This is the first time in my life feeling ashamed for being an American. What Trump said today was something only authoritarian dictators do. Shit like this does not fly in any type of democracy.
This is the first time in my life feeling ashamed for being an American. What Trump said today was something only authoritarian dictators do. Shit like this does not fly in any type of democracy.
I also wonder if any of these politicians, media pundits, or UN bureaucrats who are presently hyperventilating over Trump's comment have ever called a state, region, town, or city predominantly composed of Republicans, Evangelicals, or the white working class a "shithole" or something similar....
The problem most Republicans have with Trump's comments is that he made them, not that they disagree with them. It is more offensive to pretend that all nations are equal than it is to proclaim America is exceptional.
Reply to Posty McPostface Agreed. I'm only suggesting hypocrisy. Trump's original comment wasn't wrong, though. It was merely tactless for someone in his position.
Haha, but if authoritarians think it's true then so it must be.
Ive been following the comments most Republicans are making on CNN news feeds and elsewhere and they do not seem to have a problem with the comment. In fact they endorse it.
Yeah show me some evidence of this hypocrisy your talking about.
I'm not exactly sure what Thorongil has in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that there's quite a double standard among many Leftists and Progressives when it comes to the issue of making sweeping generalizations about entire groups.
To use the most obvious example, making unqualified generalizations about Trump supporters as a bunch of ignorant, racist, redneck, hillbilly, sexist and xenophobic idiots or "deplorables" is perfectly acceptable.
Even cautioning against such blanket generalizations, or trying to make a distinction between Trump's lunacy and the idea that he may have tapped into some legitimate grievances among a segment of the voting public despite his profound flaws, often brings accusations of racism against the one doing the cautioning and/or distinguishing.
On the other hand, generalizing about immigrants, Muslims, etc. is clearly not acceptable according to those same people who have no qualms about caricaturing Trump's supporters.
Of course the opposite holds true in the case of many Trump supporters who openly generalize those groups he's attacked in negative terms while also protesting when unflattering portrayals are directed their way.
Just trying to make a non-partisan observation here about the pervasive hypocrisy in our society.
Reply to Agustino It's probably too early to tell. I guess much will depend on how things develop over the next couple years with the economy and also who he runs against.
But I'm honestly not deeply engaged in the day to day political situation and will therefore defer to the expertise of others on that topic.
I agree with you that it depends on what happens. The worst thing is if Congress impeaches Trump, though I doubt it, since Trump has no shame about using the means of power he has at his disposal to save himself.
However, I think in all likelihood, Trump will not be impeached, and I'm not sure if anyone can defeat him in the elections if the economy keeps going great (and I have no doubt it will, given the tax cuts, and reduced bureaucracy) - Americans are crazy about the economy. Furthermore, remember what Trump did with accusing Hillary of cheating, rigging the elections, etc. while he was NOT President. Imagine what he will do when he has the entire state apparatus at his fingertips.
As someone who doesn't share many of Trump's positions, I do think he's often unnecessarily offensive towards groups that may otherwise find his positions congenial to their own. That goes for conservatives more generally.
I'll make a generalization of my own for the sake of clarifying what I mean. In my experience, there's some truth to the stereotype that Mexicans are in many ways hardworking, family-oriented and somewhat culturally conservative. IMO those are guiding values that he'd be better served by highlighting and connecting to his own political and economic narrative, rather than continue doing what he's done so far, which is to make disparaging and emotionally-alienating remarks about them.
But I'd imagine there are cynical calculations that politicians of all persuasions make that I'm largely oblivious to and which would go a long ways in explaining their strategies. For example, would Trump alienate some of his own largely anti-immigrant base by praising some of the those traits I just outlined and then identifying them specifically with Mexicans? Would he gain enough Mexican-American votes to offset the potential loss of the more traditional base he currently panders to?
Along similar lines, I've often wondered why most Democrats (other than Bernie Sanders) didn't reach out to white working class voters with an economic message transcending racial (and other) identities. They were often quite explicit when outlining the groups they do represent these days: blacks, Latinos, immigrants, women, young people, etc. What's conspicuously absent in their lists, obviously, are older, less-affluent white males. But had they made that more universal appeal then they may very well have alienated some of the important marginalized groups they do mention.
It's like Carl Schmitt's identification (according to my limited understanding of his work) of the essence of the sovereign being to distinguish friend from enemy. It's unfortunate but it does seem as though you need to cultivate resentments against an enemy in order to rally friends to your side.
I typically hold politicians to a higher standard than the masses.
Well I take a more cynical view. Politicians more often pander to and flatter the masses in order to gain support rather than challenge their prejudices.
Sure, they may cultivate a more respectable demeanor in public, but behind the scenes they reserve for themselves the right to engage in things that belie that carefully crafted image.
It's like Carl Schmitt's identification (according to my limited understanding of his work) of the essence of the sovereign being to distinguish friend from enemy. It's unfortunate but it does seem as though you need to cultivate resentments against an enemy in order to rally friends to your side.
I think this is true. And it's largely true because you necessarily have to define yourself by what you oppose. Divide et impera has been the slogan of those in power ever since the Roman times. I think the problem is precisely that you cannot befriend everyone since people have conflicting interests.
Hah! Let's see what Mueller has to say about that.
I honestly don't think Mueller will find anything. Even if Trump did collude, he would have been smart enough to cover his tracks. Usually what happens in these scenarios is that the person who committed the crime is smart enough and covers their tracks, so they end up accused of some other, relatively minor thing, just to get them arrested. Like what happened with Shkreli. He made fun of Congress, they couldn't get him for fraud, so they got him for saying something about Hillary Clinton on his facebook.
So it is possible to know that someone is guilty, without having any evidence. In that case, often the people in charge will look for any possible reason to convict the person. But it's a social thing... if the people in charge don't want to convict you, you don't get convicted.
Some countries are shitholes. And saying so isn't racist. Trump may be a racist, but his recent comment wasn't.
There's a difference between saying something like "that country is a shithole" and asking “why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”. The latter is a highly disparaging remark about people based on their country of origin.
It might not be racist to say "Africa is a terrible country to live in" but it is racist to say "we don't want Africans coming here."
Reply to Thorongil You just said "his recent comment wasn't [racist]". How can you say that if you're now going to say that we don't what his comment was?
I'm just going on what was reported, (e.g. here), which I believe has been confirmed by Durbin and Scott (who says to have been told so by Graham). The report might be wrong, but if it isn't then the outrage and accusations of racism are warranted.
Most reports agree he called certain countries shitholes. Beyond that, things become more sketchy.
I think most reports are quoting him as saying “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway” and "'Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out".
Which ties into the context of it being a meeting on immigration.
Reply to Michael Not the ones I read. Plus, Trump himself has denied your version: "Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said ‘take them out.’ Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings — unfortunately, no trust!"
If true, this confirms what I said the comment was about. Should we trust the president? Maybe not, but then, I'm not going to trust Dick Durbin either.
Reply to Thorongil I trust Durbin over Trump. Given that Scott confirms Durbin's report, that Graham hasn't commented in public, that two other Republicans haven't denied it but only claimed to not recall (the cynic in me thinks it unlikely that they have such bad memories and are just unwilling to tell the truth because it hurts the guy on their team), and that Trump has a history of lying, I think Durbin has far more credibility.
It would be a silly thing for Durbin to make up, given that there were a number of Republicans in the room who would be happy to refute his claims were they false. Whereas Trump lying about not saying it makes sense.
So I assume we agree that "why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" is a racist thing to ask, but just disagree on whether or not Trump asked it. That's fine by me.
Trump is a racist. This was already clear during the election. That's also the reason why these remarks aren't going to change anything. In general we can suspect people defending trump to be racists too in their attempts to try to paint on some pc-veneer through denial or obfuscation or they'll deflect by saying "well, I voted for him cause of his economics". The reality is the US is either a) a pretty Fucking racist country or b) entirely partisan. Either way a shithole country.
Reply to Michael Trump speaks in a stream of consciousness sort of style and probably says a lot of absurd things over the course of a meeting. I can imagine people not recalling what he said and Dick Durbin trying to score political points.
So I assume we agree that "why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" is a racist thing to ask, but just disagree on whether or not Trump asked it. That's fine by me.
I don't know if it would be racist, no. A sovereign nation can pick and choose who immigrates to it for a variety of reasons. The operative reason for denying Haitians, say, might be that they wouldn't contribute economically.
It might not be racist to say "Africa is a terrible country to live in" but it is racist to say "we don't want Africans coming here."
Calling Africa a country and lumping together the entirety of the continent as "a shithole" is what I would take to be a proof positive of racism and crass stupidity.
People who live in shit hole countries would rather live somewhere else; that's why they come here.
People who work at the UN and various African intergovernmental agencies are professionally obligated to object to generalizations which may be only somewhat true and not be entirely false.
Reply to Bitter Crank This doesn't really address the issue, which is a claim like "we don't want people from these countries coming here".
To put it in comparison, after Katrina New Orleans was a shithole, and to call it a shithole would probably be an accurate thing to say. But it would be awful of the Mayor of some nearby, but not affected, city to say "we don't want people from that shithole coming here."
Reply to Michael That you don't think any countries have them, or that bringing in immigrants can't change them, or if they can, never for the worse? Yeah, maybe.
this doesn't really address the issue, which is a claim like "we don't want people from these countries coming here".
What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration.
What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration.
I don't think the UK rations out immigration "places" by country.
Trump's comment seems more about a hatred of (and fear of) poor people than race. I imagine he referenced Norway because someone told him how rich it was. So for me, his major issue is that he's utterly ignorant and superficial, no more. I don't think race is anywhere on his list of priorities and if he is racist it's in a stupid no-nothing way not an ideological torch-bearing way.
Reply to Hanover You do have those Dan Quayle moments: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them." I'll let it pass as a moment of inarticustupilackafecacleansia.
A sovereign nation can pick and choose who immigrates to it for a variety of reasons. The operative reason for denying Haitians, say, might be that they wouldn't contribute economically.
These are racist views to the extent to which they deny colonial history. Calling a country a shit-hole is implying its own people have shat in it. That nicely absolves your country of any responsibility. But the truth can be inconveniently different.
The Congo Crisis (French: Crise congolaise) was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Republic of the Congo (today the Democratic Republic of the Congo)[c] between 1960 and 1965. It began almost immediately after the Congo became independent from Belgium and ended, unofficially, with the entire country under the rule of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Constituting a series of civil wars, the Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
Haitian poverty is a deep-seeded problem that started many years ago. During the 1700's Haiti was under French rule and was the wealthiest country in the New World and represented a quarter of France's economy. In 1801 a Haitian slave revolt defeated the French army and the newly independent colony became the first country in the New World to abolish slavery. France agreed to recognize Haitian independence if Haiti paid a large indemnity. This kept Haiti in a constant state of debt and put France in a position of power over Haiti's trade and finances.
The 20th century brought three decades of American occupation, multiple corrupt regimes, natural disasters, environmental devastation and HIV to Haiti. The United States gained complete control over Haitian finances, and the right to intervene in Haiti whenever the U.S. Government deemed necessary. The U.S. Government also forced the election of a new pro-American President, Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave, by the Haitian legislature in August of 1915. The selection of a President that did not represent the choice of the Haitian populace increased unrest in Haiti. In 1929, a series of strikes and uprisings led the United States to begin withdrawal from Haiti. By the time U.S occupation ceased in 1934, Haiti was left with a decimated economy and facing a future full of poverty and desperation.
The Dutch don't appear to want the Dutch if you look at their birth rates.
Love the Netherlands. The Dutch people are friendly and competent. Dutch oysters are too strong-tasting. Love the name - Netherlands. Pais Bas. Lowlands.
You do have those Dan Quayle moments: "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them." I'll let it pass as a moment of inarticustupilackafecacleansia.
I didn't think you'd be able to impress me more than you already have. You know who Dan Quayle is? Maybe that's not impressive. Maybe it's obsessive compulsive. You know too much. Stop.
I knew Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. You're no Dan Quayle.
It is no secret why there are so many failed states around the world. To shove blame on the victims is indeed just shameful racism.
An irrelevant point. A country is a great or terrible place regardless of why. If I live like a king because I'm a ruthless murderer, I'm still living like a king.
To put it in comparison, after Katrina New Orleans was a shithole, and to call it a shithole would probably be an accurate thing to say. But it would be awful of the Mayor of some nearby, but not affected, city to say "we don't want people from that shithole coming here."
New Orleans was a shithole before Katrina though, and that's why Houston didn't want New Orleanese coming there.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 14, 2018 at 01:15#1437000 likes
Reply to apokrisis lol? The links you provide prove the opposite of your argument. >:O >:O >:O
The links you provide prove the opposite of your argument.
You might have to explain why if you want to be taken seriously.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 14, 2018 at 01:34#1437160 likes
Reply to apokrisis Haiti was a shithole, then France came, after which Haitians revolted, who proceeded to muck things up even more all by themselves.
You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems. Have I the right of it or no?
If you can’t see through your own shitty rationalisations then that’s on you.
