Trump publically uses expletive to describe Africans and Caribbeans?
Sorry, folks, the content here is rated PG.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-sh … ies-2018-1
So, this is what he thinks of Africans and residents of the Caribbean? And all these conservatives are telling me that he does not have "racial issues"?
Why doesn't this man put a muzzle on his mouth, does this sound Presidential to you? How does he remain so stupid as to let such comments get into the press? He has to know what the results are going to be.
This info is all over a wide variety of news sources, so conservatives, spare me the fake news crap!!
Let's hear your explanations. I always only have to wait a day or so before Trump "screws the pooch" again.White supremicists are praising Trump's comments. From the Daily Stormer:
"This is encouraging and refreshing, as it indicates Trump is more or less on the same page as us with regards to race and immigration."
https://dailystormer.red/trump-says-no- … y-instead/
I would not feel comfortable defending Trump here when racists are praising him.This is only being reported on real news channels and not on Fox so far, Pro. So DT fans are not aware..
Somebody asked me earlier, what does this say about Trump's followers, hmm....
It isn't that they "rationalize" his action. They KNOW who Trump really is but they chose to ignore it, pure & simple. They know that Trump is a racist but nevertheless they accept it or they may refute it.
Can you point to a single thing in his statement about race? Or are you just making it up that it's about race rather than education, skills, culture, etc.?
Not defending his language - it's out of line - but it certainly isn't about race, either.Can you imagine Trump calling a group of European nations "shithole countries"?
I know, it's merely coincidence that his derogatory comments are about countries with predominantly dark-skinned citizens.
He also said, "Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out."
He also said we need more people from Norway.Correct, all the way down. Some questions for you:
Are people or Norway better educated, on the average? Do they have more salable skills (salable in the US)? Do they come from a culture closer or further from our own than people from Haiti? Are their living conditions closer or further from ours than people in Haiti? Are they more or less accustomed to our standards and requirements of sanitation than Haitians?
All in all, I think I'd rather have a random Norwegian family living next door to me than a random family from Haiti. I think they would be more likely to support themselves, too and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.
Did you give up on finding anything racial about his statements? You didn't point to anything that even might indicate racism...
Setting aside the matter of appropriate language, there are quite a few "shithole countries" in this world, but precious few are located in Europe. And Norway isn't one of them.I'm so disgusted by your response that this is the only response I can give you right now.
Yeah, I know. It isn't about faking up a racism charge on the President, but about encouraging immigration from educated, skilled people that might be a good fit in our culture.
Disgusting.
But you still didn't indicate anything racist about Trump's remarks...If these words you supported are not racist action then there is no racist in this world.
Wilderness, this sounds like you like people from Norway. AND you don't like people from Haiti.
I don't know anyone from either country, so can have no opinions there. But I do have an opinion, based solely on pictures and reports from people that have been there, that I would almost certainly be happier if dropped into a random spot in Norway than a random spot in Haiti.
How about you? Using your limited knowledge of both places, and discounting the tourist areas, would you rather live in Haiti or Norway?The point is that we are talking about human beings. In the right conditions, they thrive.
Where you are from is not the sum total of who you are?
If I were a missionary, I would go wherever I needed to go. That is the Lord's Great Commission in Matthew 28:19.20
Your primary focus is where they are from. Mine is who they are and what they can become."In the right conditions, they thrive."
You are absolutely correct. And if they have never been in conditions anything like what they would find in the US their chances of survival (without considerable aid) are significantly lower than in something more in line with their experience.
No. That continues to be misconstrued, whether intentionally or through misunderstanding. The focus is not where they are from; it is exactly who and what they are. And when a lottery replaces actual examination all that's left is to extrapolate from where to make a best guess as to who and what based on the "who" and "what" other people from the same "where" are. Not what they can become (all peoples can become almost anything if started young enough), but what they are now. We aren't inviting the future person to enter and live with us; we're inviting what exists right now.
