • 7
    • 7
Jan 12, 2018

This really isn't a discussion about facts. These countries are impoverished for various reasons but that doesn't mean our president should refer to them as shit holes in diplomatic meetings, this is a matter of opinion. There is no empirical data that says a president shouldn't do this. As for his last comment on Bernie's fondness for welfare programs vs. Trump's comments, it's spot on. @Dances with Dachshunds" pulled a straw-man that had nothing to do with the subject and tried to frame it within Trump's comments, I think it's fair to question him in light of that reality. Carry on with your war on liberals though.

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

It's not a straw man at all. Norway is Norway because of Norwegians.

Jan 12, 2018

Ok bro, I won't go down this rabbit hole of intellectual dishonesty with you. I just don't care enough.

    • 3
    • 4
Jan 12, 2018

What in the world is this. I spent the last 12 months trying to present facts to the Fox News audience and finally realized I'm preaching to deaf ears. My statement was a judgment of the intellectual dishonesty of Trump apologists, which is fully on display through this, and many other, threads.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 3
Jan 12, 2018
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.

Jan 12, 2018

Hypocrisy? Dude, Bernie Sanders wanting a bunch of welfare has NOTHING.. let me say it again NOTHING to do with Trump's shithole comments and Trump wanting to bring in Norweigans as opposed to Hatians.

Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Hypocrisy? Dude, Bernie Sanders wanting a bunch of welfare has NOTHING.. let me say it again NOTHING to do with Trump's shithole comments and Trump wanting to bring in Norweigans as opposed to Hatians.

Wrong. It's entirely relevant. Bernie Sanders praising overwhelmingly white countries does not make him a white nationalist. Calling a crappy country crappy (which was undiplomatic and stupid of Trump) does not make Trump a racist against Hispanics, blacks, etc

Jan 12, 2018

see my comment above.

Jan 12, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:
BobTheBaker:

Hypocrisy? Dude, Bernie Sanders wanting a bunch of welfare has NOTHING.. let me say it again NOTHING to do with Trump's shithole comments and Trump wanting to bring in Norweigans as opposed to Hatians.

Wrong. It's entirely relevant. Bernie Sanders praising overwhelmingly white countries does not make him a white nationalist. Calling a crappy country crappy (which was undiplomatic and stupid of Trump) does not make Trump a racist against Hispanics, blacks, etc

Before the election, bunch of Hollywood celebrities who live in gated neighborhoods threatened to leave for Canada if Trump won (of course they ended up staying). It's funny that they didn't say they wanted to move to Mexico (which is far closer to LA than Canada is), El Salvador, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, etc. Could it be because they wanted to live in a prosperous peaceful first-world country that is culturally similar to the United States? Is that racist?

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

deleted

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Hypocrisy? Dude, Bernie Sanders wanting a bunch of welfare has NOTHING.. let me say it again NOTHING to do with Trump's shithole comments and Trump wanting to bring in Norweigans as opposed to Hatians.

Well, let's break this down. Liberals effusively praise the Scandinavian countries as economic and social models that we should emulate. In other words, they are "good" countries to live in and not "shitholes." Trump suggests (assuming this is what he really said) that we should focus more on bringing people over from countries like Norway rather than shithole countries. Do liberals not believe that countries such as Haiti, El Salvador, Somalia, are awful places to live in, or do they really think those countries and the likes of Norway are equivalent? If countries such as Haiti are not "shitholes," why do liberals want Temporary Protected Status for the refugees from those countries precisely because those countries are in such bad shape? Again, Trump should not have used that specific word in an immigration negotiation, and he needs to articulate these points in the future. But for the past decade or so, liberals have advocated quasi-open border for Third World countries BECAUSE they are such terrible places, not in spite of them.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

Again, how can seemingly educated intelligent people be so dense? How can three hours a night of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson viewing wreck a previously functioning brain so thoroughly?

No one, including liberals, would argue against the fact that Haiti and other similarly impoverished nations have poor infrastructure, limited social welfare, higher rates of violent crime, etc. that make life for the average citizen tougher than life in many of the developed countries in Europe, for example. Where many of us take issue is with Trump casting off millions of those countries citizens and using embarrassingly trashy language like "shithole" while seated in our country's top diplomatic chair.

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

Couldn't have said it better myself, although I'd add that @Rufus1234" comments didn't have anything to do with dances equating Bernie wanting Norway-level welfare with Trump's comments. Or the ridiculous notion that Bernie Sanders praising Norway's economic policies has anything to do with immigration, which is what Trump was talking about in his comments.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:
onemanwolfpack:

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

Couldn't have said it better myself, although I'd add that @Rufus1234" comments didn't have anything to do with dances equating Bernie wanting Norway-level welfare with Trump's comments. Or the ridiculous notion that Bernie Sanders praising Norway's economic policies has anything to do with immigration, which is what Trump was talking about in his comments.

They aren't exact parallels (what is?) but it's really interesting to me how the Left incessantly praise lily white countries and threaten to move to Canada (not Mexico) should their candidate lose. At our core we are all a basket of contradictions and hypocrisy, but the American Left really does take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy.

Let's just be honest--the Left wants to import leftist voters into America to vote for their left-wing agenda but then they want to live in gated whitewashed communities and to displace black people from their urban homes. Let's just call a spade a spade.

