T1B

Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries in Oval Office meeting

Moving Sale wrote:Not sure who you were directing that to 88, but I was commenting on his idiocy not his border policy, if he has one.

88 wrote:Your takes, while predictable, do not address the substance of the immigration issue. So I will present it to you succinctly:

What should the immigration policy of this nation be at this time, and why?

Here is my take (to be fair):

A sovereign nation such as the United States is not required to permit anyone not presently a citizen of the United States to enter the country and become a citizen. It should only do so if adding new citizens to the nation benefits the nation (or if there are humanitarian reasons that compel the United States to act notwithstanding the absence of any benefit). I acknowledge that there are reasons why a sovereign nation such as the United States might want to encourage immigration and grant citizenship to immigrants at various times. Examples might include the need for a particular type of labor, or the need to settle swaths of territory that are largely uninhabited and therefore undefended. These reasons tend to change over time. And the immigration laws must change to account for changing times. For example, if technological improvements reduce the demand for unskilled labor, and the unemployment rate for large populations of unskilled labor already in the country becomes too high (thereby suppressing their wages and resulting in poverty etc.), it would be counterproductive to the health and well-being of the citizens of the nation to have immigration policies that encourage large populations of unskilled labor to immigrate to the country and become citizens. In that circumstance, it would be appropriate to have policies that favor immigration by people who can benefit the economy and the health and prosperity of the current citizens of the country. Furthermore, regardless of anyone's particular position on immigration, there must be strong border security, which is enforced. Absent border security and enforcement, immigration policy is a joke. And it has been a joke for decades and decades. It is time to fix it.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Not sure who you were directing that to 88, but I was commenting on his idiocy not his border policy, if he has one.

His border policy is simply this: I don't want brown people here.

Moving Sale wrote: I'm against that. Seems retarded.

88 wrote:Your takes, while predictable, do not address the substance of the immigration issue. So I will present it to you succinctly:

What should the immigration policy of this nation be at this time, and why?

Here is my take (to be fair):

A sovereign nation such as the United States is not required to permit anyone not presently a citizen of the United States to enter the country and become a citizen. It should only do so if adding new citizens to the nation benefits the nation (or if there are humanitarian reasons that compel the United States to act notwithstanding the absence of any benefit). I acknowledge that there are reasons why a sovereign nation such as the United States might want to encourage immigration and grant citizenship to immigrants at various times. Examples might include the need for a particular type of labor, or the need to settle swaths of territory that are largely uninhabited and therefore undefended. These reasons tend to change over time. And the immigration laws must change to account for changing times. For example, if technological improvements reduce the demand for unskilled labor, and the unemployment rate for large populations of unskilled labor already in the country becomes too high (thereby suppressing their wages and resulting in poverty etc.), it would be counterproductive to the health and well-being of the citizens of the nation to have immigration policies that encourage large populations of unskilled labor to immigrate to the country and become citizens. In that circumstance, it would be appropriate to have policies that favor immigration by people who can benefit the economy and the health and prosperity of the current citizens of the country. Furthermore, regardless of anyone's particular position on immigration, there must be strong border security, which is enforced. Absent border security and enforcement, immigration policy is a joke. And it has been a joke for decades and decades. It is time to fix it.

88 wrote:Your takes, while predictable, do not address the substance of the immigration issue.

Softball Bat wrote: The thread isn't about immigration policy.

It is about Trump's aberrant behavior.

Papa Willie wrote:Screwy - how do you let a fucking President ruin your life to the point of where the ONLY thing you can talk/cry about is him? Fuck dude. Talk about a seriously fucked up obsession!

SM wrote:No shit. I cannot believe it is 2018 and the fucking PRESIDENT is one the record calling other countries shitholes.

88 wrote:If the countries Trump referred to as “shitholes” were not as he described, why would mass numbers of their citizens want to immigrate here?

The fight to protect Dreamers...is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success

88 wrote:If the countries Trump referred to as “shitholes” were not as he described, why would mass numbers of their citizens want to immigrate here?