There are spots in Los Angeles that I don't want to be dropped off in. However, there are spots in LA that I would LOVE to be able to live in.
I'm in Fontana. There are places in Fontana I don't want to live in. I absolutely love where I live.*shudder* I've been to LA. And have no intention of ever going again. There is nothing in that concrete and steel anthill that interests me. Even though most of it DID seem to have indoor plumbing.
Actually, I DID enjoy the tar pits, but you have to go through the rest of that "anthill God hath forsaken" to get there. Not worth it. Even San Francisco was better (it's smaller).
"President Donald Trump reportedly questioned in a White House meeting on Thursday why the United States should accept immigrants from "shithole countries," referring to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations. "
Cmon, Wilderness, you are making excuses for this despicable person. But, of course you can't see it. It is pretty obvious to most of us. Who is going to agree with you on this assessment?
"President Donald Trump reportedly questioned in a White House meeting on Thursday why the United States should accept immigrants from "shithole countries," referring to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations. "
So who lives in these ******** countries? Equivocating is not going to save you.... So we generalize and say that African nations are generally 's***holes? What racial group do you associate with living in Africa?
He praises Norway in earlier comment as the example of the "kinds of people" he wants to immigrate. Do you see a pattern?
Taking in his record of past statements cumulatively, it not hard to see that 2 + 2 does not equal 5."So we generalize and say that African nations are generally 's***holes"
Are they? On the whole, with few exceptions, are they? (Only honest answers accepted).
"He praises Norway in earlier comment as the example of the "kinds of people" he wants to immigrate. Do you see a pattern?"
Sure do - it seems he would prefer educated, skilled immigrants able to support themselves and with a similar culture to those without. This is inline with earlier comments on "merit based" immigration and with "America First" concept, with immigrants that benefit us rather immigrants that benefit themselves. Or did you miss the ongoing patterns here? They have been pretty well spelled out in the past...
You can turn it into something about skin color if you wish - your prerogative - but no one that actual reads it and makes even a tiny effort to understand it is going to.
all societies have people along the spectrum of education. If there is an African who is at the top of his class in the sciences, why shouldn't he be allowed to leave the shithole for the US.? Maybe the problem is not race, but it is definitely "shitholes." What makes countries shitholes? What cultural elements are included? Are they shithole cultures?
Start with a lack of sanitation - that would make a "shithole" pretty quickly, wouldn't it?
(Did you know Denver recently passed a law removing criminal penalties for defecating or urinating on their streets and sidewalks. The stated reason was that they were convicting illegal aliens of these things and putting them in jail for it, whereupon ICE came around and deported them. Can't have illegals being deported, so it is no longer a crime. Pretty foreign to us, but some cultures still have good sized cities with very little sanitation in them.)
Yes, all societies (well, almost all of them, anyway) have varying degrees of education. The thing is that I don't take Trumps words at face value and try my best to be offended if at all possible. Instead I'll try to figure out what he's talking about, and why.
In this case (the "shithole" countries) I think he's saying let's quit giving priority to immigrants that are coming from cultures that do not provide what the US can use. That has masses of people living in middle ages conditions and with middle ages skill sets. Instead, give priority to cultures that DO, mostly, produce people that will fit into our culture, that have skills we find useful, etc.Please pardon my interrupting here, but there is a presumption that “American Culture” is superior?
Well, not necessarily. I have lived in various cultures and adjusted to most of them to the extent of not passing negative judgement on those people. The standards of sanitation differ of course, but people get used to those standards and, by and large, live happily. So, to label those other cultures as “shithole,” without knowing or understanding them is ignorant and insulting. Granted, one can work to influence improvements, but rarely is a judgement truly valid; whether coming from a president or anyone else. Better if one gets to know them in a friendly and helpful manner.
IMHO.Whether superior or not, it is the one we have and immigrants should be expected to fit into it and provide something of value to it.