Jan 12, 2018

We get it, you used a straw-man comparison in order to get to the point where you could go on your anti-liberal hypocrisy rant, glad you got that off your chest.

    • 3
Jan 12, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:

At our core we are all a basket of contradictions and hypocrisy, but the American Left really does take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy.

Yes, hypocrisy abounds on both sides. Just like when the "moral majority" spent the Obama years decrying the growing vulgarity of our culture, and then filed out of the church pews to go vote for Shithole von McGrabEmbythePussy. And that is how you play the whataboutism game.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 4
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:
Dances with Dachshunds:

At our core we are all a basket of contradictions and hypocrisy, but the American Left really does take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy.

Yes, hypocrisy abounds on both sides. Just like when the "moral majority" spent the Obama years decrying the growing vulgarity of our culture, and then filed out of the church pews to go vote for Shithole von McGrabEmbythePussy. And that is how you play the whataboutism game.

I love the Left's faux outrage over Trump's "misogyny" while they support the Clintons and Hollywood fully.

Jan 12, 2018

I am probably one of the older members on this site, and I was in elementary school the last time Bill Clinton ran for office. Despite what Fox News tells you every night, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not in fact co-presidents of the United States, but are actually septuagenarian private citizens living in upstate New York.

Trust me that my conscious, and every other Never Trumper under the age 35 is crystal fucking clear.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

I am probably one of the older members on this site, and I was in elementary school the last time Bill Clinton ran for office.

Holy fuck that makes me feel old. I think I was finishing college then. I really have t-shirts older than many on this site.

Jan 12, 2018

"I love the Left's faux outrage over Trump's "misogyny" while they support the Clintons and Hollywood fully."

I legit burst out laughing at that. What does the Hollywood point even mean!? Please explain I can't wait to hear this one.

Jan 13, 2018

What @Dances with Dachshunds" is saying, is that Republicans hate Hollywood so much, they've elected D-list actors to be only 2 of the last 4 Republican Presidents...

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 13, 2018
Ricky Sargulesh:

"I love the Left's faux outrage over Trump's "misogyny" while they support the Clintons and Hollywood fully."

I legit burst out laughing at that. What does the Hollywood point even mean!? Please explain I can't wait to hear this one.

Liberals love to feign moral outrage at Trump's history but they supported Bill Clinton, who's a pervert and a rapist and they love Hollywood, which is filled with perverts, rapists and pedophiles. Pretty straightforward. Did you really need help with this one?

    • 4
Jan 13, 2018
Esuric:
Ricky Sargulesh:

"I love the Left's faux outrage over Trump's "misogyny" while they support the Clintons and Hollywood fully."

I legit burst out laughing at that. What does the Hollywood point even mean!? Please explain I can't wait to hear this one.

Liberals love to feign moral outrage at Trump's history but they supported Bill Clinton, who's a pervert and a rapist and they love Hollywood, which is filled with perverts, rapists and pedophiles. Pretty straightforward. Did you really need help with this one?

Lolll that's the good stuff, better than I expected

Jan 12, 2018

The mental gymnastics going on here is seriously Simone Biles level.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

Again, how can seemingly educated intelligent people be so dense? How can three hours a night of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson viewing wreck a previously functioning brain so thoroughly?

No one, including liberals, would argue against the fact that Haiti and other similarly impoverished nations have poor infrastructure, limited social welfare, higher rates of violent crime, etc. that make life for the average citizen tougher than life in many of the developed countries in Europe, for example. Where many of us take issue is with Trump casting off millions of those countries citizens and using embarrassingly trashy language like "shithole" while seated in our country's top diplomatic chair.

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

I said very clearly that I do not condone the language used. So if the outrage is that Trump used the word "shithole," I totally get it, although it does not warrant the level of hysteria. Is this your only critique? Or do you believe that the United States should import large numbers of low skilled immigrants from poor unstable countries? Do you oppose the merit based system proposed in the RAISE Act, which Democrats oppose?

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

One thing's for certain, chain migration needs to be abolished.

Skilled or unskilled, you don't get to be entitled to become an American just because your idiot cousin managed to slip in and get citizenship.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
    • 1
Jan 13, 2018

This is a classic "move the goalposts" defense of a Trump gaffe. If you peel back his layers of ignorance, crass, and racism, deep down maybe he is getting to a point that conservatives can agree with, and somehow that justifies his original statement. This latest scandal isn't about the merits of chain migration (Trump's mom used chain migration to come to the U.S., FYI), it's about the racist undertones of another brain-dead Trump statement.

If I say "all fat people should be killed", it is not a justifiable statement because obesity is in fact a serious health issue in the U.S.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 12, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

Again, how can seemingly educated intelligent people be so dense? How can three hours a night of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson viewing wreck a previously functioning brain so thoroughly?

You have to actually make your point before you claim victory. Liberals never quite seem to grasp this concept. The whole fox news thing is just a joke at this point. Also, are you going to tell me that Maddow or Cooper are more intellectually honest than Carlson?

onemanwolfpack:

No one, including liberals, would argue against the fact that Haiti and other similarly impoverished nations have poor infrastructure, limited social welfare, higher rates of violent crime, etc. that make life for the average citizen tougher than life in many of the developed countries in Europe, for example.

