Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[The Esk]

It's not as straightforward as that.



He's trying to bait you into the anchor baby debate.

I'd rather you didn't use such pejorative terms as "anchor baby". It is telling though that Trump would like to remove the nationality rights of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States.

 

[Mountfield1985]

I don't think he has, can someone provide me with the evidence that he is any of the above??

What you define as racist doesn't necessarily mean what I define as racist

Clearly.

I know you'll argue the toss about race but I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can think wanting to ban Muslims from your country, and building a giant wall to keep the Mexicans out isn't racist.

As for sexism, well off the top of my head I remember his tweet about how Hilary Clinton can't satisfy the country if she can't even satisfy her husband, or saying there has to be some sort of "punishment" for women who get an abortion. Not to mention everything that came out from pre-campaign, boasting about sexual assaults, boasting about how he's going to "date" that 10 year old girl in a few years, and so on.

 

[Connor]

Well done, America.

Trump reportedly 'unfamiliar' with scope of Presidency when meeting Obama.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-obama-meeting-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

President-elect Donald Trump celebrated his status as a Washington outsider during his campaign for the presidency.

But his lack of familiarity with the US government is coming into view as he transitions to the White House.

During Trump's private meeting with President Barack Obama on Thursday, Trump "seemed surprised" by the scope of the president's responsibilities, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.

According to The Journal, Trump's aides were also apparently unaware that the entire staff of the president working in the White House's West Wing would need to be replaced.

Obama reportedly will spend more time counselling Trump about the presidency than most presidents do with their successors.

Trump and Obama were highly critical of each other during the campaign season but appear to have struck a conciliatory tone since Trump's election, at least publicly.

"I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed, because if you succeed, then the country succeeds," Obama told Trump in front of reporters on Thursday. Trump called Obama "a very good man" during the session.

You've elected an absolute idiot as the World's most powerful man.

 

[abelard]

I get what you're saying, but these are difficult times not just in the US but in the world in general. If banning everybody from a certain country or countries for a short period of time while the government sets up stringent security and background checks is what he deems necessary to protect the people of the US, then so be it. You surely can't agree with just letting people in without being severely checked, right? Isn't it about time some pressure was place on those absolutely stinking rich gulf countries to take refugees in, you know, the ones just a stones throw away from Iraq and Syria? Nobody in their right mind could surely support taking in so many refugees from thousands of miles away, when it has been proven that terrorists have hidden amongst them to kill many innocent people in Europe. Muslims won't be banned indefinitely from the US, regardless of what anybody says. But while it is impossible to accurately check who the hell they are, there can be no way of allowing them to enter the country. Does that make the President-elect a racist? Or did I understand something incorrectly?

what makes you think people entering the US aren't already severely checked? have you ever tried to immigrate there? or even get a tourist visa if you're from a non-majority white country?

 

[Moomin]

I get what you're saying, but these are difficult times not just in the US but in the world in general. If banning everybody from a certain country or countries for a short period of time while the government sets up stringent security and background checks is what he deems necessary to protect the people of the US, then so be it. You surely can't agree with just letting people in without being severely checked, right? Isn't it about time some pressure was place on those absolutely stinking rich gulf countries to take refugees in, you know, the ones just a stones throw away from Iraq and Syria? Nobody in their right mind could surely support taking in so many refugees from thousands of miles away, when it has been proven that terrorists have hidden amongst them to kill many innocent people in Europe. Muslims won't be banned indefinitely from the US, regardless of what anybody says. But while it is impossible to accurately check who the hell they are, there can be no way of allowing them to enter the country. Does that make the President-elect a racist? Or did I understand something incorrectly?

Think the likes of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in a good few million refugees. Think it's also a bit of fear mongering to say terrorists are hiding amongst the refugees, at the end of the day they are families driven from their home due to a war and want themselves and family to be safe.

 

[Nil Satis Niasse Optimum]

what makes you think people entering the US aren't already severely checked? have you ever tried to immigrate there? or even get a tourist visa if you're from a non-majority white country?

Many of these people have little to no paperwork with them due to fleeing (genuinely enough too, in most cases, but not all, hence the issue) war in their home countries. Thus checking their backgrounds is no easy feat, as proven in Europe several times over the past year (there is your proof). Paris attackers came under the guise of a refugee (proven) and helped kill over 100 people (fact). Until they can be 100% sure those claiming asylum are genuine then I support their ban.

 

[SNova]

I'd rather you didn't use such pejorative terms as "anchor baby". It is telling though that Trump would like to remove the nationality rights of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States.

Apologies I wasn't aware it was a pejorative term. I don't agree with the premise that illegal immigrants can simply have their child in America and then the child is automatically an American.

That will result in more illegals.

 

[abelard]

Many of these people have little to no paperwork with them due to fleeing (genuinely enough too, in most cases, but not all, hence the issue) war in their home countries. Thus checking their backgrounds is no easy feat, as proven in Europe several times over the past year (there is your proof). Paris attackers came under the guise of a refugee (proven) and helped kill over 100 people (fact). Until they can be 100% sure those claiming asylum are genuine then I support their ban.

more lies from the mainstream media, I assume
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...efugees-didnt-commit-the-paris-attacks-229150

"“Two Syrian refugees were involved in the attack of Paris [of 11/13]” — Mike Pence

Governor Pence is wrong: None of the Paris attackers were Syrian refugees. And though a Syrian passport was found at the scene of the crime, it was fake.