Then it follows that Americans should adapt to other cultures around the world, for example in Africa or Haiti, and work with the wishes of the local people, rather than presuming America's culture is the answer to every one's problems and expecting them to change.
How would you feel about someone from another country labelling your own state as a "shithole?" No doubt you would be offended. So, maybe your presumption of superiority needs to be addressed. It's primarily a matter of attitude surely?Why in the world would I want to work with the wishes of the local people or adapt to their culture in order for them to immigrate to the US? If you want to immigrate to my country you will work with my culture and adapt to it. Not expect it to be changed to what you would like more. If you prefer your own culture, then stay with it - don't expect me to change mine just for you.
Don't know that anyone has called the US "a shithole"...but they've surely labeled the most giving country in the world as "heartless", "cruel", "inhumane" and other choice terms along those lines. Not because we defecate in the streets but because they can't get their hands on what we've made for ourselves.I'm assuming you are speaking of our post slavery days? And after we stole the land from the Natives? Sure, lots to be really proud of indeed.
Tell you what. Whatever you own, give it to a native American. Until you do, this is b.s. lip service which doesn't amount to poop.
No L2L, yours is a typical right wing response from those who care not how our country began. You 've learned nothing from history....
LOL. You ignore history. The settlers were just a different type of migrating tribe that displaced earlier groups who had displaced earlier groups. I suppose you are right though, We'd all be giving to those who would have to give,who would have to give. Where would it end?
I suppose that's why the religionists believe this country was founded on God's principles. All that killin' and raping and other Biblical stuff......
I have no idea what that has to do with anything we've bandied about but, judging by your inability to stay in point, I suppose it all makes sense.
This seems to always be "forgotten" somehow - that there isn't a square inch of this planet's surface that hasn't been conquered and taken from someone else by those that occupy it now. Multiple times.
Yep. But the others weren't American. The country everyone, even some of its citizens, feel the need to blame for everything.
Quite right. For instance, the Conquistadors stole land from native Mesoamericans called Aztecs. Like other native American tribes (and unlike every other human population in history), the Aztecs never participated in conquest or expansions for territory - all of their land was theirs by right of being there first. The reason they never had any territorial conflicts is because they were all united under the banner of "Native American" - no further nuance is needed, because they're basically all the same anyway.
I'm sure they didn't call themselves Native Americans before Columbus "found" (wink, wink) it.
When did America get its name?
The LOC.GOV Wise Guide : How Did America Get Its Name? America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer who set forth the then revolutionary concept that the lands that Christopher Columbus sailed to in 1492 were part of a separate continent.Whatever they called themselves, they were all part of one group that collectively owned the entirety of the Americas and had done so without conflict in their entire history. The only territorial conflict they experienced was inflicted on them by the European conquerors. Before that, they all sat around singing "this land is my land, this land is your land" without any troubles whatsoever.
From what I read, their philosophy that you can't own land. It is there to be used but not owned.
I suggest, Sir, that you get rid of those rose-tinted spectacles in relation to your own country. There are other very valid roads to success which do not depend on indoor toilet facilities; fresh clean drinking water that is flushed complacently, by the gallon, chasing after your motions; or vast and expensive sewerage systems to “keep it out-of-sight-out-of-mind.” Your country’s history is questionable if you think it has been ultra-altruistic; and it seems that selfishness persists in some quarters.
But then the United States of America is not a mono-culture, is it? So many cultures have been been encouraged to come and do the dirty, unpleasant jobs, so those who value the good life can sit back and relax under the watchful eye of their Ever-Loving and Graceous God.
Forgive me if absolutely nothing of this is true, but perceptions do speak to us outsiders.What are these valid roads to success that do not depend on indoor plumbing, Jonny? I'm just curious.
Do the drug lords in Colombia have indoor plumbing in the middle of the jungle?
Success is not dependent on indoor plumbing! A lot of people in so-called 3rd world countries succeed with the facilities they have. But do you consider indoor plumbing essential for life? Does this show how insular you have become?