Yes, by every objective measure, Haiti is an undesirable country to live in. In fact, some would call it a "shithole."

onemanwolfpack:

Where many of us take issue is with Trump casting off millions of those countries citizens and using embarrassingly trashy language like "shithole" while seated in our country's top diplomatic chair.

  1. There's absolutely no evidence that he actually said this. At this point, it's merely another unsubstantiated accusation. Pure hearsay. The fact that the media completely ran with it does not make it true. Believing so would ignore the countless times the media had it completely wrong about what the president actually said.

Examples of the media lying:

  • The fake removal of the MLK bust
  • The false Trump Jr. / WikiLeaks coordination
  • False claims of Nancy Sinatra complaining about the inaugural ball
  • False claim that Trump had "purged" any "climate change references" from the white house website
  • The false renaming black history month story
  • Most recently the false story of Trump banning 7 words (fetus, vulnerable, science based, etc.) at the CDC

There are countless examples but at that this point, you simply cannot trust what the media reports about this president. They've never had a track record this bad, implying serious conflict of interest here by an objective standard.

  1. If said, it was done completely behind close doors. It's important to have historical context here:
  • "I'll have those ni***rs voting democratic for the next 200 years" - LBJ
  • "Do you have blacks, too?" - Bush 42
  • "I went ni**** chasing again on Monday. Right through Central Africa: Vine St. There was no trace of the Nelson ni****." - Truman
  • "African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do" - Clinton

And this is only modern presidents. You should read the shit the founders said. The point, this is nothing, even in the context of what modern American presidents have said behind closed doors.

  1. The media is reporting this simply to paint their narrative of the president being a racist. Stephanopolous, John Legend and others have already come out on TV openly calling the president a racist. But, as you yourself readily acknowledge, Haiti, by all objective measures, is a shithole. You may not use that exact word, but you don't disagree with the sentiment.
onemanwolfpack:

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

Nah, it's just the same tired old game liberals play over and over again with all conservatives. Never ending hysteria, moralizing, shaming and ridiculing. It's tiresome really.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

"At this point, it's merely another unsubstantiated accusation. Pure hearsay"

A sitting senator with far more credibility than Donald Trump has, on the record, stated that he said this.

Don't even want to get into the "is Trump racist" argument, you can make your own conclusion based on his extensive and well-recorded past. The central park five case is especially illuminating.

ps. What's the point of quoting presidents from the 50s and 60s? Yea, they may be "modern" but I think we can all agree that the way race and racism is looked upon in America has taken a dramatic turn since then.

    • 1
    • 4
Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:

"At this point, it's merely another unsubstantiated accusation. Pure hearsay"

A sitting senator with far more credibility than Donald Trump has, on the record, stated that he said this.

Don't even want to get into the "is Trump racist" argument, you can make your own conclusion based on his extensive and well-recorded past. The central park five case is especially illuminating.

ps. What's the point of quoting presidents from the 50s and 60s? Yea, they may be "modern" but I think we can all agree that the way race and racism is looked upon in America has taken a dramatic turn since then.

Nah, there's no credibility in this atmosphere. It's obvious that there is and has been a coordinated move against the president, at the federal and state level, from the Democratic party. It's becoming more and more obvious with the text messages uncovered and testimony provided.

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

Lmao, okay man. Believe what you will. Interesting that the Republican senators in the room, or the President, have not outright rejected the claims. The white house itself did not reject the claim in their initial response. Instead they deflected and said while others are fighting for other countries Trump is concerned with America. But of course, it's all media lies and deep state conpiracies.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
Esuric:
onemanwolfpack:

Again, how can seemingly educated intelligent people be so dense? How can three hours a night of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson viewing wreck a previously functioning brain so thoroughly?

You have to actually make your point before you claim victory. Liberals never quite seem to grasp this concept. The whole fox news thing is just a joke at this point. Also, are you going to tell me that Maddow or Cooper are more intellectually honest than Carlson?

onemanwolfpack:

No one, including liberals, would argue against the fact that Haiti and other similarly impoverished nations have poor infrastructure, limited social welfare, higher rates of violent crime, etc. that make life for the average citizen tougher than life in many of the developed countries in Europe, for example.

Yes, by every objective measure, Haiti is an undesirable country to live in. In fact, some would call it a "shithole."

onemanwolfpack:

Where many of us take issue is with Trump casting off millions of those countries citizens and using embarrassingly trashy language like "shithole" while seated in our country's top diplomatic chair.

  1. There's absolutely no evidence that he actually said this. At this point, it's merely another unsubstantiated accusation. Pure hearsay. The fact that the media completely ran with it does not make it true. Believing so would ignore the countless times the media had it completely wrong about what the president actually said.

Examples of the media lying:

  • The fake removal of the MLK bust
  • The false Trump Jr. / WikiLeaks coordination
  • False claims of Nancy Sinatra complaining about the inaugural ball
  • False claim that Trump had "purged" any "climate change references" from the white house website
  • The false renaming black history month story
  • Most recently the false story of Trump banning 7 words (fetus, vulnerable, science based, etc.) at the CDC

There are countless examples but at that this point, you simply cannot trust what the media reports about this president. They've never had a track record this bad, implying serious conflict of interest here by an objective standard.

