Heck even the White House's [poor quality] recording supports the WSJ, yet the White House still wants to support the lie.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
WSJ releases story about him paying off a porn star.
WSJ releases the quotes from the interview about Kim Jong
Trump attacks WSJ about the quotes, calls them "FAKE NEWS"
hmmm, obvious but sly.
WSJ releases the quotes from the interview about Kim Jong
Trump attacks WSJ about the quotes, calls them "FAKE NEWS"
hmmm, obvious but sly.
Nothing misleading about my list:
Regarding your point 1):
Here's a quote from a doorman of Trump's Building: A supervisor "told me that if a black person came to 2650 Ocean Parkway and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is [redacted] was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the rent was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment," the ex-doorman said.
Regarding your point 2):
You operate in data-free idiot-space. Please see just about any immigration statistics and tell me how many Mexican drug-dealers are crossing into the USA.
Regarding your point 3):
[Technically, this has nothing to do with my point, since it was post election, but I'm happy to indulge your poor reading skills]. Is that what we are calling these people now..."pro confederate heritage type people." Some of your "very fine people" are pictured below. Let's be clear: everyone knew what this rally was about on both sides, it was a white supremacist rally; if you're unclear about that, you weren't paying attention to all the white supremacist websites during the planning stages of this. So you're wrong.
Regarding point 4):
[Technically, this has nothing to do with my point, since it was post election, but I'm happy to indulge your poor reading skills]. You are correct, Roy Moore is an idiot. And of course Trump endorsed Strange...just look at Strange's voting record while in the senate under Trump.
Regarding your point 5):
Wow. Maybe you can compile a list or something to illuminate us: Pettifogger's African Country Shithole List. At least I know who I'm dealing with now, thanks for clarifying.
It's incredibly misleading, and yet again, it isn't yours. You're regurgitating information you haven't (and can't) verify because you, like many of Trump's supporters, are blindly loyal to an ideological position irrespective of truth.
- You present a single piece of unsourced evidence relating to a discrimination suit that didn't even directly involve Trump. No other evidence is provided. No support for the veracity of evidence is presented. That's it, a single statement, from a doorman for a single building. Here's an article that puts the claim in perspective and notes the dubious nature of the evidence: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067
That probably wasn't in the Facebook post you read.
- Ah, you operate in a "if it's untraceable, it doesn't happen" space. Is your position that drug trafficking across the southern border by illegal immigrants doesn't happen? I just want you on the record. Might I also note the hilarity of a silly, silly person (you) screaming at the sky about how "Trump is obvious a racist because one former doorman at one of his many buildings said that building had an anti-black policy" contention while pretending illegal immigration is unrelated to drug trafficking and dealing.
- I'm wrong because someone who has no knowledge of the subject matter needs me to be wrong to continue to proclaim the truth of his Facebook regurgitation? Got it.
- Somalia is a shithole. Haiti, in many ways, is a shithole. The fact that in 2018 adult men feel the need to wring their hands over such obvious conclusions is just hilarious to me. They're bad countries. They're corrupt, they're violent, they have massive humanitarian crises that are ignored or uncured by their respective governments. Somalia fosters terrorism, FFS.
The difference between you and I is that I can say "Haiti is a shithole" and yet recognize that the people of Haiti are often good people deserving of help. Their culture has value, the people have value. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. But we live in an age where people like you are either so a) terrified of anything that even insinuates something pejorative relating to a minority group, whether it's true or not, or b) are simply so deranged by their hatred of Trump they'll lambast positions they themselves hold to attack Trump. Both, probably.
The primary “handwringing” isn’t about calling places s’holes, the main issue is that Trump was indicating that he doesn’t want immigration from those countries, that merely being from say Haiti or Nigeria rather than Norway should disqualify someone irrespective of their other qualifications.
In 2) you claim he didn’t call all Mexicans drug dealers/rapists. Here are his exact quotes "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," How generous of him to accept that some might be good people but he clearly was suggesting the majority are what he would term “bad hombres”.
Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban, that a whole group of people should be barred from immigration merely because of their religion.
Trump claims he supports so called merit based immigration but do you really think he wants an Haitian doctor, an Iranian scientist or a Nigerian programmer? Or this Ghana immigrant who died rescuing people from a fire in his apartment block https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/nyregion/bronx-fire-victims-died-family.html
Romney succinctly conveys the issue that has many of us upset.
Firstly you are not President. He is. politically you cannot and should not spend your time dismissing other nations in a derogatory tone or manner. Even if its true that their nation and homeland is, well, a dump. People are proud of their nation and their home just like you are probably of the US right? and would defend it against bs and naive comments from outsiders? So when the leader of a foreign nation verbally attacks your nation it would probably p*ss you off. Especially if they called it a sh*thole. Especially when it's being raised in a conversation about allowing its citizens obtain visas and implying they are scum and not worthy of one for no other reason because you think its a sh*thole.
The guy has a history of this behaviour its been well documented at this stage.