The idea that everyone in the world must bow to the phobic sanitary expectations of America - when there are equally if not more practical and ecologically appropriate methods of dealing with excreta.
Have you not heard of the term “fecophobia?” I.e., the exaggerated and unrealistic fear of excrement?I know success is not entirely dependent on indoor plumbing; but it is at least somewhat dependent on health, which is partially affected by basic sanitation including indoor plumbing. Essential for life? No. Does it make life better? Yes.
The question I am asking is what other valid paths to success exist which are not partially dependent on basic sanitation requirements like indoor plumbing. You say a lot of people succeed with the facilities they have, but you haven't explained in what manner they succeed. If not needing these sanitary facilities is such a viable path to success, why has most of the world chosen not to adopt it?
I think there is a world of difference between phobia of fecal matter and basic sanitation practices.With respect to your’s and other points of view, all of which can be more or less valid, because each of us comes from different back grounds and experiences, the details of argument are probably not important here, although I’m happy to address them if you and others want me to.
Sufficient to point out the need to look beyond the cultural habits we get used to and comfortable with, then becoming aware that “my” cultural demands should not dominate “my” interactions with others.
In my opinion, this principle needs to apply in areas of hygiene, sanitation, manners, courtesy, religious observance, etc.
When I enter my neighbour’s dwelling - his/her domain - or a neighbouring country then, yes, I need to learn my place as a guest and not immediate criticise on things I don’t understand. (And I have learned this lesson through times spent in other countries, with social conditions far removed from an English childhood and upbringing.Sanitation and hygiene are health demands. Yes, different cultures will value these areas differently. My guess is that the cultures who do not value hygiene and sanitation are going to be less healthy than cultures that do. And consequently, the people who are part of those cultures will face greater hardships (health-wise) than those in cultures that value hygiene and sanitation. In theory, that will impact their success.
No need for details. I'm only looking for an example of a viable path to success that is not dependent on hygiene/sanitation (read: health). I can't think of a scenario where health does not play a role in success.Ok, thank you for that point of view. So, let me address it as I see it, hoping this will give you further food-for-thought.
Where the demand is for ultra-clean, scrubbed, disinfected bathrooms, toilet bowls, white tiling, fans extracting objectionable odours - these demands can in themselves cause ill health. Ultra clean deprives us of the low level of a bacterial diversity which can help build up our personal immunity.
Scrubbing hard can dislodge fungal and bacterial deposits, mobilising them into contact with us; whereas if left alone they would cause no problem. Disinfectant, especially when based on Chlorine, is apt to kill off a whole range of organisms, even those which are likely to cause us no harm. Flushing water into a toilet bowl is known to cause an aerosol - minute droplets of water carried into air, possibly carrying bacteria onto bathroom surfaces....even onto your toothbrush! Such a bathroom will hang onto the odour you have just produced, thus the need for an extractor fan. In short, the “indoor bathroom” is far from the healthy American dream.
Contrast this with a composting toilet, of the Humanure type, which carries none of the disadvantages as listed above. Inexpensive, hygienic, ecological, environmentally friendly, zero waste of water, and such a toilet can stop the spread of ill health such as Cholera in its tracks! There are people in Haiti working hard with the Haitian people (not doing it for them), taking a positive, constructive, Community-based approach to the whole business (pardon the pun).
If you wish to explore all of this further, look up “S.O.I.L.” and “Humanure.”
I do accept that some sanitation practices can lend themselves to the spread of disease, I have seen them first-hand in various countries. But some of the more basic and, you might say, primitive techniques of sanitation can be much less harmful than some people might imagine.I had a feeling you'd take it to that route, Jonny, as it's one I considered myself. You're right, there is room for improvement in terms of Western sanitation practices. But you seemed to be implying that there were other countries and cultures who already had these paths implemented. Oddly enough, the two examples you give are American enterprises, and they don't seem to be widespread practices.