Top officials, including European Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, have said that all the attackers were EU citizens: Most of the attackers were actually born in either Belgium or France — including the ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was born in a suburb of Brussels.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think Trump is both much cleverer and more dangerous than most of the commentary treats him. There seems to be a disjuncture between those that take him literally or seriously, with much of the ruling class taking him literally and many of the voters taking him seriously, but the correct analysis lies in seeing him as both.

On election as a man who frankly doesn't have the support of most of the GOP and wants to move particularly trade policy away from much of their free market vision there would inevitably be a clash. He either had the option of moderating and essentially being the front man to sugar coat a more traditional message, or doing it his own way. He looks to be going down his own route.

His moving of the guy from Breitbart (name escapes me) to a senior position is a very significant moment. I would call this guy quite a hardened fascist, with clearly white supremacist views and also openly anti-Semitic. Whereas Trump has almost a comical racism the guy he's promoted has a very well thought out theory, leads a social movement and has racism well integrated into his world view.

The promotion of him will not go down well with the GOP who are not, however much one disagrees with them a Fascistic organisation. What it indicates to me is that Trump will want to keep the social movement that elected him in tact and may well look to go over the heads of the other elected Republicans. The "alt right" forces that are assembled will give him foot soldiers in order to do this.

Primarily I would say this is a smart call for Trump. Obama had a big movement but one which he didn't use effectively and who came increasingly disaffected within his Premiership. I think Trump understands the need of a mass movement and to not be seen as a distant president. His comments about not always being in the White House are construed as a disrespectful comment towards the Presidency they are in fact a more close reality to how he wishes to govern, in a maverick manner bolstered by a movement below.

The worrying part is that he will be mobilising groups and forces that we find very distasteful (groups such as the KKK) and are a major danger to women, none white people but also ordinary working people who are trying to strive for better conditions in their workplace.

As indicated in the first sentence, Trump is cleverer than most give him credit for but also more dangerous.

 

[Nil Satis Niasse Optimum]

Think the likes of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in a good few million refugees. Think it's also a bit of fear mongering to say terrorists are hiding amongst the refugees, at the end of the day they are families driven from their home due to a war and want themselves and family to be safe.

You're perfectly right. But some are hiding amongst refugees, it has been proven. It's unfair on the families driven from their homes, also right, but why put the lives of US citizens at risk when they can't be 100% sure?

 

[Moomin]

Many of these people have little to no paperwork with them due to fleeing (genuinely enough too, in most cases, but not all, hence the issue) war in their home countries. Thus checking their backgrounds is no easy feat, as proven in Europe several times over the past year (there is your proof). Paris attackers came under the guise of a refugee (proven) and helped kill over 100 people (fact). Until they can be 100% sure those claiming asylum are genuine then I support their ban.

Wow, do you make it up to prove your point. The Paris attackers were Belgian not refugees.

 

[SNova]

Clearly.

I know you'll argue the toss about race but I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can think wanting to ban Muslims from your country, and building a giant wall to keep the Mexicans out isn't racist.

As for sexism, well off the top of my head I remember his tweet about how Hilary Clinton can't satisfy the country if she can't even satisfy her husband, or saying there has to be some sort of "punishment" for women who get an abortion. Not to mention everything that came out from pre-campaign, boasting about sexual assaults, boasting about how he's going to "date" that 10 year old girl in a few years, and so on.

We're building a wall in Calais. The wall is not racist.

Think the likes of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have taken in a good few million refugees. Think it's also a bit of fear mongering to say terrorists are hiding amongst the refugees, at the end of the day they are families driven from their home due to a war and want themselves and family to be safe.

6 terrorists in the recent France attacks came in via the migrant crisis.

 

[Nil Satis Niasse Optimum]

more lies from the mainstream media, I assume
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...efugees-didnt-commit-the-paris-attacks-229150

"“Two Syrian refugees were involved in the attack of Paris [of 11/13]” — Mike Pence

Governor Pence is wrong: None of the Paris attackers were Syrian refugees. And though a Syrian passport was found at the scene of the crime, it was fake.

Top officials, including European Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, have said that all the attackers were EU citizens: Most of the attackers were actually born in either Belgium or France — including the ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was born in a suburb of Brussels.

They weren't refugees full stop - because they weren't fleeing a war in fear of their lives. That much is true!

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Apologies I wasn't aware it was a pejorative term. I don't agree with the premise that illegal immigrants can simply have their child in America and then the child is automatically an American.

That will result in more illegals.

Conversely, you'd be making people nationality-less which is an absolute nightmare for them and their prospects.

 

[Nil Satis Niasse Optimum]

Wow, do you make it up to prove your point. The Paris attackers were Belgian not refugees.

I may be confusing my attacks. There are so many of them nowadays it wouldn't be a surprise. Point is, until security checks can be brought in (and they aren't available right now) so fully check backgrounds and intentions of wanabee asylum seekers, then supporting a temporary ban makes nobody at all racist.