Secondly put in context of the conversation he and the other guys in the room were having as in the place is a sh*thole why should we allow them in to the US.
The implication is he thinks they are all bad and does not want them here in the US
See even in your own admittance you think there are good people there who need help. He doesn't see it that way. He simply wants to write them all of as poor diseased criminals who should be kept away from this country and not be given visas.
That was the premise and where he was going with that as the context of the meeting was DACA and immigration reform.
Ron Swanson
Player Valuation: £2.5m
"Eventually, Sky News reported, Khan began to read a newspaper."
"Khan stood up and resumed his speech. 'It's a pleasure to be here," he said, "even though we were distracted by the actions of what some would call very stable geniuses.'"
Boss.
"Khan stood up and resumed his speech. 'It's a pleasure to be here," he said, "even though we were distracted by the actions of what some would call very stable geniuses.'"
Boss.
so you're fine with the POTUS describing countries as shitholes in a bipartisan meeting about immigration?
You can somehow justify this and even find it constructive?
His actions are not acceptable, this is not a delicate sunflower PC reaction, this is simple international relations 101. He's an abject failure as a president.
On the economy,
stripping regulations while cutting taxes and growing the deficit seems like short term populist thinking that won't serve us well in the long run.
Not opinion based, not fabricated, no spin. Actual fact and it's astonishing he gets a pass because he's fat, white and has racist leanings.
I don't have facebook, or twitter, or any social media.
The source of my quote regarding Trump's housing discrimination probe is from FBI documents from the link you posted. It is one of the quotes that is not redacted or illegible, hence there is nothing to support your claim of it being "dubious." The building was owned by Trump. But independent of that, Trump's racism has been amply documented by numerous sources. What you seem to be claiming is that every documented instance of Trump's racism--and there are many--is somehow a misunderstanding or a liberal whitewash, or pretty much anything but the obvious: Trump is a racist. Is this what you are doing?
As to your second claim, you said "Trump referred to some Mexicans crossing the border illegally as drug dealers (and rapists I think). The drug dealer part is particularly accurate." There are simply no data supporting your claim and now you modify your claim by saying illegal immigration is "related" to "drug trafficking and dealing." Those are two very different claims (for example, non-drug dealing Mexicans may illegally come to the USA to flee the war-torn drug zones in their home state). But all the data out there suggest Mexicans are crossing the border for bonafide jobs, particularly ones that Americans won't fill. Is it possible that some illegal Mexican (or Chinese or Canadian) immigrants have dealt drugs here in the USA...of course. But that's not what you were claiming; instead you said of Mexican immigrants crossing that "The drug dealer part is particularly accurate" which is unsupported by data.
I agree, there is a huge difference between you and I. I would never refer to a country as a shithole, since it is an unfounded, coarse-grained, simplistic, and pointless generalization--but I'm starting to catch on about your reasoning skills (perhaps you went to a "shithole" university??). I'm not "terrified" of speaking in pejoratives, but I do get quite worked up about poorly-argued apologetics of a racist/xenophobic/sexist president from people like you; such things are what put this dangerously incompetent idiot in office.
BirkenheadBlue
Player Valuation: £70m
Everyone needs to stop focusing on the fact that he called an entire continent a "shithole". It's both completely unsurprising and (to be honest) unimportant in the scheme of things
What is important is the context. This was a meeting where a bipartisan plan was brought to the President, which both sides believed they could pass through congress to:
1) Fund the government past 19th Jan
2) Provide citizenship to 800,000 people who came to the US as kids, and for whom it's the only home they've ever known. (and who will otherwise be deported over the next few months)
3) Provide health insurance to 9m kids (at - it's now been revealed - a net cost of NOTHING to the government)
4) Make some increases to border security.
Trump blew up this deal because:
1) It didn't provide funding for his idiotic wall
2) Didn't exclude enough people with dark skin from entering the country
3) Didn't increase military spending sufficiently (in his tiny mind) - Despite the fact that the US already spends more on defence than the next 26 countries combined (may be off by 1 or 2). Most of whom (something like 25 of 26) are allies.
Trump then proceeds to blame Democrats for "not wanting a deal on DACA".
Let's be clear - there was a BIPARTISAN DEAL offered to him to solve DACA and several other problems. *HE* didn't want it, and if the US government shuts down on Friday, it is now squarely and SOLELY the fault of Donald Trump - Master Deal Maker.
What is important is the context. This was a meeting where a bipartisan plan was brought to the President, which both sides believed they could pass through congress to:
1) Fund the government past 19th Jan
2) Provide citizenship to 800,000 people who came to the US as kids, and for whom it's the only home they've ever known. (and who will otherwise be deported over the next few months)
3) Provide health insurance to 9m kids (at - it's now been revealed - a net cost of NOTHING to the government)
4) Make some increases to border security.