  1. If said, it was done completely behind close doors. It's important to have historical context here:
  • "I'll have those ni***rs voting democratic for the next 200 years" - LBJ
  • "Do you have blacks, too?" - Bush 42
  • "I went ni**** chasing again on Monday. Right through Central Africa: Vine St. There was no trace of the Nelson ni****." - Truman
  • "African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do" - Clinton

And this is only modern presidents. You should read the shit the founders said. The point, this is nothing, even in the context of what modern American presidents have said behind closed doors.

  1. The media is reporting this simply to paint their narrative of the president being a racist. Stephanopolous, John Legend and others have already come out on TV openly calling the president a racist. But, as you yourself readily acknowledge, Haiti, but all objective measures, is a shithole. You may not use that exact word, but you don't disagree with the sentiment.
onemanwolfpack:

I assume you already know this and could see the nuance I am highlighting if you wanted to. Instead, Trump apologists play the deflection and whataboutism game until the news cycle dies and we're onto the next Trump gaffe.

Nah, it's just the same tired old game liberals play over and over again with all conservatives. Never ending hysteria, moralizing, shaming and ridiculing. It's tiresome really.

People who act like Trump's words and actions are unprecedented in American presidential history really need to get their heads out of their ass.

Just a few examples.

Andrew Jackson: kicked thousands of Native Americans off their lands and sent them on a gruesome Trail of Tears.

Abraham Lincoln: said numerous disparaging comments about black slaves and their inability to govern themselves.

Woodrow Wilson: vehement racist and anti-Semite, complained about the South losing the Civil War, and screened "Birth of a Nation" in the White House.

FDR: openly said that Jews and Japanese cannot be good trusted Americans; ordered the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese people living in the West Coast, two-thirds of whom were citizens.

JFK: used the White House as his personal harem, including seducing and sleeping with a college intern he met in the White House swimming pool

LBJ: took his dick out during a Cabinet meeting when asked why he wants to fight in Vietnam

Nixon: Watergate, series of vile racist comments

Clinton: had sexual relations with an intern half his age, committed perjury and obstruction of justice

Obama: used the IRS to target conservative groups, instructed the DOJ to monitor former FOX reporter James Rosen, allowed Hezbollah to import cocaine into the U.S. in order to appease Iran for the nuclear deal, selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels

No one is saying that Trump is an angel. Yes, he is vulgar, lacks self-control, and says a lot of dumb shit. But historical perspective is needed here.

Jan 12, 2018

"Obama: used the IRS to target conservative groups, instructed the DOJ to monitor former FOX reporter James Rosen, allowed Hezbollah to import cocaine into the U.S. in order to appease Iran for the nuclear deal, selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels"

I just want to get this straight, Obama personally ordered all of that? Can you please source it? You honestly read like an Alex Jones excerpt

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
Che Rand:

"Obama: used the IRS to target conservative groups, instructed the DOJ to monitor former FOX reporter James Rosen, allowed Hezbollah to import cocaine into the U.S. in order to appease Iran for the nuclear deal, selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels"

I just want to get this straight, Obama personally ordered all of that? Can you please source it? You honestly read like an Alex Jones excerpt

IRS and DOJ are parts of the Executive branch, which ultimately report to POTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-i...
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-h...

Jan 12, 2018
Rufus1234:
Che Rand:

"Obama: used the IRS to target conservative groups, instructed the DOJ to monitor former FOX reporter James Rosen, allowed Hezbollah to import cocaine into the U.S. in order to appease Iran for the nuclear deal, selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels"

I just want to get this straight, Obama personally ordered all of that? Can you please source it? You honestly read like an Alex Jones excerpt

IRS and DOJ are parts of the Executive branch, which ultimately report to POTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-i...
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-h...

We're talking direct words and actions by the president and you pull this out as a comparison... oh man. Do you get tired of being full of shit? Serious question.

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:
Rufus1234:
Che Rand:

"Obama: used the IRS to target conservative groups, instructed the DOJ to monitor former FOX reporter James Rosen, allowed Hezbollah to import cocaine into the U.S. in order to appease Iran for the nuclear deal, selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels"

I just want to get this straight, Obama personally ordered all of that? Can you please source it? You honestly read like an Alex Jones excerpt

IRS and DOJ are parts of the Executive branch, which ultimately report to POTUS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-i...
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-h...

We're talking direct words and actions by the president and you pull this out as a comparison... oh man. Do you get tired of being full of shit? Serious question.

Yeah man, I'm sure the President's inner memos to heads of various agencies are gonna spill out into the public. You looking for a direct quote from Obama? You being serious? You are telling me that Obama had no idea what his cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies were doing with respect to major operations? Come on man.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018

Do you secretly lace the insides of all your hats with tin foil?

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 2
    • 3
Jan 13, 2018

There's no actual evidence that Trump actually said this but we're supposed to just take the media's word on it, though they're almost always wrong (another fake news story out about Trump banging a porn star).

With Obama scandals, we have actually evidence, but we're supposed to just ignore it because we don't have a formal confession from him.

Liberal speak at its finest folks.

Jan 13, 2018

Lol, fake news story. Rumors about that chic and Trump had been floating around for 5+ years before he became president. I mean idc if he fucked some pornstar behind his wife's back so it's a non-story but who would be surprised if it's true? I mean come on. Again, a sitting senator has come out and generally corroborated the story and not a single republican senator who was in that room has outright rejected it. That fact speaks for itself.