Nope. You're diverting the conversation with irrelevant sanctimony. We're all opposed to oppression and abuse. You're not special in that regard, and your comments are off point.
You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems.
We are talking about failed states and their reasons. So only an idiot or moral simpleton would attempt to judge an indigenous culture according to the social construct of “a state”. Ie: only a racist.
Again, how did my source contradict my point?
If you need more help with your history, try this...
Before the arrival of Europeans, Arawak (also known as Taino) and Carib Indians inhabited the island of Hispaniola. Although researchers debate the total pre-Columbian population (estimates range from 60,000 to 600,000), the detrimental impact of colonization is well documented. Disease and brutal labor practices nearly annihilated the Indian population within 50 years of Columbus’s arrival.
Nope. You're diverting the conversation with irrelevant sanctimony.
I believe he's trying to argue that because the citizens are not responsible for the poor state of their country it is wrong to assert that the poor state of their country reflects badly on the citizens.
So, yes, Haiti is a shithole. But what does that have to do with Haitians emigrating to the US? "They shouldn't be allowed in because their country is a shithole" is a clear non sequitur.
And because @Thorongil brought it up, here's a study on the economic contributions of Haitians (and Salvadorans and Hondurans), and the cost to taxpayers, GDP, and businesses of ending TPS: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017-04-18_economic_contributions_by_salvadoran_honduran_and_haitian_tps_holders.pdf
The short and skinny being:
Deporting all Salvadoran, Honduran, and Haitian TPS holders would cost taxpayers $3.1 billion dollars.
? Ending TPS for these three countries would result in a $6.9 billion reduction to Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade.
? Ending TPS for these three countries would lead to a $45.2 billion reduction in GDP over a decade.
? The wholesale lay-off of the entire employed TPS population from these three countries would result in $967 million of turnover costs, e.g. costs employers incur when an employee leaves a position
Also of interest is this study on Haitian immigrants in the US: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states , which includes these statistics on employment:
Among Haitian immigrants ages 16 and older, 71 percent participated in the civilian labor force, compared to 66 percent of the overall foreign-born population and 62 percent of the U.S.-born population. Haitian immigrant women were also more likely to be in the labor force than the overall female immigrant population (66 percent compared to 55 percent).
These are racist views to the extent to which they deny colonial history.
A ridiculous accusation. I don't deny colonialism. I think colonialism positively and negatively benefited the countries that were colonized, but tend to think it was a net benefit in most cases, notwithstanding certain instances of horrific abuse. Note too that many countries have become shitholes without having been colonized or became shitholes when the colonizers left, all on their own. There is no right to immigrate, not even from a shithole country to a nice, safe country that previously colonized it. If a country wants to refuse you entry, it can, and it's tough luck for you.
Calling a country a shit-hole is implying its own people have shat in it.
Indeed. It's usually the dictators, government bureaucrats, and military police who "run it" who shit all over it, which is to say, run it into the ground.
New Orleans was a shithole before Katrina though, and that's why Houston didn't want New Orleanese coming there.
Wilful ignorance of your own country’s recent history too....
Early reporting during Hurricane Katrina heavily used racist tropes and stereotypical narratives that often vilified the victims of the hurricane, whose impact disproportionately affected the low-income, but vibrant Black communities of New Orleans.
During the crisis, commentators from CNN to Fox News lampooned Black and poor New Orleanians for being unable to leave the city quick enough, while others devoted special news segments highlighting the “criminal element,” which condemned the “looting” by Black residents, many of whom had just lost their homes, their possessions, and who were facing dehydration and starvation.
These early reports helped shape the narrative that some were undeserving of national assistance and help, while heavily drawing on historical fears and tropes of a scary, lazy, poor Black underclass that is deserving of oppression and neglect.
You seem to be adopting a self-servingly narrow definition of colonisation. There really isn’t much point debating further unless you can make some actual counter argument.
Reply to Michael I spoke of new immigrants. Moreover, if Norwegians, say, would be a greater economic boon to the U.S. than Haitians, then if economics is the relevant determining factor in deciding who gets to immigrate, the former will be allowed in and the latter not.
I might also add that the U.S. has sent quite a lot of money and resources to places like Haiti over the decades, so that would need to be taken into account when weighing the costs/benefits. As a last point, it would be bad for Haiti if we took their best and brightest and most economically productive people from them. Brain drain is a serious problem and vitiates against accepting large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If one cares at all about these countries becoming less poor, low rates of immigration from them ought to be the ideal.
We are talking about failed states and their reasons.
Haiti has failed, and much of their failure is down to their own people failing to run their country well at all. Your sources support this, so perhaps you should reread what you linked.
Moreover, if Norwegians, say, would be a greater economic boon the U.S. than Haitians, then if economics is the relevant determining factor in deciding who gets to immigrate, the former will be allowed in and the latter not.
This might be a good (economic) reason if you actually did have to choose between Norwegians and Haitians. But is there really so much immigration (and so much by Norwegians), that there isn't enough space left for the poorer Haitians? Obviously if the Norwegians are better than the Haitians then they're not exactly going to be competing for the same jobs.
A man with a guilty conscience, hey? Well, some hope for you perhaps.
You built an entire argument upon the false premise that referring to a country as a shithole implied the citizens were the cause of their status, then you jumped on your high horse and lectured us about how the citizens were victims as if we didn't know that, and then in exasperation you declared those disagreeing with you racists that you had no time for.
Reply to Michael It sounds like you're saying we should accept them just 'cause. Or else, we should accept them because they do benefit us economically at least to some degree. Well, again, I would rather they benefit their home countries economically than ours.
It sounds like you're saying we should accept them just 'cause.
No. Just that there doesn't seem a good justification for seemingly racist remarks like “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.” and "'Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out."
Reply to Hanover You can quit with the apologetics. The context was...
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, after being presented with a proposal to restore protections for immigrants from those countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal.
So it is not about whether shithole is a factual description of the countries. It is about whether they have the right kind of people to favour as immigrants.
This casual and unwitting racism just tells us so much about Trump and those who leap to his support with their bullshit rationalisations.
Reply to Michael Those quotes are disputed, as we've already discussed. And I don't think they're necessarily evidence of racism on Trump's part. On this point, I agree with Baden earlier. Trump is not the malevolent person the media tries so hard to paint him as.
I think people need to stop shooting from the hip with charges of racism and do a little bit more introspection. It was sheer comic absurdity seeing those reporters ask Trump, "Are you a wacist?! This is a serious question!" If it was, I notice that no one in the room seemed to care, the majority of whom were black.
Reply to Michael Being from a shit hole (like New Orleans) doesn't make one into a shit hole. The concern is that people from shit holes (like New Orleans) may lack resources to help themselves in whatever place they end up in.
I don't think the UK rations out immigration "places" by country.
So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What?
only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with them."
Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus.
I think people need to stop shooting from the hip with charges of racism and do a little bit more introspection. It was sheer comic absurdity seeing those reporters ask Trump, "Are you a wacist?! This is a serious question!" If it was, I notice that no one in the room seemed to care, the majority of whom were black.
First of all I don't agree we should reject Haitians. But even if we decide we should, there's still a problem.
If you are a coach for an athletic team and a person who is overweight wants to play. When you talk with other coaches, you might say it's not a good idea to have overweight people because it hurts our chances of winning. But if you say "why should we have fat fucks on this team?" do you not sense some sort of prejudice in that statement? Is it okay to say that because they actually are overweight?
The country people are from is a huge part of their identity. Yes many of these countries are struggling. No one is claiming when trump says Haiti is a shithole, that Haiti is actually doing great economically. The point is that it's belligerently disrespectful to generalize a bunch of countries and call them shitholes.
The country of my ethnicity isn't the best economically. It's one thing for trump to say he doesn't want people from there because the country isn't well-to-do enough that they may not help our economy. It's another thing to call that country a shithole. I'm not sure if you identify with any of these "shithole countries", but maybe if you don't and you did instead, you'd understand why many people find that statement really fucked up.
It doesn't even matter if you only meant to insult the economic and political conditions of the country. You belligerently insulted the identities of millions of people. At best that would make you a careless jackass.
Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus.
I'm listening to conservative talk radio and they're saying that Trump is not racist because he was only referring to the country not the people.
Is it not enough that it is a perfect proof of the fact, fact that has been screamed across all media platforms imaginable, possible and in existence since the beginning of this travesty, that Trump is unfit for presidency? Unfit for public service of any kind, really?
So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What?
You realize that there is a legal framework for refugee acceptance, right?
"The IRB decides who is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Convention refugees are outside their home country or the country they normally live in. They are not able to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
race
religion
political opinion
nationality, or
membership in a social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada who cannot return to their home country safely. This is because if they return, they would be subject to a:
danger of torture
risk to their life, or
risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Your refugee claim may not be eligible to be referred to the IRB if you:
have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country that you can return to.
have already been granted protected person status in Canada.
arrived via the Canada-United States border.
are not admissible to Canada on security grounds, or because of criminal activity or human rights violations.
made a previous refugee claim that was not found eligible.
made a previous refugee claim that was rejected by the IRB.
abandoned or withdrew a previous refugee claim.
"
Because of the clause "arrived via the Canada-United States border." which makes you unable to claim refugee status from the Canada-United States border, and because it is not a crime to enter undeclared into Canada if you have the intent to claim refugee status, it is much more profitable to sneak your way across the border, present yourself at an immigration office once in Montreal, and then claim refugee status. They will not be able to deny your claim on the basis of the US Border clause.
Trump wants to run the country like he ran his casinos - get the right sort of people in (rich=winners!), keep the riff-raff out (poor=losers!). To the extent that he associates race with riches, there's a racist element to his thought, but primarily he's thoughtless and speaks from his gut fear of / contempt for the dispossessed. Concentrating on the racist aspect is also a bad strategy for his opposition in my view as it's not going to convince anyone who voted for him or is likely to vote for him not to do so again. Trump won working class whites the last time round; you're not going to get them back with academic arguments about racism every time he opens his big mouth.
Hah, don't count on low voter turnout next election. Something the Democrats have always struggled with. Working class Americans aren't all armchair "economic" fascists educated by Fox News.
That depends entirely on the Democrat candidate, really. Everyone who voted against him knew how bad Trump would turn out to be. Everyone who voted for him were and likely somewhat still are convinced he is doing a good job*. The Dems have already shown a willingness to give the country over to a second-rate crook who happened to make it to the big times, simply because they didn't have a candidate politicaly sexy enough.
One ought to turn one's back on the U.S. entirely and call the whole place a political wasteland.
The Dems have already shown a willingness to give the country over to a second-rate crook who happened to make it to the big times, simply because they didn't have a candidate politicaly sexy enough.
Yeah, that's the Fox News cool aid there, along with some (actually considerable) Russian meddling.
I don't think this is something Fox News did to the americans. I think it's something the Dem have driven themselves into. They had a decade or two to shape the political discourse, and wasted it on focusing on the same things that had worked for them in the 90s.
You realize that there is a legal framework for refugee acceptance, right?
Actually, I do understand something about the process by which people attain refugee status. Refugees are often in dire straits, and the process by which they get from a refugee center in Kenya, for example, or one in Turkey or Thailand, to Sweden or the United States, Canada, or... is slow and difficult. But that wasn't the question I was asking.
The question I was asking was NOT about refugees, but how does the UK prioritize non-refugee would-be immigrants? Many on the various roads around the world are not refugees. Many are migrants, seeking better opportunities than they can find at home.
Reply to Michael True enough, the US would experience some losses if we expelled all the Haitians, Salvadorans, Hondurans, and some others. The bigger problem for these people would be their forced return home. First, poor countries would lose the remittances their expat citizens send back home. For El Salvador it's a huge hunk of their economy. Second, a country like El Salvador doesn't have the means to reintegrate 200,000 people arriving over a fairly short period of time (like a year or two). Third, El Salvador has the highest murder rate outside of war zones. That's because of gang activity started in southern California and then repatriated to El Salvador.
The situation in Haiti and Honduras are of course different than for the Salvadorans. Haiti used to be either food self-sufficient or close to it--not centuries ago, just decades ago. Now its not, and it wasn't population growth that changed that. It's not only a shit hole, it's a badly fucked over country for which several other countries, including the US, are responsible. Then there have been earthquakes and hurricanes which haven't helped.
Speaking of the Congo, as TimeLine was, "The Congo" had been subjected to a really bad colonial regime by the Belgians, and then were further screwed around with after independence by various countries, and their own thugs.
Then that's all here : https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-6a-the-points-based-system
From what I can decipher, UK immigration will prioritize requests by three categories, Highly Skilled Workers, Work Permit Holders and Family Members. Pretty sure that's self-explanatory. Otherwise you just fall under General and your request goes through the legal process. Once accepted you are allowed to settle for 5 years until you get probationary citizenship, then you can earn full citizenship through on a point-based system which rewards civic works. (Borders, Citizenship and Immigration 2009)
From what I can see there is nothing there to deny entry to someone based solely on his country of origin. You'll have to prove that the person has a criminal background.