As I suspected, the American traditional systems of hygiene and sanitation, despite having room for improvement, are overall better than nothing. Nothing is the situation that millions of people in the world face this very day. As it happens, the countries most affected by this seem to be in Africa. Do you think that will affect their chances of success?
What roads might those be - just a few examples - of "roads to success" that will legally apply to the US today and that are commonly used by people that have never had access to an indoor toilet?
It's not the construction industry (building houses, say) as those use far different tools and methods than third world countries. It's not landscaping, for the same reason. It certainly isn't anything to do with food preparation or with the health industry. It isn't anything to do with transportation or with teaching.
What roads do you reference?
While I agree with this concept in the broad principle, what is 'my' culture? What you consider 'our' culture and what you, a man from Idaho, consider THE American Culture verses how I perceive this are two different things. I welcome and accept diversity brought here from around the world, but conservatives are naturally intimidated by such concepts. The 'culture' has changed from that of, say, 60 years ago and will change even more dramatically in the next 60. So, I recommend that you hang on to your hat. What you consider 'your' culture may well be non-existent in relatively near future.
An adjective like sh*t hole, dehumanizes entire societies and people as other adjectives do not.
We are going to disagree, but I want a both a lottery system, not giving certain countries an advantage as you seem to imply, and a specific merit based program to admit Phds and Rocket Scientists. Participants who are allowed in modest numbers eligible from each and every nation on earth. We don't have to overrun the immigration system with such a program, but I stand firm in support of this idea. This, knowing that conservatives and flinty types are going to take issue with it.Hi there Cred, sorry but your number came up in the lottery - as in catching the hook of my response to the spat of comments that started with, and followed, Randy's "stole it from the Indians" shot.
Geez, talk about going off the rails, and tired old tirades. Evil white men stole the land. America is built on the curse of dastardly deeds. Sarcastic references to America having something to be proud of. Pres. Trump's "statement" being interpreted to have something to do with pooping in the street and indoor plumbing. yada yada, yada. Geez. Some folks need to buy a few new tricks, most in their audience are onto the old ones.
Hold on a minute... I need a sip...
Now, back to you and your lucky lottery number. Your comment sounds like you are saying you want that lottery in place so that "good" folks that don't meet the merit-based standards can still have a chance to come to our great nation.
If that is a correct reading of what you meant, then you should go back to the "Diversity lottery" thread and read a few of the explanatory posts that started with psycheskinner's comment. Here, I will offer a shortcut: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/336 … ost3979941
Because... (hold on, another sip...), drum roll.... diversity visa lottery winners do have to meet the same immigration standards that "normal," (merit-based), immigration applicants must meet. As psycheskinner correctly pointed out, lottery winners do not automatically get a visa - regardless of standards, all they get is a chance to have their application jumped ahead of everyone else's, (or to have a closed door reopened for one more to squeeze through), to land on someone's desk to be considered for a visa.
So, it appears that the only criteria for determining diversity visa numbers are color and nationality. Do you believe those are valid considerations for such a program? Choosing "extra" folks due solely to their nationality, and in reality - by color, is that criteria you can defend?
Of course if I misunderstood your original comment, then you already knew all that, right?
Ok, hold out you glass, let me give you a refill... ;-)
ps. I would bet that "your" culture is exactly the same as that man from Idaho's - the American culture. One palate - different colors. Like Reds, and Blues, and... Purples.
GAWhat does culture include? What we eat, the way we dress, how we talk, what we do for a living, what we do for recreational activities, morals, etc.
The Idaho guy and the kid from Compton have one very important thing in common. They are both Americans. America is a mixing bowl of cultures.Hi Diane, The "American" culture I refer to is none of the things you listed - except maybe the "morals" part.
For a more complete definition - I would need to pour another, but I won't because I would guess you already know what the "American" culture I speak of is. (Ha! "Speak of is." I hear the grammar police sirens now)
GA ;-)Go ahead and pour another GA! Now we can talk about morals!