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

We're whipping out the actions of presidents from the 1800s now. Oh man...

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

Historical context is important, damnit!!!!!!

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:

We're whipping out the actions of presidents from the 1800s now. Oh man...

1800's until recent history. I just wanted to provide a historical context about presidential behavior and words in light of the liberal hysteria regarding Trump.

Jan 13, 2018

What presidents did in the 1800s, or even in the 50s, is entirely irrelevant to how a president in 2018 is supposed to conduct himself.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 13, 2018
BobTheBaker:

What presidents did in the 1800s, or even in the 50s, is entirely irrelevant to how a president in 2018 is supposed to conduct himself.

Many in the Left argue that Trump's behavior and words are unprecedented in U.S. presidential history and that he presents a unique threat to the country, moreso than any other President before him. In order to defend that assertion, it is imperative to look at past Presidents and do a direct historical comparison.

In addition, you presuppose that there exists an objective criteria by which Presidents should think, act, and talk. I disagree on that front.

Jan 12, 2018
BobTheBaker:

We're whipping out the actions of presidents from the 1800s now. Oh man...

kicking things off with andrew jackson killed me

Jan 12, 2018

Gotta love the cowardice of Cotton and Perdue..

"Don't recall" is the lamest lie that a politician can say.

    • 2
Jan 12, 2018

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),

    • 7
Jan 12, 2018

Puerto Rico ain't a country either. I'm just glad to have visited one in each tier. I feel prestigious.

Jan 12, 2018

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

    • 6
    • 2
Jan 13, 2018
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!

    • 3
    • 2
Jan 13, 2018

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.

    • 2
Jan 13, 2018

I love the cognitive dissonance associated with the shitlibs who start getting the vapors when they hear someone call murder capital of the world El Salvador a "shithole," but then they'll turn right around and talk about how the South is a shithole filled with rednecks and idiots. It's truly amazing...

    • 7
    • 4
Jan 13, 2018

sick to the back teeth of political correctness. call a spade a spade.

Jan 14, 2018

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."

    • 3
    • 2
Jan 14, 2018

Basically sums up the political climate in this country right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXzPB69r9II
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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98S5w-zgIrE

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 14, 2018

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.

    • 5
    • 2
Jan 14, 2018
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.

    • 2
Jan 14, 2018
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.

    • 3
Jan 14, 2018
iBankedUp:
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.

But Trump did not attack the people in those countries, unless you believe describing a given country as an awful place is automatically equivalent to making a racist attack on its people. For instance, if I described South Side Chicago as a shithole, that does not mean I'm a racist because South Side is comprised of mostly blacks. It's a shithole due to high crime and poverty, not because the people who live there are black. The difference between Trump and actual racists such as David Duke/Richard Spencer/Jared Taylor and their ilk are that the latter believe that whites are genetically superior to non-whites and that America belongs to them. I have yet to see a statement or policy that Trump has espoused, that adheres to such a worldview.

Now, the counter-argument is that by questioning why we let in so many from shithole countries, Trump is explicitly attacking the people from those countries who want to come here. I don't think that's the case, at least based upon what we have so far. Let's say the Democrats were refusing to modify their stance on visa lotteries, something conservatives want to eliminate because it amounts to immigration "affirmative action," whereby poor unstable countries are automatically allocated a fixed number of slots. This invariably hurts talented immigrants from other countries, as the U.S. has a quota on the # of legal immigrants who can move here. So in the midst of this negotiation, Trump is frustrated and can't understand why Democrats insist on keeping visa lotteries as well as chain migration and blurts out the shithole comment. Trump does not get why people should have an advantage in the immigration queue simply because their country is awful. Do I wish he used the term "Third World," or "poor" instead? Sure, as shithole is a vulgar word (although the Left and the media grossly exaggerate how bad this word is, since every single person has used this word numerous times), I prefer he didn't say it. But would the Left be reacting differently if he used the term "Third World" instead? I doubt it. The narrative would have been, "Trump is a racist elitist who doesn't want poor people in America!!!" Trump is in a lose-lose situation here, because the Left wants open borders, so anyone who is opposed to it, will be branded as a racist. The Democrats have not engaged in an honest debate regarding the RAISE Act; their narrative has been amnesty and citizenship for illegals, period.

You argue that Trump should have started with the merit based argument from the beginning? This is a confusing point, as Trump has advocated a merit system from the start of his presidential campaign. Moreover, he never said that we should let in skilled immigrants only from white countries, so again, the notion that Trump's immigration policy is race based, is false. The RAISE Act actually would benefit non-whites more than whites since it would open up the system to people based on an objective point based system, without regard to country or regional quotas, and as you are very well aware, there are way more non-whites than whites in the world.

Quite frankly, arguing over this is unproductive because none of us were in that room, and we do not have a full transcript. I think we should have a vigorous debate on immigration policy, but the shithole hysteria is an attempt to garner higher ratings and fan the flames of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The ultimate goal is to use the shithole scandal to shut down negotiation with the GOP because the Democrats' long-term political strategy rests on giving citizenship to illegal aliens.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2018

Trust me, the second immigrants start voting Republican you'll see the Dems become xenophobic monsters.