Reply to Michael Of course, we don't "need" more Haitians, and we actually don't need more Norwegians here either--there are plenty here already. Besides which, the US would now be a step down for the Norwegians.
Immigration patterns have a history. In the 19th century, Europeans were favored over all others, Europeans didn't just show up here, a lot of them were recruited in Europe. At the time, a major population infusion was needed to populate, cultivate, and work in the western 60% of the country. Europeans remained most favored until early in the 20th century, when we decided that there were too many eastern Europeans here. Then after WWII, there were a couple of major changes, shifting favored status to people south of the Rio Grande. Later on this was changed again, opening more places for Asians, and various Africans, currently West Africans.
It should be noted that all the large batches of immigrants, whether European, African, Asian, or South Americans have almost always resulted in friction with prior arrivals and nattering by political elites. Relatively recently arrived and comfortably settled Northern European immigrants weren't thrilled with all of the Ukrainian Jews and Italians getting off the boat in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Later on the conflicts were between Italians and Puerto Ricans, and so on. Today Italians, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Russians, etc. are the establishment. Mexicans, Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, etc. the earlier wave. The new arrivals currently upsetting the apple cart locally are from Somalia and Burma (not the Rohingya). In this state it's the Karen people from Burma, or Myanmar. In a while they too will be the earlier wave of immigration.
Really, the US doesn't need any more immigrants at all. There are enough people here to meet labor needs (and then some) and to keep the demographics reasonably stable. From a global warming point of view, the more people who live like Americans, the worse it is for the global climate.
New York City, which is probably the only part of the US that Trump (and quite a few of the political elite) knows well--if that, even--is becoming too expensive to absorb new immigrants from poor countries. It's a culturally rich stew, of course, but poor people have a hard time making it in NYC because of rising rents and the other usual costs.
Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus.
>:O >:O >:O - that's precisely the point. They are such idiots that they think that Latin is the language of Latin America...
This is the first time in my life feeling ashamed for being an American. What Trump said today was something only authoritarian dictators do. Shit like this does not fly in any type of democracy.
Are you kidding? Never heard of Vietnam?
What about supporting Saddam through nine years of war with Iran, which strengthened the Theocracy?
What about continuing to support Saudi-Arabia and Israel despite constant and persistent human rights abuses??
All this is okay but you are shamed for the first time by a obviously megalomaniac, narcissistic, moron, who was voted in as a desperate attempt to change SOMETHING in a democratic system hind-bound by corporate interests?
What about the other so-called democratically elected establishment whores; Bush, Clinton, Obama, ad nauseam?
This is the first time in my life feeling ashamed for being an American. What Trump said today was something only authoritarian dictators do. Shit like this does not fly in any type of democracy.
Stop being ashamed, or at least, find something worthwhile to be ashamed about.
Trump isn't America. Obama isn't America. Kennedy isn't America. Reagan isn't America. America is a polyglot, cosmopolitan mix of many people who mostly get along pretty well together. The President is never equivalent to the country. Neither are Representatives, Senators, Supreme Court judges, etc. They are a piece of America in the same way that everybody else is.
I can't recommend Fire and Fury because it really isn't that well written. But several things are said about Trump that seem to conform to reality:
The man doesn't read much of anything, and apparently hasn't read much of anything for quite a long time. Yes, he has received higher education, but that was about 50 years ago. 50 years is plenty long to lose one's mental edge.
The man watches TV for most of his information. People who watch a lot of television news get a very skewed view of the world, especially on cable news, which runs all the time.
The man is inelegant, something of a slob. That is not a character flaw, it's a flaw in manners, especially for a position which is supposed to be characterized by very good manners. But Trump isn't the first president who was inelegant.
Trump may be quite rich, he may be involved in a lot of real estate, but I don't get the impression he was deeply involved with nuts and bolts management. That's OK for real estate operators. One can hire nut/bolt staff to take care of the details. But he is in a position where nuts and bolts matter, and he isn't prepared.
He is reported to have a very short attention span. This is problematic for people in jobs like Leader of the Free World who need to track major issues all day long, just about every day. He probably feels very overwhelmed, as no doubt he is.
He's used to being insulated from sturm and drang. Rich people can do that. Unfortunately for Trump, the White House is Strum and Drang Central. He's going to be pelted with S & D whether he likes it or not.
As a rich man, Trump is used to doing what he feels like doing. What's the point of getting rich if you can't at least hire a hooker if you feel like it. So he had sex with a porn star. Big deal. It's just that hiring hookers and bedding porn stars (and then later paying them a bag full of money to shut up about it) is discordant with being a public figure who is supposed to be clean enough for family viewing.
I loathe Trump and his whole class, but really, let's stop being shocked, SHOCKED!!! when he behaves the way everybody who didn't vote for him predicted he would behave.
I loathe Trump and his whole class, but really, let's stop being shocked, SHOCKED!!! when he behaves the way everybody who didn't vote for him predicted he would behave.
When we stop being shocked, Trump and his followers will have won.
So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What?
I believe they're allowed in if either they can prove they can support themselves or if they come from a country it would be dangerous to send them back to.
Reply to Bitter Crank I don't think so, but I think there are plans to place a cap on low skilled workers. Not sure if it includes refugees. It'll likely use the points-based criteria used elsewhere, which although uses English language skills, doesn't care about country of origin.
Aren't leaders supposed to set an example? And to be reliable? ...?
Promoting the sentiment expressed by calling places "shitholes" shifts focus away from (or deprioritizes) helping out, for example. It's to be avoided/expelled, which (incidentally, unsurprisingly) affects people. Sheep that flock to defend Trump's expression then happily propagate such a trend.
Oh well. I guess the future will tell what Trump's leadership brought to the table.
If the economy were dynamic enough and the government were not so dead against serving the people, it would be win-win to have more people. More people more tax, more growth more of everything.
But the government seems hell bent on destroying the public services like education and roads necessary to build the economy.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 13:51#1438940 likes
No. Just that there doesn't seem a good justification for seemingly racist remarks like “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.”
I think one possible explanation as to why Trump chose folks from Norway is because he had Norway on the brain. Trump is not unlike some people, who have immersed themselves in the last person they interacted with that leaves a lasting enough impression (a couple hours) that everything that immediately follows is measured against that impression.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Yeah, it's often said that Trump agrees with the last person he spoke to. I think that got him into a bit of a situation where he agreed to support a clean DACA bill because he was talking to a Democrat and he needed the Republicans to stop him and remind him what his position should be. Quite laughable.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 14:01#1438990 likes
I'm listening to conservative talk radio and they're saying that Trump is not racist because he was only referring to the country not the people.
I was reading an NPR story about how Norway immigrating to the USA back in 1870 and the impact it has had on both the USA and Norway and how it helped both nations.
"In other words, they shared a lot in common with many of today's immigrants from ... El Salvador, Haiti and Africa."
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 14, 2018 at 14:06#1439020 likes
I think that got him into a bit of a situation where he agreed to support a clean DACA bill because he was talking to a Democrat and he needed the Republicans to stop him and remind him what his position should be. Quite laughable.
That was a brilliant move on the Republican's part to jump in when they did but you could see that Trump wanted to agree with what seems right rather than play the teams position. It is during those times that I wish he would choose to be a one term president and just blow this team bs out of the water.
You just look at how Trump performed at the televised DACA meeting, where he was totally unable to even understand what Feinstein purposed with a "clean" DACA bill. Put this along everything from Trump talking about F-52 fighters to Norway and him working basically 1h 45 minutes a day and you don't have to have to read "Fire and Fury" to understand the total dysfunction of this Presidency. Trump simply cannot function as the chief executive of the government.
Hence the real question is who is taking care of this administration? Likely the demented ignorant moron-Trump is handled with the "sign here, Mr President"-routine and simply by not bothering him with difficult things. I guess by now they have learned how to manage Trump and just leave him watching Fox & Friends and make his tweets.
Likely the power now is with Pence, Kelly, Mattis, McMasters and Rex Tillerson. Naturally the administration lacks initiative as that should come from the President's mouth.
Deleted UserJanuary 14, 2018 at 14:43#1439090 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Problems with this: Pretty much the countries that are not-so-nice have histories of gross exploitation first by the nicer countries, and then by the thugs they left in power. But what really matters is that Trump is equating the people with the not-so-niceness of their countries, and he's doing it by race. That's racist racism 101.
Sweden is a shithole. Rape, shooting, grenade exploding, car burning capital of Europe.
Zimbabwe is a shithole.
Saudi Arabia is a shithole.
Yemen is an utter shithole.
There are plenty of shitholes, even though Trump never uttered the word.
Pierre-NormandJanuary 14, 2018 at 16:52#1439340 likes
Sweden is a shithole. Rape, shooting, grenade exploding, car burning capital of Europe.
Rape statistics can be misleading when comparing Sweden with other countries. The prevalence is 60 reported rapes per 100,000 population, compared to half as much in the U.S. and one third as much, on average, in European countries. But there are several factors that appear to bias this result. "In Sweden, once an act has been registered as rape, it retains this classification in the published crime statistics, even if later investigations indicate that no crime can be proven or if the offence must be given an alternative judicial classification." And also: "The Swedish police registers one offence for each person raped, and if one and the same person has been raped on a number of occasions, one offence is counted for each occasion that can be specified. For example, if a woman says she has been raped by her husband every day during a month, the Swedish police may record more than 30 cases of rape. In many other countries only a single offence would be counted in such a situation."
As for the murder rates, those statistics may be somewhat more reliable. In Sweden, it was 1.14/100,000 in 2015, compared with 4.9/100,000 in the U.S.A.
Does that mean that the U.S.A. is a sh*thole country as well? Donald Trump seems to think is is although he expresses it with the more politically correct "not great anymore", as implied by his MAGA campaign slogan.
What's the point of getting rich if you can't at least hire a hooker if you feel like it. So he had sex with a porn star. Big deal. It's just that hiring hookers and bedding porn stars (and then later paying them a bag full of money to shut up about it) is discordant with being a public figure who is supposed to be clean enough for family viewing.
Do you reckon Trump has the character of one of those long-distance truck drivers that jumps on ehm hookers as soon as he sees them? >:O
how dysfunctional, dangerous, and destructive Trump
I see no dysfunction, danger, or destructiveness from his administration so far. I see a lot of tactless comments and tweets by the president, but that's it. For me, his presidency has been a pleasant surprise, given all the absolutely insane predictions made by his opponents and which I see you have thoughtlessly repeated.
You belligerently insulted the identities of millions of people.
You are assuming that was his intent or the intent of anyone who, with less coarseness of language, points out the fact in question. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.
Ah, well... don't know much about long-distance truck drivers. No, I think DT probably has fairly high standards and likes sex in a quality location with excellent room service -- i.e., a Trump Hotel™.
I think one could ask whether DT is happy -- not sure he is.
One of the themes that runs through FIRE AND FURY, the book about the campaign and the Trump White House is that Trump & Co. didn't expect to win the election, and were as shocked as everybody else was. It wasn't a "real run" for the White House. I don't know... doesn't sound plausible to me. But I don't think DT had/has/will have a very clear idea of what goes on in the Government from the Government POV. There are something like 2 or 3 million employees in the executive branch, and they most definitely aren't all parasites. But a man with a short attention span who doesn't like to read isn't going to obtain an overview of that large an operation.
Long-distance truckers have to pay attention for hours on end; DT lacks that capacity, apparently. He is 70 years old; 70 isn't too old, but one isn't all that adaptable at 70, either.
Deleted UserJanuary 14, 2018 at 18:05#1439540 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 14, 2018 at 18:11#1439550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to Agustino Sovereign nations are entitled to pick and choose. Most of them do discriminate, and the main problem with that is when they claim they are not (but actually are).
Nations have a right to compose their demographics as they see fit. Healthy demographics are good for the long run -- not too large a percentage of dependent elderly in relation to younger workers who both produce taxable income and provide care, for instance. Not too large a population of very young people. It's great while they are young and most productive. They will all grow old at the same time, and then you have a mushroom shaped distribution.
On the other hand, a healthy nation needs reproducing young people OR one has to import them by immigration and other methods. Japan is not replacing its own population and is resistant to immigration. They have a problem.
Nations need a balance of males and females. India, among other countries, has deflated the female population through abortion or killing of infant females, producing a surfeit of single males.
I think one could ask whether DT is happy -- not sure he is.
I think happiness is largely an internal thing. I agree with the Christian contemplative tradition, Buddhism, etc. Happiness is an internal state, you can be a poor monk and be happy. I think most people cannot fully enjoy external aspects of existence because they don't cultivate this inner happiness. I think Trump is probably somewhat happy, but he is so accidentally. He happens to find himself in very good circumstances. I think if he were in bad circumstances, and really had to fight an uphill battle, I think he wouldn't be happy, and quite likely would be depressed. He also seems to me like the kind of person who isn't really used to losing, so if he will lose an election, he will probably be depressed.
One of the themes that runs through FIRE AND FURY, the book about the campaign and the Trump White House is that Trump & Co. didn't expect to win the election, and were as shocked as everybody else was. It wasn't a "real run" for the White House. I don't know... doesn't sound plausible to me.
