Donald is here to stay, now what? Cursing and swearing OK

[pErvinalia]

Barriers are less than ideal, but necessary in some cases. But there's a difference between fences and walls. And I know you are going to spend paragraphs explaining how they are the same, but there's a clear perceptual and psychological difference between a wall and a fence. All countries should be looking forward and trying to build better relationships between their neighbours. Building a giant fuck-off wall between yourself and your neighbour isn't a step forward.

[Seabass]

No one's going to bat an eyelid at a government erecting some fence as part of a larger border security effort. But there's a difference between that and an overtly racist and xenophobic presidential candidate blustering about building a "big, beautiful wall" to keep out the murderous, rapist brown people in front of throngs of enthralled worshippers chanting "BUILD THAT WALL". FFS, thanks to Trump, we have white elementary school kids chanting "BUILD THAT WALL" at Mexican elementary school kids.

That's the difference. Any non-bigot, non-moron can see it.

[Seabass]

Trump has shithole problems but this OK because Hillary had people killed:
https://shareblue.com/this-is-not-fox-j ... d-someone/

We're relying on Dick Durbin for the accuracy of the shithole comment? LOL. I'll pass.

It's a ridiculous manufactured scandal. Even if he said it, so what? Most of them are shitholes. The Clintons help make Haiti extra-shitty, by the way.

And, if the countries aren't shitholes, then why the argument from your side that the people there are escaping starvation, oppression, persecution and other reasons for affording them asylum and refugee status?

Are you really that fuckin' stupid?

If Drumpf truly wants merit-based immigration, then it shouldn't matter to him where the fuck the immigrants come from.

If he wants immigrants from Norway but not from Africa, then either:
a) he thinks 100% of Norwegians are skilled and educated, and 0% of Africans are skilled and educated, or
b) he wants people with white skin and not people with brown skin.
Which do you think is more likely?

It wes a shitty, racist comment made by a shitty, racist president who was elected by shitty, racist, dumb motherfuckers.

If we had merit based immigration, then there would be no issue about where they came from. The problem he's trying to address is family based chain migration and the diversity "lottery."

And, he's denied saying it, and Durbin is a confirmed fibber.

Between Trump and Durbin, you think Durbin is the liar. Holy God. Jesus H. Goddamn Christ on a fucking motorcycle with sidecar.

[pErvinalia]

No one's going to bat an eyelid at a government erecting some fence as part of a larger border security effort. But there's a difference between that and an overtly racist and xenophobic presidential candidate blustering about building a "big, beautiful wall" to keep out the murderous, rapist brown people in front of throngs of enthralled worshippers chanting "BUILD THAT WALL". FFS, thanks to Trump, we have white elementary school kids chanting "BUILD THAT WALL" at Mexican elementary school kids.

That's the difference. Any non-bigot, non-moron can see it.

And wot he said.

[Animavore]

Donald Trump wants America to have more immigrants from Norway in contrast to what he reportedly called "shithole countries" in Africa.

Although we love to visit America, Mr. Trump, it is highly unlikely that Norwegians are going to flow into the US to live. As a citizen of Norway, I can tell you we're not flattered, but offended by the President's eagerness to have us emigrate.

Even though Trump has denied making the particular comment, members of Congress who attended the meeting say that the reports are true.
The offer has left Norwegians offended, not flattered.

President Trump is judging immigrants by where they come from, and it is hard not to see this as a question of ethnicity. Norwegians have had a history of being positively discriminated for our race and have resisted those ideas before -- we will do it again.

We like where we live. In fact, Norway is the happiest country in the world. We are that way because we live in an egalitarian society where we strive to give everyone good and equal opportunities -- regardless of ethnic, gender and social background.

A century ago it was different. About 800,000 Norwegians migrated to the US, including my great-grandfather. We were a poor country, and the migrants were searching for opportunities and fit the phrase on the Statue of Liberty: They were our tired, our poor. America welcomed them, and they found what they were looking for.

Today, Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, and we will not give up on our cradle-to-grave welfare. Our parental leave is a generous year, kindergarten is cheap, and our higher education is free. Health care is also free for every Norwegian citizen. Our society strives to be tolerant. Every political party promotes liberal values, gender-equality and human rights. The plumber´s son goes to school with the CEO´s daughter, and social mobility is high. Hence, our leaders have diverse backgrounds and anyone could meet the NATO secretary general skiing in the woods or our Prime Minister at the supermarket doing her own grocery shopping.

Full: http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/13/opini ... index.html

Reading between the lines, I think she's trying to say, "Why would we move to a shithole like the States".

[Brian Peacock]

Oi, look over there - a badger playing the bagpipes!

LOL - so, nothing wrong with those other walls. Just the one wall, the US wall. That's the problem. Yes?

The thing is, you often raise the distracting red herring, pressed into the service of a moral equivalence, before ignorung the issue at hand entirely. What you would have us believe is that one countries policies automatically justify anothers', so tell me again why I have to criticise someone else's wall first before I can qualify to express my opinion on Trump's wall?

You don't. However, if someone like John Oliver is going to go around lambasting the idea of a wall in the US, then one might reasonably wonder what his position - him being a Brit -- is about the Calais issue. He's silent about that. Is the argument really going to be that the one in Calais, or Greece or Bulgaria or Hungary or Austria or Estonia.... that those walls DON'T just encourage the purchase of taller ladders?