What are the morals we want others to cultivate? Where did they come from?
Well, GA I am not one to rub the unpleasant themes in, but the idea that America was built on the curse of dastardly deeds is more true than many would like to admit. So what are you sipping, to come up with all of this stuff?
It is not a difficult concept, really. Whose merit, what merit? Funny how people extol the Norwegians, it is a socialist society. Who is to say that these people would be a better fit in comparison with people whose attitude is that they are on their own in behalf of their own survival and success? I have criticized folks for saying that it is not ‘race’ based. It is just like saying that Caucasians are not the preferred group but we want applicants to have blue eyes and blond hair. Potential is part of the American success paradigm. I don’t remove that possibility from the equation, as long as you can have your rocket scientists and pampered people who have enjoyed every advantage.
A brief story:
I have a sister who has married into an old prominently wealthy (Caucasian) family. Her husband recently was hired as a director for a large city’s rehabilitation (penal) program. She was boasting about it to no end. Yet, the fellow is relatively young, was born into money, spent 10 years as a perpetual student acquiring his PHd. and hails from prominent family. He has had every advantage, am I not surprised that he would do well. That does not say so much about him as far as diligence and character is concerned, compared with the unearned advantages that he received at birth. Yes, he got the job, but there are more dimensions to ‘merit’ that just having been born with a silver spoon in your mouth. That concept is one that I would prefer to not ignore when we discuss immigration issues, even if it is not as easy a concept to objectify for the bean counters.
The only preconditions of those selected under Credence’s lottery plan is that the ‘winner’ has no criminal record. I also require a 5 year probationary status allowing the applicant the opportunity to be gainfully employed and not living on federal assistance. There is a stereotype that assumes that all people from s*ithole countries are s*it hole people. Contrary to what Wilderness touched on, I would feel more comfortable with Haitians as neighbors over Norwegians. I judge people as individuals.
This conservative trend to paint this issue as somehow pursued in the interests of insuring more domestic jobs for Americans is just a red herring. Conservatives couldn’t care less about working people, everybody knows that. This is some sort of backdoor attempt to promote some sort cultural purity, whatever that is, using palatable language to avoid allowing reasonable people to see what the true purpose of all of this is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for this:
As psycheskinner correctly pointed out, lottery winners do not automatically get a visa - regardless of standards, all they get is a chance to have their application jumped ahead of everyone else's, (or to have a closed door reopened for one more to squeeze through), to land on someone's desk to be considered for a visa.
OK
----------------------------------------
“So, it appears that the only criteria for determining diversity visa numbers are color and nationality. Do you believe those are valid considerations for such a program? Choosing "extra" folks due solely to their nationality, and in reality - by color, is that criteria you can defend?”
Not, color, nationality. I did not select or eliminate any nation from having its residents considered under such a plan. What does that have to do with color? Iceland to Nigeria, was I selective in anyway?
--------------------------------------
“Ok, hold out you glass, let me give you a refill... ;-)”
That’s depends on what you are drinking.....
------------------------------------------------
"ps. I would bet that "your" culture is exactly the same as that man from Idaho's - the American culture. One palate - different colors. Like Reds, and Blues, and... Purples."
How do you know that? Outside of the fact that we live under the same banner, nation-state, our inclinations and directions for where this country needs to go are as different as light and day. There are elements of my life, culture and subsequent values as an African American male for which he would not have a clue. But that is OK, because there are lots of stances and positions that he would consider part of national culture, but is just the culture of Caucasian people and is just as unfathomable for me.My "sip" was of my Stolis martini of course. Sometimes it is just for a relaxed evening of discussion, and sometimes it is to smooth the edges of my reaction to some comments. In this case, due to the trend of the "spat" of comments I referred to - it was definitely to calm down my typing fingers.