Did you buy the book? Yeah, it doesn't sound plausible to me either. Trump may have strategised in the sense of "well, if I lose, doesn't really matter, cause I would have promoted my brand, etc." but I really do think he wanted to win, just as a form of prestige. In the Art of the Deal (or one of his books/talks) he recounts how his mother was transfixed when the Queen of England was on TV in a ceremony, and his dad thought it was nonsense - and he spoke of having had the same admiration as his mother. So psychologically, I think ever since youth that position of President was important for him.
But I don't think DT had/has/will have a very clear idea of what goes on in the Government from the Government POV. There are something like 2 or 3 million employees in the executive branch, and they most definitely aren't all parasites. But a man with a short attention span who doesn't like to read isn't going to obtain an overview of that large an operation.
I agree - I'd say that with regards to many details he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He's acting only at the big-picture level, and hoping that others can figure out the details for him. He's also used to negotiate from a position where he is stronger than the person he negotiates with from the looks of it. Though I have seen some private instances of him talking to a smaller group, where he did seem a lot more polite and diplomatic than the public personae.
He is 70 years old; 70 isn't too old, but one isn't all that adaptable at 70, either.
Personally, I think 70 is quite old to be President. People's mental agility starts to decrease from 65 or so. People may be at the top of their game, because they're well-integrated in society, they have the necessary connections, etc. etc. but that doesn't mean they're mentally as capable as when they were younger.
Maybe not with that tone, but I have no problem with the general idea. Sport is a meritocracy.
Did you completely miss the point of what I was saying? It's not the idea itself that is bad. But the tone has a hint of prejudice. So I don't know why you're trying to explain why the idea itself isn't bad when i never said it was.
You are assuming that was his intent or the intent of anyone who, with less coarseness of language, points out the fact in question. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.
First of all you have to be really dumb to think that by calling the countries shitholes, it is not offensive. Second, I didn't assume that was his intent. I clearly stated if he's really that dumb that he doesn't realize it, then he's a careless jackass at best. How did you completely miss this point as well?
You tell me to get over it? really lol. Now you're being insensitive. You are actually just really stupid because you completely missed the points in this post. But no, I'm not a careless jackass because I'm just pointing out a fact. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.
Ah, notice the change in vocabulary! I agree that he used offensive language. However, what he said wasn't racist.
I never said it was racist. It is prejudiced if you assume he knew it is offensive to people. Most people know this, so I think it's reasonable to make the assumption that the president of the United States, who deals with other countries all the time, would know this. Unless you want to be very generous and assume that he didn't know, in which case he'd be a careless jackass at best.
However it is prejudice. And sometimes people use the words interchangeably when it comes to a person's nationality. Criticizing someone who says that it's racist just because it's not "technically" racist is just being nitpicky.
If you see the context that I did that in, I justified it using your own words of telling me to get over it. It was to show why that justification is insensitive. And since you agree, now we can both go back to being respectful.
I didn't think you'd be able to impress me more than you already have. You know who Dan Quayle is? Maybe that's not impressive. Maybe it's obsessive compulsive. You know too much. Stop.
Nothing to be impressed about; there is no effort at all in what I know so I can't actually stop, you judgemental gobermouch.
I agree that he used offensive language. However, what he said wasn't racist.
It may be expressing an attitude that is generally racist. That's a disturbing thought for someone in his position, affecting policies, national attitudes, etc. I believe that's why so many people are perturbed about it, except for Richard Spencer and the like.
To the extent that he associates race with riches, there's a racist element to his thought, but primarily he's thoughtless and speaks from his gut fear of / contempt for the dispossessed.
It’s also been tracked back to his phobia of contamination.
Donald Trump, who has on many occasions called the tradition of shaking hands “barbaric,” confessed in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback: “One of the curses of American society is the simple act of shaking hands, and the more successful and famous one becomes the worse this terrible custom seems to get. I happen to be a clean hands freak. I feel much better after I thoroughly wash my hands, which I do as much as possible.”
But Trump’s germophobia goes beyond an unwillingness to shake hands—an aversion he has had to forgo during his run for the presidency. Trump is also reported to have a preference for drinking with straws and eating pizza with a fork, a distaste for pressing elevator buttons and a revulsion to fans and the public getting too close to him, such as for autographs.
In an op-ed for the U.K. newspaper The Independent, Gurnek Bains, author of Cultural DNA: The Psychology of Globalization and founder of a corporate psychology consultancy, suggests that Trump’s fear of communicable diseases is the root of his anti-immigrant political stances.
His obsession with cleanliness is why he prefers mass-produced or processed food. His preferences are not complicated: KFC. McDonald’s. The occasional taco bowl.
“I like See’s Candies.” “I like hamburgers.” “I’m an ice cream fan from way back.”
“I don’t like rich sauces or fine wines,” Trump wrote in his book Surviving at the Top. “I like to eat steak rather than pheasant under glass.” So long as the steak is well-done—so well-done, according to his longtime butler, “it would rock on the plate.”
His simplistic palate is a function of his desire for cleanliness. “One bad hamburger, you can destroy McDonald’s,” he explained to CNN’s Anderson Cooper earlier this year. “I’m a very clean person. I like cleanliness, and I think you’re better off going there than maybe someplace that you have no idea where the food’s coming from. It’s a certain standard.”
I think these 8 pages reflect for starters different thresholds for what constitutes racism. To me it's quite clear in the context of everything else Trump has said and done that he's a xenophobe/racist/bigot. Remember his comments about an Indiana born judge being partial due to him being Mexican (e.g. ancestry leads to an inherent conflict of interest)? "Text-book racism", according to Paul Ryan, who I don't accord particular authority but just cite because he's as Republican as they get. Then there is his role in the birther movement. The weird absence of Jews in his Holocaus remembrance statement. He's funded ads that associate Native Americans with drug use and crime. The Pocahontas thing during the ceremony for the native american war veterans received under a picture of Andrew Jackson. Not renouncing David Duke. Defending white-supremacists in Charlotsville. Complaining about NFL players that kneel during the anthem. Pardoning Arpaio.
That's on top of my head and all recent. I'm sure if you start digging into his history you'll find more. It's fine if some people will still deny it, that just means we don't see eye-to-eye on this ethical issue.
Also, my original comment (now on page 3 or 4) was done in the shoutbox and was intended to give a few US citizens a moment of reflection to see how it feels to have your country called a shit hole. In reality I think the US has one of the shittiest implementations of a democratic system making it particularly suspectible to influence from special interests, a total disregard of political losers (even if in all likelihood your two neighbours voted Democrats) bordering on party dictatorship. Whatever political disagreements you might have, you're still having to live together and work together. The fact political leadership is incapable of bridging differences is not a very good example for the rest of society.
One must be 35 years of age, a resident within the United States for 14 years, and a natural born citizen.
I think what you mean by "qualified" is not what others mean when they say that Trump isn't qualified. Trump is certainly eligible, given what you say above, but I think when others talk about being qualified they're referring to the level of knowledge, work ethic, diplomacy, etc.
To me it's quite clear in the context of everything else Trump has said and done that he's a xenophobe/racist/bigot.
Do you think the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations should ask for their Ellis Island Medal back? It was for services to black inner-city youth after all.
Or do you think he is a racist because he has reduced black unemployment to record lows, and already restored black median income to levels before Obama reduced it by $1000pa?
Oh, and that's Rosa Parks in the picture, by the way.
I think these 8 pages reflect for starters different thresholds for what constitutes racism. To me it's quite clear in the context of everything else Trump has said and done that he's a xenophobe/racist/bigot. Remember his comments about an Indiana born judge being partial due to him being Mexican (e.g. ancestry leads to an inherent conflict of interest)?
A bit off topic, but I vaguely recall an argument which explained Trump's position concerning the judge in question as being consistent with the guiding assumptions underlying the sort of identity politics which is espoused by those same Democrats who got so riled up here.
Democrats assume that people will largely behave in predictable patterns which align with the interests of their respective demographic groups (the black vote, the Latino vote, etc.). As the party of diversity they want more individuals form marginalized groups in the courts and elsewhere because they feel that a variety of perspectives is a good and necessary thing for our increasingly diverse country. So far so good.
Now, when Trump questioned the ability of that judge of Mexican ancestry and Democratic political leanings to handle his case impartially, Democrats quickly changed their tune and feigned shock that he could have the audacity to suggest that this man's racial (or other) background just might have an influence--perhaps even a significant influence--on his perspective and in turn his judicial decisions.
Anyhow, if I understood it correctly, the idea was that Trump (or whomever was advising him) was taking a fundamental tenet of identity politics and using it to expose hypocrisy. This isn't meant to support Trump on this or other things, and I likely botched the argument, but I did find it to be an interesting take on the issue regarding the (in)consistent application of principles.
Now, when Trump questioned the ability of that judge of Mexican ancestry and Democratic political leanings to handle his case impartially, Democrats quickly changed their tune and feigned shock that he could have the audacity to suggest that this man's racial (or other) background just might have an influence on his judicial decisions.
I don't know the context of this, but presumably the Democrats were outraged that Trump would suggest that someone of Mexican descent wouldn't be a capable judge, able to fairly judge the rule of law, because of his Mexican descent. That's quite a bit different from saying that people of Mexican descent likely have different personal opinions and values.
A more likely example of hypocrisy would be to address the Democrats who accuse Christian judges as being at risk of intentionally misrepresenting the law or the constitution to rule in favour of pro-life or against same-sex marriage.
Reply to Michael Yeah I'll try to track down the details again so I don't misspeak or misrepresent. I do recall being shocked that Trump would highlight the judge's Mexican heritage as a possible reason to dismiss him.
Come to think of it, I also remember Trump responding to an interviewer who asked him why the judge's Mexican background should disqualify him from judging Trump's case. His response: I'm building a wall.
LOL can't believe I forgot about that but this guy is indeed over the top.
Do you think the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations should ask for their Ellis Island Medal back? It was for services to black inner-city youth after all.
NECO, started by Fugazy in outraged response to the liberty medals awarded to mostly non-white naturalised Americans (no Italians, Poles or Irish!). Fugazy, that guy who was Trump's real estate broker in 1986. And that medal that predominantly goes to white americans of European descent. I'm sorry. What was your point again?
Or do you think he is a racist because he has reduced black unemployment to record lows, and already restored black median income to levels before Obama reduced it by $1000pa?
Sigh. Not only are those things unrelated but one man can't "fix" the economy to begin with.
Reply to Erik I don't think anything is surprising anymore. Take the recent accusations of hush money paid to porn stars. It wouldn't shock me if it were true. But imagine if such accusations had come out about Obama or Hillary?
Reply to Michael I don't remember that episode but once again it sounds entirely plausible given the hatred that many conservatives felt and continue to feel for Obama. And I do think much of it was/is racially-motivated.
But I also grew up in an area with a large percentage of Trump supporters and I can tell you that not all of them are the caricatured racists and xenophobes they're often portrayed as. In fact, I'm sure many won't believe this but I know many Mexican-American Trump supporters, and most of them are proud of their heritage. Now of course there's likely a large percentage of his base who do harbor deep-seated prejudices--and I've not met a single black Trump supporter yet--but it's a bit more complex than some people think and that others would like you to believe.
But I also grew up in an area with a large percentage of Trump supporters and I can tell you that not all of them are the caricatured racists and xenophobes they're often portrayed as. In fact, I'm sure many won't believe this but I know many Mexican-American Trump supporters, and most of them are proud of their heritage. Now of course there's likely a large percentage of his base who do harbor deep-seated prejudices--and I've not met a single black Trump supporter yet--but it's a bit more complex than some people think and that others would like you to believe.
I definitely agree, which is why establishing whether Trump is racist or not isn't going to solve anything. First of all, not everyone agrees but even then; what are you going to do about it?
I think there were a myriad of reasons for people to vote for Trump. As long as it wasn't Hillary played a big role. Beliefs in economic models. Gay rights, legalisation of drugs and other social progressive issues people were against. Fear of the economy and the Other. I suspect a lot of people voted for him despite expecting him to be a problematic candidate and some voted for him despite their belief/suspicion he was a racist. It can't be but a minority who voted for him that did so specifically for his bigotry and mysogyny. I'd personally just suspect more people to be up in arms about it but that's just projection from the political system I'm used to in the Netherlands.
Those are additional subjective preferences in addition to the real qualifications.
I think it's more than just subjective preferences. Simply being eligible and elected aren't sufficient to be considered good for the job, and it's Trump not being good for the job that's being claimed.
You might argue that they're misusing the term "qualified", but that's a trivial semantic issue that misses the main point.
CiceronianusJanuary 15, 2018 at 17:48#1441900 likes
He's a dimwitted, scatter-brained, ignorant, venal, vulgar, petty, mean, prick of a man. Such people will say such things. We were stupid enough to elect him, knowing what he is. We get what we deserve.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White It's a representative democracy, so it's futile to complain. I voted for Obama but gradually came to view him as a terrible president, and I got over it.
Oh, and that's Rosa Parks in the picture, by the way.