Trump blew up this deal because:
1) It didn't provide funding for his idiotic wall
2) Didn't exclude enough people with dark skin from entering the country
3) Didn't increase military spending sufficiently (in his tiny mind) - Despite the fact that the US already spends more on defence than the next 26 countries combined (may be off by 1 or 2). Most of whom (something like 25 of 26) are allies.
Trump then proceeds to blame Democrats for "not wanting a deal on DACA".
Let's be clear - there was a BIPARTISAN DEAL offered to him to solve DACA and several other problems. *HE* didn't want it, and if the US government shuts down on Friday, it is now squarely and SOLELY the fault of Donald Trump - Master Deal Maker.
As an initial matter, I take no issue with those who find Trump unpresidential. But plenty of people think it's racist to call crappy countries "shitholes" and it isn't. Is there something inherently racist about wanting immigrants from developed countries over undeveloped countries? Of course not. The obvious implication is that people from Norway will add more to America's productivity, wealth, educational base, etc. than someone from Somalia. Whether that is true or not, and there is obviously some valid discussion to be had there, it isn't inherently racist and you have to be a very ridiculous person to assume it is.
As for his Mexico comments, he got, and still gets, a great deal of criticism, and he's not above it. But being inarticulate doesn't make one a racist. To the extent Trump says we're not getting Mexico's best and brightest through illegal immigration - I agree.
As for the "Muslim ban" it wasn't a Muslim ban and even progressives used that fact to undermine his proposals. Calling it such when it clearly did not restrict all, or most, Muslim travel is ridiculous. I disagree with a "Muslim ban," but again, I'm also not someone who is going to pretend they're not far and away the greatest terror threat to the modern world. Plenty of radical Trump opponents will get weak at the knees at the thought of such a declaration.
If Trump doesn't want a Haitian doctor, Iranian scientist, etc., then I absolutely reject that position. But I have no reason to believe that is his belief or intention. The reality, which you don't address, is that countries like Haiti or Somalia aren't producing a lot of scientists or engineers.
Of course I don't, which I've already stated. But no constructive discussion can be had.
I can say "I find him unpresidential, I think he's arrogant and ridiculous." But if I don't call him evil, and point out that I support the tax cut policy and the Gorsuch nomination and so forth, folks lose their mind. He's great or he's evil. He's the best President ever or he's the worst. It's amazing how the most polarized sides of the Trump coin will do exactly what the other does and defend their dishonesty as righteous.
I fundamentally disagree that cutting taxes and cutting regulations won't serve us well. And that's ok, we can fundamentally disagree. But those are significant achievements for his ideological base, and thus, he's not an "abject failure." Obama, who I largely despise, wasn't either. He ushered in a sweeping (and I think massively destructive) policy overhaul that his base fought hard for. That's not a political failure, as bad as I think it is for the country.
I laugh harder and harder at each post of yours. You gloss over all the contentions about the limitations (and very limited nature) of your evidence, and skip right to more conclusory declarations.
I, for the record, think the idea that Trump is a racist is laughable. As in, patently absurd. I think Trump is too close to populist and white nationalist movements. I think Trump uses reckless language. But I don't, at all, think Trump is a racist. Also for the record, I mean racist as in "thinks one race is inherently superior to another" not as in, "ruffles the feathers of some by daring to say mean things that touch on race."
You won't actually deny that illegal immigration is connected to drug trade/trafficking/dealing/etc. That's my whole point. Your argument is purely academic, which is fine. It's dumb in this context, when trying to gauge the truth of a statement, but I do the same when I've exaggerated my claims.
It's fine that you wouldn't call a country a shithole. I think it's important for you to maintain your position that by being anti-Trump you're enlightened, and by being less anti-Trump, I'm uncouth. It's likely central to your worldview, especially at the moment. Of course, it doesn't make your emotional rantings any more reasonable. In actuality, I think it's counterproductive, as there are plenty of actual things about which one might criticize this President.
Trump called for Muslims to be banned from coming here several times. On twitter before and after he was elected. On the campaign trail at rallies and town halls while trying to get elected.
After he was elected he also said it multiple times.
Here read this
https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...lim-ban-has-no-bias-his-tweets-show-otherwise
There are plenty more examples of his tweets heck just google it an you will see the countless times he has mentioned it.
He then called for a ban on 6 countries which are prominently Muslim and who were never involved in terrorist activity here in the US. Which he claimed was the real reason.
He later added North Korea and Venezuela to make it look diverse only after multiple judges shut him down.
He wouldn't dare block Pakistan or any of the bigger Muslim nations for that matter because they need them and are allies in that region.
The 6 he picked are troubled states that have no purpose for the US.
The "Muslim ban" (which wasn't) was pretty absurd in my view. As much as I think it is constitutionally invalid to propose a ban on religion, a "Muslim ban" is far more practically reasonable than what was actually rolled out by the administration. I think it was largely a solution in search of a problem.
But the original contention is that the ban was a sign of Trump's racism. I think that's absurd. Fear mongering? Overbroad? Ignorant? Far better allegations to level, IMO.
- Status