Jan 14, 2018

I have no issue with the point system. My whole point is hold Trump accountable, because it works. Bannon was a rising member in American politics at an astonishing rate, but he's now no longer even a part of the media organization that gave him his start. I'm overall happy with the way Trump's presidency has gone, because the American system has held up through some really horrible shit, from Bernie Sander's insane communist ideas, to Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer holding some powerful platforms in Washington and on the march, demonstrating their nonexistent, perceived 'rights'.

If Trump talked about me like that to my face, I might put a shiner on his face. I will criticize him for the foolery he pulls, just like Jeff Flake recently said. There's no point to me in having a blind eye, irrespective with what Trump does. And the media deserves a fucking Nobel Peace prize for how it has conducted its efforts around this crazy political arena, that has seen idiot populists rise to the mainstream, but are now retreating a bit.

    • 2
Jan 14, 2018

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.

Jan 15, 2018

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.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 15, 2018

Cool lol.

Jan 14, 2018

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.

Jan 14, 2018

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.

Jan 15, 2018

Republicans are doing a great job of casting doubt on the statements while also not actually denying they were made. A homeland security secretary said she didn't remember him saying those words lmao.

Jan 15, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Republicans are doing a great job of casting doubt on the statements while also not actually denying they were made. A homeland security secretary said she didn't remember him saying those words lmao.

I mean, what a moronic sentiment you just put forth. There were two sets of people in the meeting--Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats are sworn to Trump's destruction and the Republicans aren't, so who in the Hell do you expect to cast doubt on the Democrats' reports? I mean, Jesus Christ...

Jan 15, 2018

Dude, what? My point is they aren't ACTUALLY rejecting his words outright. This, in and of itself, is telling. Senator Graham, who has great credibility, basically corroborated the stories. Moronic sentiment.... whatever bro.

    • 1
Jan 15, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Dude, what? My point is they aren't ACTUALLY rejecting his words outright. This, in and of itself, is telling. Senator Graham, who has great credibility, basically corroborated the stories. Moronic sentiment.... whatever bro.

1) Nobody thinks Lindsey Graham is credible except those who support his terrible public policy positions; 2) The comment's existence was outright rejected by another Republican senator in the meeting and questioned by another: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/14/politics/david-perdu...
Genuinely curious: what's it like to look in the mirror each morning knowing that you're a pathological liar?

Jan 15, 2018

1.) Lindsey Graham is credible in that he's not a Trump sycophant, something you've criticized others on this forum for being.
2.) You have a republican senator who gains nothing by corroborating a democrat, he did so anyway. How many dems are corroborating Perdue's version of events? Zero.
3.) Perdue originally said he "did not recall" (which is a fucking cop out) and now he is flipping to he didn't use the phrase "shithole countries"... so he originally couldn't remember but now remembers with great specificity. Sounds like bullshit to me.

So, the question is, who do you believe? A President who is the least credible person in Washington and a Republican senator who has changed his tune or a democrat and a republican who is known for openly calling Trump on his bullshit? I guess it depends on the party you support (even though someone from your own party seems to validate the truth of the story).

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on "Fox News Sunday" that she did not recall Trump saying "that exact phrase.""

I mean look at this bullshit, they are unilaterally zeroing in on "that exact phrase" without denying the spirit of the story (Trump thinks of these countries as shitholes and the people from them shouldn't be allowed to come in while those from Norway should). Of course the quote may not be perfect, doesn't make the story false. Perhaps he said these "places" are "shitholes" rather than "countries". This is the bullshit political lawyer speak game of zeroing in on "exact phrase". Total joke.

    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
BobTheBaker:

1.) Lindsey Graham is credible in that he's not a Trump sycophant, something you've criticized others on this forum for being.

No, Lindsey Graham has been an opponent of Trump since the day Trump announced his bid for the GOP nomination. Despite what you believe, there are a ton of outright opponents of Trump in the Republican Party, Graham and McCain among them.

BobTheBaker:

2.) You have a republican senator who gains nothing by corroborating a democrat, he did so anyway. How many dems are corroborating Perdue's version of events? Zero.
3.) Perdue originally said he "did not recall" (which is a fucking cop out) and now he is flipping to he didn't use the phrase "shithole countries"... so he originally couldn't remember but now remembers with great specificity. Sounds like bullshit to me.

The only people you have corroborating the account are Trump opponents and the only people you have denying the account are Trump supporters. In other words, this is a he said/she said account.

BobTheBaker:

So, the question is who do you believe? A President who is the least credible person in Washington and a Republican senator who has changed his tune or a democrat and a republican who is known for openly calling Trump on his bullshit? I guess it depends on the party you support (even though someone from your own party seems to validate the truth of the story).

I very much believe Trump is capable of making the comment. But the idea that the comment is a verified fact is an utter lie. That's a lie. It's simply false to say that there is "no doubt" to the comment. The comment was "verified" only by Trump opponents.

BobTheBaker:

"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on "Fox News Sunday" that she did not recall Trump saying "that exact phrase.""

I mean look at this bullshit, they are unilaterally zeroing in on "that exact phrase" without denying the spirit of the story (Trump thinks of these countries as shitholes and the people from them shouldn't be allowed to come in while those from Norway should). Of course the quote may not be perfect, doesn't make the story false.

In other words, the story is false. You think for one second this story is controversial if Trump used diplomatic language to make the same argument? Give me a fucking break.