88 wrote:Apparently, you can’t handle someone who speaks the truth. It isn’t a racial issue. It is a question of whether it is a good idea to import large numbers of poor, uneducated people from places that do not have highly functioning societies to become new citizens. Third world immigrants make no sense when we have millions of unemployed first world citizens. In fact, one could reasonably assert that importing uneducated immigrants is racist because it tends to harm the poorest in America, which unfortunately tend to be uneducated “brown” people (Screwy’s term).

88 wrote:Good Lord. So your collective panties are in a wad over his vernacular, and not the substance of his positions?

88 wrote:It is always about the . Tell me one time when it wasn’t.

88 wrote:Good Lord. So your collective panties are in a wad over his vernacular, and not the substance of his positions? So tedious. Especially coming from the Internet message flame throwers you are daily.

I wish Trump would tell the assholes on both sides of the aisle during the State of the Union address to quit being fucking pussies, shut the fuck up and do their fucking jobs.

Screw_Michigan wrote:It's true, beyond any shadow of a doubt

Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries in Oval Office meeting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... e1a70e2413

Fuck him.

88 wrote:Trump is what a society that puts up with that horseshit gets and deserves.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:So you didn't even read what I posted. Or you are a crass pos who cusses at judges.

Judges can put me in the pokey for contempt if I curse in their courtroom. No one can do jack shit to Trump if he decides to call a shithole a shithole. But I agree, he chooses his words poorly and does not bring honor to the office as Reagan did. But there is a long history of defiling the office. Clinton shoved cigars in interns and lied about it to the nation. And Obama refused to enforce the nation’s laws that he did not agree with. Trump is what a society that puts up with that horseshit gets and deserves.

88 wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:

88 wrote:Trump is what a society that puts up with that horseshit gets and deserves.

It's what you voted for.

lol

Only because the anointed alternative was corrupt.

Rooster wrote:But feel free to virtue signal some more if it makes you seem more sanctimonious.

Softball Bat wrote: Dude, Donald's comment is wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind that any sane person who come in here to defend it.
Maybe you are insane?

Just for starters, can you imagine how many million productive Americans either came directly (or had parents/grandparents who immigrated) from one of the "shithole countries" Donald was speaking of?

schmick wrote:If you're fleeing a place to go to another place, the place you are fleeing is a shithole


And if "brown people" turn where they live in to shitholes, why would we want them here doing that to our country?

88 wrote:Something missing from the discussion in this thread is that Trump's comments were apparently not uttered in a public forum.

Moving Sale wrote:Why do you hate the Irish?

88 wrote:I voted for Trump and would do so again if given the same options. Any person who does not want to live in a corrupt society would do the same.

Something missing from the discussion in this thread is that Trump's comments were apparently not uttered in a public forum. The comments were made in a closed door meeting with six Senators and fed to the Press by an aide to a Democrat senator (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... ns-n836946). Trump may have said exactly what is being reported (and thus his denial may be a lie). None of us have any way to know. But a President should be able to say whatever he wants however he wants in a non-public meeting to get his point across without fear that his enemies and a willing Press will try to use his choice of words to undermine his policy objectives and his presidency. Furthermore, people in third world shitholes wouldn't be upset today (if they even are) if the Press didn't rush out to publish the comments, which have no use except to undermine the president and his policy objectives. MS said he never heard a judge call a defendant a POS even though they murdered someone. And that may be true, at least in a courtroom. But MS has apparently never clerked for a judge or been privy to private conversations between them, particularly after the case has ended.

Any person who does not want to live in a corrupt society would do the same.

Softball Bat wrote:

88 wrote:Something missing from the discussion in this thread is that Trump's comments were apparently not uttered in a public forum.

It was an oval office meeting with lawmakers.

It is routine for the media to be briefed on a meeting such as that.

If a president says something as mind-boggling as what Don said yesterday, of course it is going to be included in the briefing.

At the moment it was said, you know that jaws dropped to the floor.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is going to stay in the room.


Beyond that, the White House was asked yesterday to respond to what Don said, and they put out a statement that gibbered around and DID NOT DENY that it is what Donald said.

If he didn't say it (which is what he claimed on Twitter this morning), or if they absolutely did not want it to be known as something Don had said, then why didn't the WH forcefully DENY that it was said?


He said it.
He's a stupid ass.