Again, it's pretty clear what condition you're putting on the criticism of a policy here, the question was why does, should or must that condition apply?

What's the policy difference? Why do they get to have walls without being racists, even though they're keeping out folks from brown countries, but if the US wants effective border control and a wall too, it's a big fucking problem?

I guess Trump's wall is tainted with racism because he justified it on the basis that Mexicans were rapists and murderers.

You'd like to shift the burden of justification onto the objectors to that kind of political motivation and challenge them on as to why building the wall, or even the wall itself, is racist, when it's the reasons for building it that are at issue. Didn't Trump promise to have rounded up and deported all the illegals by now btw?

And, why do all these other folks from around the world focus on what the US does with it's border, but not focus on other countries? After all, as you and others have made clear - it's obvious the US sucks anyway, people starve in the streets, we don't care about the poor, so they'd not want to come here anyway, right?

Now you're playing the victim card: Poor done-down America, the nation built by immigrants and the defender of freedom, liberty and inalienable rights, is being singled out and picked on again. Just how many countries, political systems, and individual policies must we criticise before we can rightfully turn our gaze to the US? Seems to me that only when the rest of the world is perfect do we earn the privilege of examining America and/or critiquing this administration.

[Animavore]

"No, No. I'm not a racist," Trump said Sunday, after reporters asked him to respond to those who think he is. "I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed. That I can tell you."

[pErvinalia]

Doesn't he realise how transparent his "I'm the most/least/greatest [insert attribute] in the world" and "No one knows [insert thing/concept] better than I do" shtick is?

[Tero]

Er, no. Those that voted for him still believe him after he says ”believe me.” They are what we call dumb. It might them the 4 years to realize they bought a used Pinto.

[Tero]

AFTER “SHITHOLE”-GATE, THE ALT-RIGHT SADLY LOVES TRUMP MORE THAN EVER
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01 ... e-comments

[pErvinalia]

The US really needs to split up. If the smart and rich states did away with the dumb states, they would go on to incredibly great things. I guess the tricky issue would be the stupid backwards states winding up with nukes.

[Seabass]

[Hermit]

NYT: Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List

Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure. He had a history of making racist comments as a New York real-estate developer in the 1970s and ‘80s. More recently, his political rise was built on promulgating the lie that the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya. He then launched his campaign with a speech describing Mexicans as rapists.

The media often falls back on euphemisms when describing Trump’s comments about race: racially loaded, racially charged, racially tinged, racially sensitive. And Trump himself has claimed that he is “the least racist person.” But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so.

Here, we have attempted to compile a definitive list of his racist comments – or at least the publicly known ones.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... acist.html

Trump did not describe the Mexicans in general as rapists. He said Mexico sends its rapists and criminals across the border. (Which is not true either. He was probably thinking the Mexican government is doing something similar to Fidel Castro when the then American President opened the doors to Cuban refugees. Castro used the invitation to empty most of Cuba's prisons and a good proportion of its mental asylums.) Anyway, if that is what the NYT included in its list of Trump's racism, it has egg on its face. Moreover, getting facts wrong when criticising someone is counterproductive. I can hear the outcry already: "See? Another lie! NYT-MSM fake news! Can't trust the lying fucks."

[Seabass]

NYT: Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List

Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure. He had a history of making racist comments as a New York real-estate developer in the 1970s and ‘80s. More recently, his political rise was built on promulgating the lie that the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya. He then launched his campaign with a speech describing Mexicans as rapists.

The media often falls back on euphemisms when describing Trump’s comments about race: racially loaded, racially charged, racially tinged, racially sensitive. And Trump himself has claimed that he is “the least racist person.” But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so.

Here, we have attempted to compile a definitive list of his racist comments – or at least the publicly known ones.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... acist.html

Trump did not describe the Mexicans in general as rapists. He said Mexico sends its rapists and criminals across the border. (Which is not true either. He was probably thinking the Mexican government is doing something similar to Fidel Castro when the then American President opened the doors to Cuban refugees. Castro used the invitation to empty most of Cuba's prisons and a good proportion of its mental asylums.) Anyway, if that is what the NYT included in its list of Trump's racism, it has egg on its face. Moreover, getting facts wrong when criticising someone is counterproductive. I can hear the outcry already: "See? Another lie! NYT-MSM fake news! Can't trust the lying fucks."

If you scroll down the article, the author gets more specific. I agree though, that his critics sometimes get a little sloppy with that particular remark, and should be more careful.

[Hermit]

Oi, look over there - a badger playing the bagpipes!

LOL - so, nothing wrong with those other walls. Just the one wall, the US wall. That's the problem. Yes?

The thing is, you often raise the distracting red herring, pressed into the service of a moral equivalence, before ignorung the issue at hand entirely. What you would have us believe is that one countries policies automatically justify anothers', so tell me again why I have to criticise someone else's wall first before I can qualify to express my opinion on Trump's wall?

You don't. However, if someone like John Oliver is going to go around lambasting the idea of a wall in the US, then one might reasonably wonder what his position - him being a Brit -- is about the Calais issue. He's silent about that. Is the argument really going to be that the one in Calais, or Greece or Bulgaria or Hungary or Austria or Estonia.... that those walls DON'T just encourage the purchase of taller ladders?

Brian Peacock doesn't have to, but John Oliver does? Like, every time TV show hosts talks about, say, Trump's lies they are duty-bound to spend equal time on Clinton's lies? Do fuck off.