Jan 15, 2018

You're not understanding, they didn't deny him using the word "shithole" to describe those places, they denied him using the exact phrase "shithole countries". You see how this game is played? They've now cast doubt without even saying much of anything. So you believe Graham would go against his fellow Republican senators and outright lie and corroborate a Democrat because he hates Trump that much? Come on. I'm not saying there's 100% no doubt, it's possible the media, Graham, and democrats are lying and Trump and Perdue are telling the truth. Possible and very unlikely.

    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
BobTheBaker:

So you believe Graham would go against his fellow Republican senators and outright lie and corroborate a Democrat because he hates Trump that much?

Absolutely. If you've followed the Graham/Trump saga the last 2 1/2 years you'd know they are bitter enemies, no less enemies than Durbin/Trump, and possibly more so. Again, I think Trump probably made disparaging comments, but to assert that those comments are facts and are not in dispute is a demonstrable lie as they've only been verified by Trump opponents.

Jan 15, 2018

BTB can't imagine a situation where a Illinois Republican would misrepresent what the most hated man in ILi would say. Just believes as gospel whatever CNN puts out.

People can hate Trump, fine, but believing Durbin and CNN like it is a reputable source is pathetic.

Jan 15, 2018

Welcome back @TNA

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 15, 2018

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.

Jan 15, 2018
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.

    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
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.

Jan 15, 2018
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.

    • 4
Jan 15, 2018

The great Martin Luther King's niece on the racism allegations against Trump.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/13/alveda-king-...

    • 1
Jan 15, 2018

I'll take "what is the appeal to authority fallacy" for 500 points Alex.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
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.

Jan 15, 2018

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.

Jan 15, 2018
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."

Jan 15, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:
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."

Senator Dick Durbin has a history of lying about what is said in private meetings. For instance, in 2013, Durbin claimed that a House GOP leader told President Obama, "I can't stand to even look you in the face." This claim was refuted by Obama officials, including then Press Secretary Jay Carney, as well as Democrats who were at that meeting.

In 2010, Durbin publicly opposed chain migration. Now, he's saying that the term is offensive to blacks because it reminds them of slavery. Good lord.

Let's be clear about this. We have conflicting accounts from different people. Perdue and Cotton denied that Trump said that word. Graham said that the account was "basically accurate." Durbin insists that Trump used the word, "shithole." Trump denies it. And since there is no transcript of the meeting, none of us in this discussion knows what truly happened.

Liberals have done a great disservice to this nation by throwing around the word "raicst," rendering it meaningless, and using it to carpet bomb conservatives with the charge. This played an important role in the election of Trump.

Jan 15, 2018

If Trump said "shithole" about these countries on national TV, I would be upset to. He said it in private, at a working event.

And does anything think Durbin would want a boatload of fresh Haitians living near him? Or that southern boy Graham doesn't say the same thing in private?

I hope someone records Durbin talking shit in private. Fucking snake.

Jan 15, 2018
TNA:

If Trump said "shithole" about these countries on national TV, I would be upset to. He said it in private, at a working event.

And does anything think Durbin would want a boatload of fresh Haitians living near him? Or that southern boy Graham doesn't say the same thing in private?

I hope someone records Durbin talking shit in private. Fucking snake.

Correct. There is a substantive distinction between saying it to denigrate foreign dignitaries and leaders or saying it in a public speech on one hand and saying it in private. Presidents are human beings and say all sorts of vulgar shit in private. The Democratic aide who leaked it obviously did so to hurt Trump and torpedo the negotiation because Trump is not going to give them blanket amnesty and citizenship for illegals. If the aide were an honest broker who simply wanted to add transparency to the process, he would have leaked an entire transcript or at the very least divulged more of the context.

Jan 15, 2018

@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.

Jan 15, 2018

Lol, half of these are bullshit or unverified claims awash in Trump sycophancy. Welcome back @TNA!!!

    • 1
Jan 15, 2018

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.

Jan 15, 2018

1.) CNN reported that Manafort had been the target of a special warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, before and after the 2016 presidential election. The exact dates of his surveillance are unclear: CNN reported it began sometime after the FBI opened an investigation into his political consulting in 2014, ended in May of 2016, and then resumed sometime after the November election. Additionally, the standards for obtaining a FISA warrant are so high that I find it hard to believe one dossier was the sole justification or even the major driver of obtaining such a warrant, as you imply.

So this FISA thing began before Fusion GPS, before he was even involved in the election.

2.) Trump was not spyed on, FISA was used to tap foreign agents associated with Manafort. Thank goodness we did that, he is a slimeball who now has criminal charges levied upon him.

3.) There is no indication that you need to do something "illegal" to be impeached, Congress can simply decide you are unfit for office. Forgive me if Trump appears unfit given his constant ramblings and incoherence.

4.) You continue to push this deep state conspiracy bullshit. The FBI, NSA, and CIA all agree that Russia hacked the dnc and released information to the masses in order to help Trump win the election.

  1. ) Your claim that "Democrats are working with Russia to destroy and weaken this nation" is a total joke not worth entertaining with any response other than laughter.

Welcome back @TNA!!!

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 15, 2018

It is pointless arguing with you because of how uninformed you are. Annoying to the max.

1) Numerous members of Trumps team were spied on, not just Manafort.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/351495-it-look...
"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. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted "unmasking," or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive, their names are supposed to be hidden or "masked," even inside the government, to protect their privacy."