Oh, and that's Anita Bryant in the picture, by the way. She is a former Miss America and was the wholesome spokesperson for the orange juice industry until she became an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay rights.
Reply to Michael In my estimation, there have been plenty of presidents who have, on paper, been considered good for the job and check all the right experience/knowledge boxes, and turned out to be terrible presidents.
I am a strong supporter of gay rights and was before I knew my daughter is gay. I have no animosity and some sympathy toward those who disagree with my beliefs. Still, I thought Ms. Bryant's affiliation is worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.
Today, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump flies to Florida and plays golf rather than partaking in 'a day of service'. I suppose we shouldn't read anything into that.
Reply to praxis No, we shouldn't. He golfs all the time, especially on *gasp* holidays. But thanks for finding the time today, in between your busy charitable work, for posting that comment.
To be honest I didn’t even know it was a tradition. And to be fair, no one is taking cues from me. I’m not the leader of the free world.
Joel BinghamJanuary 15, 2018 at 22:48#1442980 likes
Let's be honest donald trump has committed several racist acts and gotten away with more than the met police did. We need to be frank and call him what he is, racist.
I think regardless of the truth of his statement, Trump calling countries "shitholes" is going to make it difficult to have amiable foreign relations with these countries. Nobody likes their country being called a shithole, especially if it's not primarily your fault that it's a shithole and even moreso if you are trying very hard to make things less of a shithole.
Why do we call these countries "third-world" or "developing" countries instead of "shithole" countries? Because it's disrespectful, ahistorical and imperialistic to call them shitholes when the white man was instrumental in making many of these places the shitholes they are.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 16, 2018 at 01:14#1443530 likes
Reply to darthbarracuda Even those terms have seen backlash for being disrespectful, even though they're true, just as Haiti being a shithole is true.
Trump has been in a lose-lose situation with the media for a long time. He could do everything right and still get shit. Just the way things will be.
Why do we call these countries "third-world" or "developing" countries instead of "shithole" countries? Because it's disrespectful, ahistorical and imperialistic to call them shitholes when the white man was instrumental in making many of these places the shitholes they are.
Of course it's impolitic to call Africa a shithole, especially when you consider just how large and varied Africa is. It's too blunt a shorthand term. Yes, it probably will make diplomacy more difficult for the United States for a while.
And its also the case that many of the problems in these various barely functioning states are a result of very, very bad colonial management. The Belgians fucked over their Congo territory, then left without having contributed much positive benefit. The Dutch, Germans, French, British, and Americans have all operated along similar lines, though maybe not quite as bad as the Belgians.
Empire, whether it be the Ottomans, Russians, Chinese, Moslems, or whoever is usually not popular out in the provinces. Reasonably so -- Empires generally don't exist for the benefit of the provinces: they exist for the benefit of the Imperial center.
But it's also the case that countries (made of people who are, after all, pretty much all alike) can and do make their own sub-optimum situations worse; much worse, quite often. Oligarchy, autocracy, corruption, neglect, and so on don't have to be taught by imperial powers. Little old isolated tribal groups can think up bad behavior on their own, and generally do.
Reply to Bitter Crank Postcolonial structural violence can be traced back to the epistemic consequences of imperalism where the social conditions of uncivilised 'savages' attempt to redevelop their lost ontology by reforming the conditions of being that attempt to trace back their identity to what they were before the imperialism along with the current sociopolitical conditions; it is like attempting to force democracy on peoples who are largely used to tribalism. It doesn't make tribalism a shithole.
I think there were a myriad of reasons for people to vote for Trump. As long as it wasn't Hillary played a big role. Beliefs in economic models. Gay rights, legalisation of drugs and other social progressive issues people were against. Fear of the economy and the Other. I suspect a lot of people voted for him despite expecting him to be a problematic candidate and some voted for him despite their belief/suspicion he was a racist. It can't be but a minority who voted for him that did so specifically for his bigotry and mysogyny. I'd personally just suspect more people to be up in arms about it but that's just projection from the political system I'm used to in the Netherlands.
Yes, these and other reasons contributed to Trump's election. Racism and xenophobia also played a role, of course, but his victory should not be reduced entirely to those things. The purpose of pushing that narrative, I think, is to deflect attention away from some of the legitimate grievances average Americans--and not just uneducated, ignorant white Americans--rightly feel against the dominant political, social and economic ruling class.
That widespread discontentment with the political status quo, along with the destabilizing sense that the culture and values of society are shifting rapidly, has led to a certain nostalgia for the good old days in which things may not have been perfect, but for many blue collar Americans they were much better. Practical things like finding a relatively stable and decent-paying job, purchasing a home, going to college without getting too far in debt, etc. are all far more rare now than they were 20-30-40 years ago.
Added to those basic material concerns is the impression--not entirely unfounded--that those who are in charge of things feel contempt for you and your lack of culture and sophistication. They mock you for your alleged racism and xenophobia while they live in cloistered neighborhoods, go on month long trips overseas, send their own kids to $40,000 a year private high schools, etc. I'd imagine it's fairly easy to be virtuous when you're in that genuinely privileged predicament.
So, along with rapidly diminishing prospects of material success for you and your children, there's a heightened sense of resentment felt towards the elites who have zero sympathy for your plight, who feel that this is the best of all possible worlds, and who treat you and all that you hold dear in a condescending and dismissive way.
And finally, I've mentioned it in other threads, but Democrats seem to have turned their backs on working class folk some time ago and opted instead for an odd coalition of their wealthy benefactors and marginalized groups. They don't even try to cultivate a broader working class narrative that could rally ALL less financially secure members of society together (other than Bernie Sanders), and they seem to purposely vilify older, less affluent white people as the source of the nation's problems. Why would this demographic vote for a party that wants nothing to do with them?
On the flip side, traditional small government Republicans have manipulated these same people through the use of various social and cultural issues to vote against their economic interests over the years. They've largely supported free trade agreements and outsourcing jobs (while simultaneously appealing to the patriotism of the masses and launching aggressive wars largely fought by them), mass immigration primarily in order to drive down labor costs for business owners, the scaling back of any remaining social programs which may benefit the poor or less fortunate in times of need, and the like.
In other words, they're up the creek without a paddle. Into this malaise comes Trump, who apparently ran numerous focus groups to find out what the major concerns of "average" Americans were. He's a lying, greedy, malicious douche, but he claimed to care about these people when nobody else did. All bullshit, there's little doubt about that, but the options were limited.
It's obviously more complex than this, but I do think we should consider the options available to the people who voted for Trump as possibly mitigating at least a small amount of the hatred we may feel for them.
And finally, I've mentioned it in other threads, but Democrats seem to have turned their backs on working class folk some time ago and opted instead for an odd coalition of their wealthy benefactors and marginalized groups. They don't even try to cultivate a broader working class narrative that could rally ALL less financially secure members of society together (other than Bernie Sanders), and they seem to purposely vilify older, less affluent white people as the source of the nation's problems. Why would this demographic vote for a party that wants nothing to do with them?
The utter ineptitude of Trump as a leader, his ignorance, racism, over the top narcissism and the Russian help he got all make it too easy for the democrats not to be critical of themselves. And the focus that a lot of the supporters of Trump are racist neonazis doesn't help either here.
First and foremost, the wife of an earlier President was a disasterous choice for the DNC to start with. That Bernie Sanders got so much support tells how bad the choice of Hillary Clinton was for the democrats. Hillary Clinton losing to Obama ought to have told a lot to the DNC.
A populist law and order candidate promising to root out corruption in Washington would have gotten a lot of support as the message would be favourable to both right leaning and left leaning voters. The cluelessness of Trump is evident that he was surprised that the "Drain the swamp" message got so much popularity. Because if there are things that unite a lot of Americans, they are the distrust of the political establishment and the disgust of the basically legalized corruption.
If Trump wouldn't be as incompetent as he is and play for the rich elite as he does, his kind of fascism-lite could easily gain a lot of support. Luckily he is as incompetent as he is.
First and foremost, the wife of an earlier President was a disasterous choice for the DNC to start with. That Bernie Sanders got so much support tells how bad the choice of Hillary Clinton was for the democrats. Hillary Clinton losing to Obama ought to have told a lot to the DNC.
She better stay away at the next election, like she said she would.
No, we shouldn't. He golfs all the time, especially on *gasp* holidays. But thanks for finding the time today, in between your busy charitable work, for posting that comment.
Oh, stop with the apologism. He's outraged at those who do not stand for the national anthem, yet he fucks off and plays golf on such an important day? He is an odious man.
Reply to Michael Donald is a hypocrite, of course, which is such a rarity among people. But really, there are so many reasons to hang DT beside golfing on MLK day. There will be a huge squabble at the gallows trying to decide for which crime he hangs first, like bothering to run for president at all.
There is a type of racism that does not believe it is racist. People who are not overtly racist in their dealings with others (perhaps this is why they think they are not racist), but who in their private conversations with other like minded, are blatantly and disparagingly racist. Go to most any local service club and listen to their private conversations. Many of these organizations have bake sales for the poor, gather turkeys to distribute or have Christmas Trees sales and so forth and I think they mean to do good, but in private with others of their ilk, they shed their pretense and enjoy their bigoted sense of superiority. Archie is not gone, he is just no longer blatant in public, he's on the down low.
If that makes any sense.
Florida has approximately 425,000 people of Haitian origin in its population, more than twice that of any other state. The few Haitians I have spoken to are very upset with the Trump's characterization of Haiti.
Reply to Sapientia
The US seems to be in a most tragic decline.
I just watched David Letterman's latest. He interviewed Obama for his first programme.
This is no reflection on Obama, but he represents the failure of the US system. A man of intelligence, who genuinely cared about inequality and poverty found himself impotent to do anything about it.
He was pilloried and traduced for eight years whilst the media grilled him over hot coals.
And the US's response to the end of his term is a megalomaniac, narcissistic moron, who is now taking credit for what little Obama was able to do in re-booting the economy, and giving his family a massive inheritance tax-break, at the expense of the poorest.
Listened to part of his broadcast. Got to the part about Obama saying Libya is a "Shit Show" which he said after Qaddafi's death in regards to acceleration of violence in that country. Obama didn't characterize Libya or any other country as a "shit hole" as Trump is alleged to have said, also Obama's words were widely reported and quoted. There wasn't an uproar because what Obama said described the situation.
Comments (208)
What was it this time?
Is it becoming of a president to say such a thing? Certainly not. But it's not surprising coming from Trump, so there's no reason to be shocked.
So Trump isn't qualified for the position, what else is new?
It was implied.
The truth isn't always convenient to ones views.
What are your views, then?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Haha, but if authoritarians think it's true then so it must be.
Ive been following the comments most Republicans are making on CNN news feeds and elsewhere and they do not seem to have a problem with the comment. In fact they endorse it.
Yeah show me some evidence of this hypocrisy your talking about.
I'm not exactly sure what Thorongil has in mind here, but I'm pretty sure you'd agree that there's quite a double standard among many Leftists and Progressives when it comes to the issue of making sweeping generalizations about entire groups.
To use the most obvious example, making unqualified generalizations about Trump supporters as a bunch of ignorant, racist, redneck, hillbilly, sexist and xenophobic idiots or "deplorables" is perfectly acceptable.
Even cautioning against such blanket generalizations, or trying to make a distinction between Trump's lunacy and the idea that he may have tapped into some legitimate grievances among a segment of the voting public despite his profound flaws, often brings accusations of racism against the one doing the cautioning and/or distinguishing.
On the other hand, generalizing about immigrants, Muslims, etc. is clearly not acceptable according to those same people who have no qualms about caricaturing Trump's supporters.
Of course the opposite holds true in the case of many Trump supporters who openly generalize those groups he's attacked in negative terms while also protesting when unflattering portrayals are directed their way.
Just trying to make a non-partisan observation here about the pervasive hypocrisy in our society.
But I'm honestly not deeply engaged in the day to day political situation and will therefore defer to the expertise of others on that topic.
What's your opinion?
I agree with you that it depends on what happens. The worst thing is if Congress impeaches Trump, though I doubt it, since Trump has no shame about using the means of power he has at his disposal to save himself.
However, I think in all likelihood, Trump will not be impeached, and I'm not sure if anyone can defeat him in the elections if the economy keeps going great (and I have no doubt it will, given the tax cuts, and reduced bureaucracy) - Americans are crazy about the economy. Furthermore, remember what Trump did with accusing Hillary of cheating, rigging the elections, etc. while he was NOT President. Imagine what he will do when he has the entire state apparatus at his fingertips.
I typically hold politicians to a higher standard than the masses.
Hah! Let's see what Mueller has to say about that.
As someone who doesn't share many of Trump's positions, I do think he's often unnecessarily offensive towards groups that may otherwise find his positions congenial to their own. That goes for conservatives more generally.
I'll make a generalization of my own for the sake of clarifying what I mean. In my experience, there's some truth to the stereotype that Mexicans are in many ways hardworking, family-oriented and somewhat culturally conservative. IMO those are guiding values that he'd be better served by highlighting and connecting to his own political and economic narrative, rather than continue doing what he's done so far, which is to make disparaging and emotionally-alienating remarks about them.
But I'd imagine there are cynical calculations that politicians of all persuasions make that I'm largely oblivious to and which would go a long ways in explaining their strategies. For example, would Trump alienate some of his own largely anti-immigrant base by praising some of the those traits I just outlined and then identifying them specifically with Mexicans? Would he gain enough Mexican-American votes to offset the potential loss of the more traditional base he currently panders to?
Along similar lines, I've often wondered why most Democrats (other than Bernie Sanders) didn't reach out to white working class voters with an economic message transcending racial (and other) identities. They were often quite explicit when outlining the groups they do represent these days: blacks, Latinos, immigrants, women, young people, etc. What's conspicuously absent in their lists, obviously, are older, less-affluent white males. But had they made that more universal appeal then they may very well have alienated some of the important marginalized groups they do mention.
It's like Carl Schmitt's identification (according to my limited understanding of his work) of the essence of the sovereign being to distinguish friend from enemy. It's unfortunate but it does seem as though you need to cultivate resentments against an enemy in order to rally friends to your side.
Well I take a more cynical view. Politicians more often pander to and flatter the masses in order to gain support rather than challenge their prejudices.
Sure, they may cultivate a more respectable demeanor in public, but behind the scenes they reserve for themselves the right to engage in things that belie that carefully crafted image.
Basic Machiavellian stuff.
Maybe, but not in a democracy, common...
I think this is true. And it's largely true because you necessarily have to define yourself by what you oppose. Divide et impera has been the slogan of those in power ever since the Roman times. I think the problem is precisely that you cannot befriend everyone since people have conflicting interests.
Does that mean dictatorship of the uneducated majority? :P
I honestly don't think Mueller will find anything. Even if Trump did collude, he would have been smart enough to cover his tracks. Usually what happens in these scenarios is that the person who committed the crime is smart enough and covers their tracks, so they end up accused of some other, relatively minor thing, just to get them arrested. Like what happened with Shkreli. He made fun of Congress, they couldn't get him for fraud, so they got him for saying something about Hillary Clinton on his facebook.
So it is possible to know that someone is guilty, without having any evidence. In that case, often the people in charge will look for any possible reason to convict the person. But it's a social thing... if the people in charge don't want to convict you, you don't get convicted.
The FBI works in mysterious ways.
There's a difference between saying something like "that country is a shithole" and asking “why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”. The latter is a highly disparaging remark about people based on their country of origin.
It might not be racist to say "Africa is a terrible country to live in" but it is racist to say "we don't want Africans coming here."
I'm just going on what was reported, (e.g. here), which I believe has been confirmed by Durbin and Scott (who says to have been told so by Graham). The report might be wrong, but if it isn't then the outrage and accusations of racism are warranted.
I think most reports are quoting him as saying “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway” and "'Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out".
Which ties into the context of it being a meeting on immigration.
If true, this confirms what I said the comment was about. Should we trust the president? Maybe not, but then, I'm not going to trust Dick Durbin either.
It would be a silly thing for Durbin to make up, given that there were a number of Republicans in the room who would be happy to refute his claims were they false. Whereas Trump lying about not saying it makes sense.
Quoting Michael
I don't know if it would be racist, no. A sovereign nation can pick and choose who immigrates to it for a variety of reasons. The operative reason for denying Haitians, say, might be that they wouldn't contribute economically.
Quoting Benkei
I don't think so.
Quoting Benkei
This is a pretty crazy thing to say.
So, Mr. Politically Correct, how many Congoians would you want coming to the UK versus how many Dutch would you want?
Regarding (a), who preceded Trump?
Calling Africa a country and lumping together the entirety of the continent as "a shithole" is what I would take to be a proof positive of racism and crass stupidity.
This is such a nonsense question. Why would I want a particular number of people coming into (or not coming into) the UK?
Also, what do you mean by "politically correct"? Is it "not a racist"?
It's even more nonsense because it is predicated on the belief that the Dutch are not a completely forgettable people.
Quick lad! (Y)
A slight edit for this post. The more I read it, but more I am dumbfounded as to how you could think this question unimportant.
It's Congolese.
Several things can be true at one time.
And I wonder what that says about our respective values.
To put it in comparison, after Katrina New Orleans was a shithole, and to call it a shithole would probably be an accurate thing to say. But it would be awful of the Mayor of some nearby, but not affected, city to say "we don't want people from that shithole coming here."
When did you stop voting for Brexit?
I never voted for Brexit.
Also, it was a one-off, so I'm not sure what you even mean by that question.
What country is it that makes no distinctions about the number of immigrants from which countries may enter? It is the case that everyone who may wish to can not be accepted. Every immigrant from country A takes up the space that an immigrant from country B would like to occupy. Choices are made. Trumps list of preferred places might not be the same as mine, but there will be preferred sources of immigration.
Glad to hear it.
I don't think the UK rations out immigration "places" by country.
Quoting Thorongil
These are racist views to the extent to which they deny colonial history. Calling a country a shit-hole is implying its own people have shat in it. That nicely absolves your country of any responsibility. But the truth can be inconveniently different.
It is no secret why there are so many failed states around the world. To shove blame on the victims is indeed just shameful racism.
Love the Netherlands. The Dutch people are friendly and competent. Dutch oysters are too strong-tasting. Love the name - Netherlands. Pais Bas. Lowlands.
I want Benkei Dutch or not.
I didn't think you'd be able to impress me more than you already have. You know who Dan Quayle is? Maybe that's not impressive. Maybe it's obsessive compulsive. You know too much. Stop.
I knew Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle was a friend of mine. You're no Dan Quayle.
An irrelevant point. A country is a great or terrible place regardless of why. If I live like a king because I'm a ruthless murderer, I'm still living like a king.
I'm still adorable though, right?
New Orleans was a shithole before Katrina though, and that's why Houston didn't want New Orleanese coming there.
If you can’t see through your own shitty rationalisations then that’s on you.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
You might have to explain why if you want to be taken seriously.
You seem to be one of those people who imagines precolonial life in countries like Haiti to be paradises without problems. Have I the right of it or no?
Nope. You're diverting the conversation with irrelevant sanctimony. We're all opposed to oppression and abuse. You're not special in that regard, and your comments are off point.
We are talking about failed states and their reasons. So only an idiot or moral simpleton would attempt to judge an indigenous culture according to the social construct of “a state”. Ie: only a racist.
Again, how did my source contradict my point?
If you need more help with your history, try this...
I believe he's trying to argue that because the citizens are not responsible for the poor state of their country it is wrong to assert that the poor state of their country reflects badly on the citizens.
So, yes, Haiti is a shithole. But what does that have to do with Haitians emigrating to the US? "They shouldn't be allowed in because their country is a shithole" is a clear non sequitur.
And because @Thorongil brought it up, here's a study on the economic contributions of Haitians (and Salvadorans and Hondurans), and the cost to taxpayers, GDP, and businesses of ending TPS: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/2017-04-18_economic_contributions_by_salvadoran_honduran_and_haitian_tps_holders.pdf
The short and skinny being:
Also of interest is this study on Haitian immigrants in the US: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states , which includes these statistics on employment:
So they certainly contribute.
A ridiculous accusation. I don't deny colonialism. I think colonialism positively and negatively benefited the countries that were colonized, but tend to think it was a net benefit in most cases, notwithstanding certain instances of horrific abuse. Note too that many countries have become shitholes without having been colonized or became shitholes when the colonizers left, all on their own. There is no right to immigrate, not even from a shithole country to a nice, safe country that previously colonized it. If a country wants to refuse you entry, it can, and it's tough luck for you.
Quoting apokrisis
Indeed. It's usually the dictators, government bureaucrats, and military police who "run it" who shit all over it, which is to say, run it into the ground.
Wilful ignorance of your own country’s recent history too....
You seem to be adopting a self-servingly narrow definition of colonisation. There really isn’t much point debating further unless you can make some actual counter argument.
Quoting Thorongil
Yep. Might is right. A stellar ethical argument. The winning race is the superior race. Any Darwinian analysis tells you so.
Sorry, I just don’t have time for this racist bullshit.
I might also add that the U.S. has sent quite a lot of money and resources to places like Haiti over the decades, so that would need to be taken into account when weighing the costs/benefits. As a last point, it would be bad for Haiti if we took their best and brightest and most economically productive people from them. Brain drain is a serious problem and vitiates against accepting large numbers of immigrants from poor countries. If one cares at all about these countries becoming less poor, low rates of immigration from them ought to be the ideal.
A non-sequitur.
Quoting apokrisis
Good, because I don't have time for absurd, unfounded declarations of racism.
Haiti has failed, and much of their failure is down to their own people failing to run their country well at all. Your sources support this, so perhaps you should reread what you linked.
This might be a good (economic) reason if you actually did have to choose between Norwegians and Haitians. But is there really so much immigration (and so much by Norwegians), that there isn't enough space left for the poorer Haitians? Obviously if the Norwegians are better than the Haitians then they're not exactly going to be competing for the same jobs.
No. Just that there doesn't seem a good justification for seemingly racist remarks like “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here? We should have more people from places like Norway.” and "'Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out."
So it is not about whether shithole is a factual description of the countries. It is about whether they have the right kind of people to favour as immigrants.
This casual and unwitting racism just tells us so much about Trump and those who leap to his support with their bullshit rationalisations.
No time for that level of idiocy.
Ditto.
I think people need to stop shooting from the hip with charges of racism and do a little bit more introspection. It was sheer comic absurdity seeing those reporters ask Trump, "Are you a wacist?! This is a serious question!" If it was, I notice that no one in the room seemed to care, the majority of whom were black.
So how is it determined which immigrants to accept and which to reject? First come, first served? Most plausible sounding sob story? Parts missing? What?
Learning Latin wouldn't have helped. They speak Spanish, Portuguese, and an assortment of Amerindian languages. Some even speak English without an Australian accent--always a plus.
First of all I don't agree we should reject Haitians. But even if we decide we should, there's still a problem.
If you are a coach for an athletic team and a person who is overweight wants to play. When you talk with other coaches, you might say it's not a good idea to have overweight people because it hurts our chances of winning. But if you say "why should we have fat fucks on this team?" do you not sense some sort of prejudice in that statement? Is it okay to say that because they actually are overweight?
The country people are from is a huge part of their identity. Yes many of these countries are struggling. No one is claiming when trump says Haiti is a shithole, that Haiti is actually doing great economically. The point is that it's belligerently disrespectful to generalize a bunch of countries and call them shitholes.
The country of my ethnicity isn't the best economically. It's one thing for trump to say he doesn't want people from there because the country isn't well-to-do enough that they may not help our economy. It's another thing to call that country a shithole. I'm not sure if you identify with any of these "shithole countries", but maybe if you don't and you did instead, you'd understand why many people find that statement really fucked up.
It doesn't even matter if you only meant to insult the economic and political conditions of the country. You belligerently insulted the identities of millions of people. At best that would make you a careless jackass.
That was, quite clearly, the joke.
Is it not enough that it is a perfect proof of the fact, fact that has been screamed across all media platforms imaginable, possible and in existence since the beginning of this travesty, that Trump is unfit for presidency? Unfit for public service of any kind, really?
You realize that there is a legal framework for refugee acceptance, right?
"The IRB decides who is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
Convention refugees are outside their home country or the country they normally live in. They are not able to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
race
religion
political opinion
nationality, or
membership in a social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada who cannot return to their home country safely. This is because if they return, they would be subject to a:
danger of torture
risk to their life, or
risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Your refugee claim may not be eligible to be referred to the IRB if you:
have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country that you can return to.
have already been granted protected person status in Canada.
arrived via the Canada-United States border.
are not admissible to Canada on security grounds, or because of criminal activity or human rights violations.
made a previous refugee claim that was not found eligible.
made a previous refugee claim that was rejected by the IRB.
abandoned or withdrew a previous refugee claim.
"
Because of the clause "arrived via the Canada-United States border." which makes you unable to claim refugee status from the Canada-United States border, and because it is not a crime to enter undeclared into Canada if you have the intent to claim refugee status, it is much more profitable to sneak your way across the border, present yourself at an immigration office once in Montreal, and then claim refugee status. They will not be able to deny your claim on the basis of the US Border clause.
That depends entirely on the Democrat candidate, really. Everyone who voted against him knew how bad Trump would turn out to be. Everyone who voted for him were and likely somewhat still are convinced he is doing a good job*. The Dems have already shown a willingness to give the country over to a second-rate crook who happened to make it to the big times, simply because they didn't have a candidate politicaly sexy enough.
One ought to turn one's back on the U.S. entirely and call the whole place a political wasteland.
* relatively to Obama.
Yeah, that's the Fox News cool aid there, along with some (actually considerable) Russian meddling.
Quoting Akanthinos
What do you mean by that?
That to a certain electorate, it doesn't matter how bad the person is or does, as long as he is definitly not Obama, or like Obama.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't think this is something Fox News did to the americans. I think it's something the Dem have driven themselves into. They had a decade or two to shape the political discourse, and wasted it on focusing on the same things that had worked for them in the 90s.