So yes, Trumps campaign was surveilled. We still don't know the full details, especially since what happens keeps evolving. And I am sorry, but when you are monitoring multiple members of Trumps team, you are spying on the man himself.

2) What did you just say??? No need to do something illegal to be impeached. Are you serious??

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/2/e...
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

These are all crimes. You are probably talking about the 25th Amendment.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/10...
And this also doesn't apply. Trump isn't "unfit" he simply say shit people don't like.

4) DNC =/= the election. Sorry, try again. Maybe you can stretch the truth and claim wikileaks is a Russian front (even though it has been refuted with now hard evidence).

And if you paid attention during the election, you would remember that none of the mainstream media outlets gave the Podesta emails any airtime. But keep holding on to that flame.

5) Democrats are the ones pushing the narrative that the US is a banana republic for electing Trump. Democrats are the ones talking about removing a lawfully elected person from office. If that isn't weakening the US on the world stage, I don't know what is.

How about this. Suppose Putin did mastermind the election. How about both parties not air our dirty laundry on the national stage. How about the deal with it in secret.

What is sad is you just are too happy to believe anything that fits your narrative. What is dangerous is how this behavior has lead us into Iraq. How believing what our infallible intelligence community says without question.

Or how you absolutely believe Trump worked with Russia, but whenever the claim is made about HRC, you think it is a joke. How naive are you?

Jan 15, 2018

You call me uninformed, I call you a sycophant, blah blah, let's get to the meat of the issues.

1.) I understand Manafort was not the only one surveilled, my point is this thing began prior to the campaing and incidentally capturing multiple transition officers is going to happen when you're surveilling foreign agents and said officers are in contact with those foreign agents. I mean duh? You admit you don't have all the info yet you were running with the Fusion GPS being the main/ sole reason for them being able to obtain the FISA warrants.... but we don't have all the info, cool.

The officials you cited who were under surveillance have criminal charges levied upon them now, I believe... what a coincedence.

2.) The first federal official ever removed from office under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution -- the impeachment clause -- was Judge John Pickering, in 1803. Pickering was an alcoholic and likely suffered from early-stage dementia. Yea bro, you can remove Trump from office based on him being unfit for office, there is precedent for this.

In his 1833 Commentaries, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story concluded that impeachment is "of a political character" and can be triggered by "gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office."

What is clear is that high crimes and misdemeanors described far more than mere legal infractions. In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote that questions of impeachment will "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."

Asked, for instance, about a president who removed executive officials without good reason, James Madison replied that "the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal."

"The grounds for impeachment can be extremely broad and need not involve a crime," says political scientist Allan Lichtman, author of The Case for Impeachment. "That's why they put impeachment not in the courts but in a political body. They could have put it in the Supreme Court, but they put it in the Senate."

3.) Lmao, you hack the DNC and release the information during the election and your allegation is that the DNC hack had nothing to do with the election? Okay bro. It doesn't really matter if the media gave the emails any airtime. Doesn't change the conclusion that the FBI/ CIA/ NSA have agreed upon: Russia hacked the DNC and released damaging information in order to assist Trump in getting elected.

4.) This is drivel, you stated that "democrats are colluding with Russia" based on nothing and I called it out as bullshit because it is based on nothing.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 15, 2018
TNA:

@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.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 4
    • 3
Jan 16, 2018

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.

Jan 16, 2018

Level with me, man. Are you Brady4MVP? Can't be two people this out of touch with reality on the same website.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 3
Jan 16, 2018

Crazy?

1) Do you deny that the intelligence agencies pushed false information that led us into Iraw? Do you deny they have spied on innocent American citizens? Do you deny they used this shit GPS report that even HRC passed on as basis to spy on a presidential campaign.

Furthermore, has our intelligence agencies not influenced other elections, run guns/drugs, whatever, caused all kinds of maybe around the world?

2) Should 25 year plus trade deals not be renegotiated? How many transactions you know go 25 years before being recut. Has technology or the world not changed in almost 3 decades?

3) Mental decline. Cool opinion. I guess we should have an age cap on elected officials. Because plenty of Democrats have gaffes as well. I'll listen to trained doctors over you.

4) Hurt the US image? By doing what? Not bending over and taking it? The UN fucks over Israel and we should keep funding them? NATO doesn't pay their fair share, but we should keep shouldering them? Please.

This is some comical shit. Thanks for the laugh. Trust in the CIA/NSA my friend as they fuck your civil right and lie to get the US to spend trillions and watch how many innocent people die and get mangled. Sounds like a group of people I should kiss ass on a regular basis.

Jan 15, 2018

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 Circuit[a] 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.

Jan 15, 2018

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...
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!!!

Jan 15, 2018

1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier...
"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/chris...
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.

Jan 15, 2018

1.) Part of the justification... never argued against that. Here is what you said: FISA was used to spy on Trump, based off of an unverified and fake document. There is no nuance here, not partly based on, no acknowledgement of other evidence used to obtain the FISA warrant. That's where I take issue and call that statement sycophancy.

2.) My point is that it is up for interpretation, and it is, whether I advocate for it or not is entirely irrelevant.

I've said all I need to say on these topics. Have a good one.

    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
Jan 15, 2018

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 15, 2018
Jan 15, 2018

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 16, 2018

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 2