Actually, I do understand something about the process by which people attain refugee status. Refugees are often in dire straits, and the process by which they get from a refugee center in Kenya, for example, or one in Turkey or Thailand, to Sweden or the United States, Canada, or... is slow and difficult. But that wasn't the question I was asking.
The question I was asking was NOT about refugees, but how does the UK prioritize non-refugee would-be immigrants? Many on the various roads around the world are not refugees. Many are migrants, seeking better opportunities than they can find at home.
The situation in Haiti and Honduras are of course different than for the Salvadorans. Haiti used to be either food self-sufficient or close to it--not centuries ago, just decades ago. Now its not, and it wasn't population growth that changed that. It's not only a shit hole, it's a badly fucked over country for which several other countries, including the US, are responsible. Then there have been earthquakes and hurricanes which haven't helped.
Speaking of the Congo, as TimeLine was, "The Congo" had been subjected to a really bad colonial regime by the Belgians, and then were further screwed around with after independence by various countries, and their own thugs.
Then that's all here : https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-part-6a-the-points-based-system
From what I can decipher, UK immigration will prioritize requests by three categories, Highly Skilled Workers, Work Permit Holders and Family Members. Pretty sure that's self-explanatory. Otherwise you just fall under General and your request goes through the legal process. Once accepted you are allowed to settle for 5 years until you get probationary citizenship, then you can earn full citizenship through on a point-based system which rewards civic works. (Borders, Citizenship and Immigration 2009)
From what I can see there is nothing there to deny entry to someone based solely on his country of origin. You'll have to prove that the person has a criminal background.
Immigration patterns have a history. In the 19th century, Europeans were favored over all others, Europeans didn't just show up here, a lot of them were recruited in Europe. At the time, a major population infusion was needed to populate, cultivate, and work in the western 60% of the country. Europeans remained most favored until early in the 20th century, when we decided that there were too many eastern Europeans here. Then after WWII, there were a couple of major changes, shifting favored status to people south of the Rio Grande. Later on this was changed again, opening more places for Asians, and various Africans, currently West Africans.
It should be noted that all the large batches of immigrants, whether European, African, Asian, or South Americans have almost always resulted in friction with prior arrivals and nattering by political elites. Relatively recently arrived and comfortably settled Northern European immigrants weren't thrilled with all of the Ukrainian Jews and Italians getting off the boat in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Later on the conflicts were between Italians and Puerto Ricans, and so on. Today Italians, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Russians, etc. are the establishment. Mexicans, Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, etc. the earlier wave. The new arrivals currently upsetting the apple cart locally are from Somalia and Burma (not the Rohingya). In this state it's the Karen people from Burma, or Myanmar. In a while they too will be the earlier wave of immigration.
Really, the US doesn't need any more immigrants at all. There are enough people here to meet labor needs (and then some) and to keep the demographics reasonably stable. From a global warming point of view, the more people who live like Americans, the worse it is for the global climate.
New York City, which is probably the only part of the US that Trump (and quite a few of the political elite) knows well--if that, even--is becoming too expensive to absorb new immigrants from poor countries. It's a culturally rich stew, of course, but poor people have a hard time making it in NYC because of rising rents and the other usual costs.
>:O >:O >:O - that's precisely the point. They are such idiots that they think that Latin is the language of Latin America...
Are you kidding? Never heard of Vietnam?
What about supporting Saddam through nine years of war with Iran, which strengthened the Theocracy?
What about continuing to support Saudi-Arabia and Israel despite constant and persistent human rights abuses??
All this is okay but you are shamed for the first time by a obviously megalomaniac, narcissistic, moron, who was voted in as a desperate attempt to change SOMETHING in a democratic system hind-bound by corporate interests?
What about the other so-called democratically elected establishment whores; Bush, Clinton, Obama, ad nauseam?
Stop being ashamed, or at least, find something worthwhile to be ashamed about.
Trump isn't America. Obama isn't America. Kennedy isn't America. Reagan isn't America. America is a polyglot, cosmopolitan mix of many people who mostly get along pretty well together. The President is never equivalent to the country. Neither are Representatives, Senators, Supreme Court judges, etc. They are a piece of America in the same way that everybody else is.
I can't recommend Fire and Fury because it really isn't that well written. But several things are said about Trump that seem to conform to reality:
I loathe Trump and his whole class, but really, let's stop being shocked, SHOCKED!!! when he behaves the way everybody who didn't vote for him predicted he would behave.
When we stop being shocked, Trump and his followers will have won.
I believe they're allowed in if either they can prove they can support themselves or if they come from a country it would be dangerous to send them back to.
Promoting the sentiment expressed by calling places "shitholes" shifts focus away from (or deprioritizes) helping out, for example. It's to be avoided/expelled, which (incidentally, unsurprisingly) affects people. Sheep that flock to defend Trump's expression then happily propagate such a trend.
Oh well. I guess the future will tell what Trump's leadership brought to the table.
But the government seems hell bent on destroying the public services like education and roads necessary to build the economy.
I think one possible explanation as to why Trump chose folks from Norway is because he had Norway on the brain. Trump is not unlike some people, who have immersed themselves in the last person they interacted with that leaves a lasting enough impression (a couple hours) that everything that immediately follows is measured against that impression.
I was reading an NPR story about how Norway immigrating to the USA back in 1870 and the impact it has had on both the USA and Norway and how it helped both nations.
"In other words, they shared a lot in common with many of today's immigrants from ... El Salvador, Haiti and Africa."
That was a brilliant move on the Republican's part to jump in when they did but you could see that Trump wanted to agree with what seems right rather than play the teams position. It is during those times that I wish he would choose to be a one term president and just blow this team bs out of the water.
Trump Says Haiti Is Not a 'Shithole,' Just 'Very Poor and Troubled'
Ryan Sit
Newsweek
Jan 2018
You just look at how Trump performed at the televised DACA meeting, where he was totally unable to even understand what Feinstein purposed with a "clean" DACA bill. Put this along everything from Trump talking about F-52 fighters to Norway and him working basically 1h 45 minutes a day and you don't have to have to read "Fire and Fury" to understand the total dysfunction of this Presidency. Trump simply cannot function as the chief executive of the government.
Hence the real question is who is taking care of this administration? Likely the demented ignorant moron-Trump is handled with the "sign here, Mr President"-routine and simply by not bothering him with difficult things. I guess by now they have learned how to manage Trump and just leave him watching Fox & Friends and make his tweets.
Likely the power now is with Pence, Kelly, Mattis, McMasters and Rex Tillerson. Naturally the administration lacks initiative as that should come from the President's mouth.
Sweden is a shithole. Rape, shooting, grenade exploding, car burning capital of Europe.
Zimbabwe is a shithole.
Saudi Arabia is a shithole.
Yemen is an utter shithole.
There are plenty of shitholes, even though Trump never uttered the word.
Rape statistics can be misleading when comparing Sweden with other countries. The prevalence is 60 reported rapes per 100,000 population, compared to half as much in the U.S. and one third as much, on average, in European countries. But there are several factors that appear to bias this result. "In Sweden, once an act has been registered as rape, it retains this classification in the published crime statistics, even if later investigations indicate that no crime can be proven or if the offence must be given an alternative judicial classification." And also: "The Swedish police registers one offence for each person raped, and if one and the same person has been raped on a number of occasions, one offence is counted for each occasion that can be specified. For example, if a woman says she has been raped by her husband every day during a month, the Swedish police may record more than 30 cases of rape. In many other countries only a single offence would be counted in such a situation."
As for the murder rates, those statistics may be somewhat more reliable. In Sweden, it was 1.14/100,000 in 2015, compared with 4.9/100,000 in the U.S.A.
Does that mean that the U.S.A. is a sh*thole country as well? Donald Trump seems to think is is although he expresses it with the more politically correct "not great anymore", as implied by his MAGA campaign slogan.
No he's not.
Do you reckon Trump has the character of one of those long-distance truck drivers that jumps on ehm hookers as soon as he sees them? >:O
I see no dysfunction, danger, or destructiveness from his administration so far. I see a lot of tactless comments and tweets by the president, but that's it. For me, his presidency has been a pleasant surprise, given all the absolutely insane predictions made by his opponents and which I see you have thoughtlessly repeated.
Maybe not with that tone, but I have no problem with the general idea. Sport is a meritocracy.
Quoting SonJnana
I agree. His wording was uncouth and uncalled for.
Quoting SonJnana
You are assuming that was his intent or the intent of anyone who, with less coarseness of language, points out the fact in question. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.
Ah, well... don't know much about long-distance truck drivers. No, I think DT probably has fairly high standards and likes sex in a quality location with excellent room service -- i.e., a Trump Hotel™.
I think one could ask whether DT is happy -- not sure he is.
One of the themes that runs through FIRE AND FURY, the book about the campaign and the Trump White House is that Trump & Co. didn't expect to win the election, and were as shocked as everybody else was. It wasn't a "real run" for the White House. I don't know... doesn't sound plausible to me. But I don't think DT had/has/will have a very clear idea of what goes on in the Government from the Government POV. There are something like 2 or 3 million employees in the executive branch, and they most definitely aren't all parasites. But a man with a short attention span who doesn't like to read isn't going to obtain an overview of that large an operation.
Long-distance truckers have to pay attention for hours on end; DT lacks that capacity, apparently. He is 70 years old; 70 isn't too old, but one isn't all that adaptable at 70, either.
Nations have a right to compose their demographics as they see fit. Healthy demographics are good for the long run -- not too large a percentage of dependent elderly in relation to younger workers who both produce taxable income and provide care, for instance. Not too large a population of very young people. It's great while they are young and most productive. They will all grow old at the same time, and then you have a mushroom shaped distribution.
On the other hand, a healthy nation needs reproducing young people OR one has to import them by immigration and other methods. Japan is not replacing its own population and is resistant to immigration. They have a problem.
Nations need a balance of males and females. India, among other countries, has deflated the female population through abortion or killing of infant females, producing a surfeit of single males.
>:O Do you reckon he's a fan of sex? To me personally, he seems more like the guy who likes to brag about it, not the guy who likes to do it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think happiness is largely an internal thing. I agree with the Christian contemplative tradition, Buddhism, etc. Happiness is an internal state, you can be a poor monk and be happy. I think most people cannot fully enjoy external aspects of existence because they don't cultivate this inner happiness. I think Trump is probably somewhat happy, but he is so accidentally. He happens to find himself in very good circumstances. I think if he were in bad circumstances, and really had to fight an uphill battle, I think he wouldn't be happy, and quite likely would be depressed. He also seems to me like the kind of person who isn't really used to losing, so if he will lose an election, he will probably be depressed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Did you buy the book? Yeah, it doesn't sound plausible to me either. Trump may have strategised in the sense of "well, if I lose, doesn't really matter, cause I would have promoted my brand, etc." but I really do think he wanted to win, just as a form of prestige. In the Art of the Deal (or one of his books/talks) he recounts how his mother was transfixed when the Queen of England was on TV in a ceremony, and his dad thought it was nonsense - and he spoke of having had the same admiration as his mother. So psychologically, I think ever since youth that position of President was important for him.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree - I'd say that with regards to many details he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. He's acting only at the big-picture level, and hoping that others can figure out the details for him. He's also used to negotiate from a position where he is stronger than the person he negotiates with from the looks of it. Though I have seen some private instances of him talking to a smaller group, where he did seem a lot more polite and diplomatic than the public personae.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Personally, I think 70 is quite old to be President. People's mental agility starts to decrease from 65 or so. People may be at the top of their game, because they're well-integrated in society, they have the necessary connections, etc. etc. but that doesn't mean they're mentally as capable as when they were younger.
Did you completely miss the point of what I was saying? It's not the idea itself that is bad. But the tone has a hint of prejudice. So I don't know why you're trying to explain why the idea itself isn't bad when i never said it was.
Quoting Thorongil
First of all you have to be really dumb to think that by calling the countries shitholes, it is not offensive. Second, I didn't assume that was his intent. I clearly stated if he's really that dumb that he doesn't realize it, then he's a careless jackass at best. How did you completely miss this point as well?
You tell me to get over it? really lol. Now you're being insensitive. You are actually just really stupid because you completely missed the points in this post. But no, I'm not a careless jackass because I'm just pointing out a fact. Sometimes the truth stings. Get over it, I say.
And I agreed with this.
Quoting SonJnana
Ah, notice the change in vocabulary! I agree that he used offensive language. However, what he said wasn't racist.
Quoting SonJnana
Lol! Okay, pal. Talk about pot calling the kettle black!
I never said it was racist. It is prejudiced if you assume he knew it is offensive to people. Most people know this, so I think it's reasonable to make the assumption that the president of the United States, who deals with other countries all the time, would know this. Unless you want to be very generous and assume that he didn't know, in which case he'd be a careless jackass at best.
Quoting Thorongil
How about we both show respect rather than tell people to just get over it?
Good, then we're on the same page, my friend.
Quoting SonJnana
Hey now, I never called you such childish names!
However it is prejudice. And sometimes people use the words interchangeably when it comes to a person's nationality. Criticizing someone who says that it's racist just because it's not "technically" racist is just being nitpicky.
Quoting Thorongil
If you see the context that I did that in, I justified it using your own words of telling me to get over it. It was to show why that justification is insensitive. And since you agree, now we can both go back to being respectful.
Nothing to be impressed about; there is no effort at all in what I know so I can't actually stop, you judgemental gobermouch.
No, please, aaaaah....
What in your view makes someone qualified to be President? What are some of the defining characteristics?
It may be expressing an attitude that is generally racist. That's a disturbing thought for someone in his position, affecting policies, national attitudes, etc. I believe that's why so many people are perturbed about it, except for Richard Spencer and the like.
It’s also been tracked back to his phobia of contamination.
It's not like the comment exists in isolation. He's made other well-known comments that suggest a racist attitude.
That's on top of my head and all recent. I'm sure if you start digging into his history you'll find more. It's fine if some people will still deny it, that just means we don't see eye-to-eye on this ethical issue.
Also, my original comment (now on page 3 or 4) was done in the shoutbox and was intended to give a few US citizens a moment of reflection to see how it feels to have your country called a shit hole. In reality I think the US has one of the shittiest implementations of a democratic system making it particularly suspectible to influence from special interests, a total disregard of political losers (even if in all likelihood your two neighbours voted Democrats) bordering on party dictatorship. Whatever political disagreements you might have, you're still having to live together and work together. The fact political leadership is incapable of bridging differences is not a very good example for the rest of society.
I think what you mean by "qualified" is not what others mean when they say that Trump isn't qualified. Trump is certainly eligible, given what you say above, but I think when others talk about being qualified they're referring to the level of knowledge, work ethic, diplomacy, etc.
Do you think the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations should ask for their Ellis Island Medal back? It was for services to black inner-city youth after all.
Or do you think he is a racist because he has reduced black unemployment to record lows, and already restored black median income to levels before Obama reduced it by $1000pa?
Oh, and that's Rosa Parks in the picture, by the way.
A bit off topic, but I vaguely recall an argument which explained Trump's position concerning the judge in question as being consistent with the guiding assumptions underlying the sort of identity politics which is espoused by those same Democrats who got so riled up here.
Democrats assume that people will largely behave in predictable patterns which align with the interests of their respective demographic groups (the black vote, the Latino vote, etc.). As the party of diversity they want more individuals form marginalized groups in the courts and elsewhere because they feel that a variety of perspectives is a good and necessary thing for our increasingly diverse country. So far so good.
Now, when Trump questioned the ability of that judge of Mexican ancestry and Democratic political leanings to handle his case impartially, Democrats quickly changed their tune and feigned shock that he could have the audacity to suggest that this man's racial (or other) background just might have an influence--perhaps even a significant influence--on his perspective and in turn his judicial decisions.
Anyhow, if I understood it correctly, the idea was that Trump (or whomever was advising him) was taking a fundamental tenet of identity politics and using it to expose hypocrisy. This isn't meant to support Trump on this or other things, and I likely botched the argument, but I did find it to be an interesting take on the issue regarding the (in)consistent application of principles.
I don't know the context of this, but presumably the Democrats were outraged that Trump would suggest that someone of Mexican descent wouldn't be a capable judge, able to fairly judge the rule of law, because of his Mexican descent. That's quite a bit different from saying that people of Mexican descent likely have different personal opinions and values.
A more likely example of hypocrisy would be to address the Democrats who accuse Christian judges as being at risk of intentionally misrepresenting the law or the constitution to rule in favour of pro-life or against same-sex marriage.
Come to think of it, I also remember Trump responding to an interviewer who asked him why the judge's Mexican background should disqualify him from judging Trump's case. His response: I'm building a wall.
LOL can't believe I forgot about that but this guy is indeed over the top.
NECO, started by Fugazy in outraged response to the liberty medals awarded to mostly non-white naturalised Americans (no Italians, Poles or Irish!). Fugazy, that guy who was Trump's real estate broker in 1986. And that medal that predominantly goes to white americans of European descent. I'm sorry. What was your point again?
Quoting tom
Sigh. Not only are those things unrelated but one man can't "fix" the economy to begin with.
Quoting tom
Oh, on a side note too Hitler saved his former Jewish commander Ernest Hess. Was he a humanitarian too?
I definitely agree, which is why establishing whether Trump is racist or not isn't going to solve anything. First of all, not everyone agrees but even then; what are you going to do about it?
I think there were a myriad of reasons for people to vote for Trump. As long as it wasn't Hillary played a big role. Beliefs in economic models. Gay rights, legalisation of drugs and other social progressive issues people were against. Fear of the economy and the Other. I suspect a lot of people voted for him despite expecting him to be a problematic candidate and some voted for him despite their belief/suspicion he was a racist. It can't be but a minority who voted for him that did so specifically for his bigotry and mysogyny. I'd personally just suspect more people to be up in arms about it but that's just projection from the political system I'm used to in the Netherlands.
Only Fox would report about it.
Probably because the accusations would have been invented by Hannity.
I think it's more than just subjective preferences. Simply being eligible and elected aren't sufficient to be considered good for the job, and it's Trump not being good for the job that's being claimed.
You might argue that they're misusing the term "qualified", but that's a trivial semantic issue that misses the main point.
Oh, and that's Anita Bryant in the picture, by the way. She is a former Miss America and was the wholesome spokesperson for the orange juice industry until she became an outspoken opponent of homosexuality and gay rights.
You speak as though this is a bad thing.
I am a strong supporter of gay rights and was before I knew my daughter is gay. I have no animosity and some sympathy toward those who disagree with my beliefs. Still, I thought Ms. Bryant's affiliation is worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.
Today, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump flies to Florida and plays golf rather than partaking in 'a day of service'. I suppose we shouldn't read anything into that.
To be honest I didn’t even know it was a tradition. And to be fair, no one is taking cues from me. I’m not the leader of the free world.
Why do we call these countries "third-world" or "developing" countries instead of "shithole" countries? Because it's disrespectful, ahistorical and imperialistic to call them shitholes when the white man was instrumental in making many of these places the shitholes they are.
Trump has been in a lose-lose situation with the media for a long time. He could do everything right and still get shit. Just the way things will be.
Of course it's impolitic to call Africa a shithole, especially when you consider just how large and varied Africa is. It's too blunt a shorthand term. Yes, it probably will make diplomacy more difficult for the United States for a while.
And its also the case that many of the problems in these various barely functioning states are a result of very, very bad colonial management. The Belgians fucked over their Congo territory, then left without having contributed much positive benefit. The Dutch, Germans, French, British, and Americans have all operated along similar lines, though maybe not quite as bad as the Belgians.
Empire, whether it be the Ottomans, Russians, Chinese, Moslems, or whoever is usually not popular out in the provinces. Reasonably so -- Empires generally don't exist for the benefit of the provinces: they exist for the benefit of the Imperial center.
But it's also the case that countries (made of people who are, after all, pretty much all alike) can and do make their own sub-optimum situations worse; much worse, quite often. Oligarchy, autocracy, corruption, neglect, and so on don't have to be taught by imperial powers. Little old isolated tribal groups can think up bad behavior on their own, and generally do.
Yes, these and other reasons contributed to Trump's election. Racism and xenophobia also played a role, of course, but his victory should not be reduced entirely to those things. The purpose of pushing that narrative, I think, is to deflect attention away from some of the legitimate grievances average Americans--and not just uneducated, ignorant white Americans--rightly feel against the dominant political, social and economic ruling class.
That widespread discontentment with the political status quo, along with the destabilizing sense that the culture and values of society are shifting rapidly, has led to a certain nostalgia for the good old days in which things may not have been perfect, but for many blue collar Americans they were much better. Practical things like finding a relatively stable and decent-paying job, purchasing a home, going to college without getting too far in debt, etc. are all far more rare now than they were 20-30-40 years ago.
Added to those basic material concerns is the impression--not entirely unfounded--that those who are in charge of things feel contempt for you and your lack of culture and sophistication. They mock you for your alleged racism and xenophobia while they live in cloistered neighborhoods, go on month long trips overseas, send their own kids to $40,000 a year private high schools, etc. I'd imagine it's fairly easy to be virtuous when you're in that genuinely privileged predicament.
So, along with rapidly diminishing prospects of material success for you and your children, there's a heightened sense of resentment felt towards the elites who have zero sympathy for your plight, who feel that this is the best of all possible worlds, and who treat you and all that you hold dear in a condescending and dismissive way.
And finally, I've mentioned it in other threads, but Democrats seem to have turned their backs on working class folk some time ago and opted instead for an odd coalition of their wealthy benefactors and marginalized groups. They don't even try to cultivate a broader working class narrative that could rally ALL less financially secure members of society together (other than Bernie Sanders), and they seem to purposely vilify older, less affluent white people as the source of the nation's problems. Why would this demographic vote for a party that wants nothing to do with them?
On the flip side, traditional small government Republicans have manipulated these same people through the use of various social and cultural issues to vote against their economic interests over the years. They've largely supported free trade agreements and outsourcing jobs (while simultaneously appealing to the patriotism of the masses and launching aggressive wars largely fought by them), mass immigration primarily in order to drive down labor costs for business owners, the scaling back of any remaining social programs which may benefit the poor or less fortunate in times of need, and the like.
In other words, they're up the creek without a paddle. Into this malaise comes Trump, who apparently ran numerous focus groups to find out what the major concerns of "average" Americans were. He's a lying, greedy, malicious douche, but he claimed to care about these people when nobody else did. All bullshit, there's little doubt about that, but the options were limited.
It's obviously more complex than this, but I do think we should consider the options available to the people who voted for Trump as possibly mitigating at least a small amount of the hatred we may feel for them.
Nixon: "I am not a crook"
Two shitheads.
The utter ineptitude of Trump as a leader, his ignorance, racism, over the top narcissism and the Russian help he got all make it too easy for the democrats not to be critical of themselves. And the focus that a lot of the supporters of Trump are racist neonazis doesn't help either here.
First and foremost, the wife of an earlier President was a disasterous choice for the DNC to start with. That Bernie Sanders got so much support tells how bad the choice of Hillary Clinton was for the democrats. Hillary Clinton losing to Obama ought to have told a lot to the DNC.
A populist law and order candidate promising to root out corruption in Washington would have gotten a lot of support as the message would be favourable to both right leaning and left leaning voters. The cluelessness of Trump is evident that he was surprised that the "Drain the swamp" message got so much popularity. Because if there are things that unite a lot of Americans, they are the distrust of the political establishment and the disgust of the basically legalized corruption.
If Trump wouldn't be as incompetent as he is and play for the rich elite as he does, his kind of fascism-lite could easily gain a lot of support. Luckily he is as incompetent as he is.
She better stay away at the next election, like she said she would.
Oh, stop with the apologism. He's outraged at those who do not stand for the national anthem, yet he fucks off and plays golf on such an important day? He is an odious man.
I am a genius. I gor 30/30 in my test.
Questions
1. What colour is blood
a, red, b blue
2. What are clothes made of?
a cloth, b shit.
3.Which is sweeter.
a sugar b shit
4. What smells worse
a peanut butter b shit
5 Which is hotter
a the sun b shit
etc....
This is the cognitive test the president passed
LOL!
Hardly makes him a fucking genius.
Spell Rhinoceros!!
Fuck!
I don't think he believes he is a racist.
There is a type of racism that does not believe it is racist. People who are not overtly racist in their dealings with others (perhaps this is why they think they are not racist), but who in their private conversations with other like minded, are blatantly and disparagingly racist. Go to most any local service club and listen to their private conversations. Many of these organizations have bake sales for the poor, gather turkeys to distribute or have Christmas Trees sales and so forth and I think they mean to do good, but in private with others of their ilk, they shed their pretense and enjoy their bigoted sense of superiority. Archie is not gone, he is just no longer blatant in public, he's on the down low.
If that makes any sense.
Florida has approximately 425,000 people of Haitian origin in its population, more than twice that of any other state. The few Haitians I have spoken to are very upset with the Trump's characterization of Haiti.
This is a pattern.
(Quoting Stephen Sackur on HARDtalk).
The US seems to be in a most tragic decline.
I just watched David Letterman's latest. He interviewed Obama for his first programme.
This is no reflection on Obama, but he represents the failure of the US system. A man of intelligence, who genuinely cared about inequality and poverty found himself impotent to do anything about it.
He was pilloried and traduced for eight years whilst the media grilled him over hot coals.
And the US's response to the end of his term is a megalomaniac, narcissistic moron, who is now taking credit for what little Obama was able to do in re-booting the economy, and giving his family a massive inheritance tax-break, at the expense of the poorest.
Holy hypocrisy, batman!
Listened to part of his broadcast. Got to the part about Obama saying Libya is a "Shit Show" which he said after Qaddafi's death in regards to acceleration of violence in that country. Obama didn't characterize Libya or any other country as a "shit hole" as Trump is alleged to have said, also Obama's words were widely reported and quoted. There wasn't an uproar because what Obama said described the situation.
He might not know what the actual definition of a racist is.
Who would know?