I think your response, here, was so full of baloney - relative to the topic, that I will just throw a dart as to where to start. As for the "Baloney" part, I don't mean that it was all wrong, (although I do think a lot of it was), but that even after offering more clarifying information on the Diversity Visa, (DV), program, you still came back with a position based on something else.
The basics are, that our current "normal" immigration policies, (not the family or relationship categories that fit the description of chain-migration, or the "investor" category that is another issue in itself), are merit-based. That merit is in the form of a skill or expertise that would determine the probability of an immigrant's successful start in their new nation, and the probability that their success would also benefit the U.S. as a nation.
That's pretty much it. That is "generally" the merit determination.
After I heard Pres. Trump say the same thing - in his "State of the Nation" speech - as you are thinking, (factually, from available information - he was as wrong as you are), I took a shallow dive into the Immigration and State Dept. websites for the "official" information I just gave you.
The DV Lottery program has the same educational and work, (skills or expertise), "merit" requirements. So a DV winner isn't getting a free green card - they are only getting a "free pass" to have their application considered, outside of usual immigration channels, and ahead of other "normal" immigration channel applicants. They aren't just those "good, but unskilled" folks that your heart wants to help.
There is more, but I don't think it is needed. Your response clearly indicates you think it is a color issue; white vs. brown, privileged vs. non-privileged. (as indicated in your "sister story") Which means you view the U.S. as the "pot of gold" that we should invite more non-privileged to grab a piece of. Cost doesn't matter, the good of our nation doesn't matter, it is the compassion of our heart that should be the controlling factor.
Well, philosophers of "nations thought," from Aristotle to Montesquieu, and Locke to Adam Smith all disagree. Their varied thoughts can be summed up in James Madison's thought on the most important controlling factor regarding government, (during the formulation of our Constitution): "... the passions of the heart must be ruled by the reason of the mind."
The compassion of your heart must yield to the reality of the reason of your mind. And that reason of reality is that there are limits. That reason of reality should also indicate criteria of nationality or color should not be valid considerations - and they are the only considerations supporting the DV lottery program.
Whew! That was a heavy load. Now, to throw a monkey wrench into this whole conversation... from available information, it appears a DV winner's work requirements might be more stringent than a "normal" immigrant's. And even more twisting is the information that the countries of Pres. Trump's "statement" already aren't eligible to participate in the DV program because they are among the list of nations that have provided an excess number of immigrants - more than 50,000 in the previous 5 years. Apparently, their nation's "S" status is a bogus consideration.
The bottom line is that we aren't really talking about the DV lottery program - we are talking about what should rule our nation; the passion of our hearts or the reason of our minds.
Ta da! Ipso factso... I am the king of the world, because my heart leaks compassion and my mind oozes reason.
And it's not even a martini night ... yet.
ps. That "culture" thought we are disagreeing on will make an interesting thread of its own. I have some considerations that I think you might have to agree with. I will start a thread on it as soon as I gather my thoughts. (I wouldn't dare argue black culture with a black man without at least lining up my thoughts first) ;-)
GA
You're right - we will disagree.
So let's see if we can find common ground. Will you give up inviting any and all refugees in return for your lottery of unskilled, uneducated people?So let's see if we can find common ground. Will you give up inviting any and all refugees in return for your lottery of unskilled, uneducated people?
Probably, such is the importance of this concept in my eyes.Then I don't have a problem. I'm unwilling to open our borders to virtually unlimited numbers of additional citizens to support, but AM willing to take some in especially needy circumstances - say perhaps 5% of the total.
If you would choose to define "especially needy" as simply coming from an area country without modern conveniences or standard of living I guess I could go along with it.
There are areas in the US that do not have inside facilities. Have you ever been to an outhouse? I was on my way to an outhouse, wearing cutout shoes, and stepped in a pile of crap. I was totally ticked. I wouldn't say that every person in African craps outside. It is an economic issue.
Should people be barred from coming to the US because their countries don't have indoor restroom facilities. Here in California there are people from all over. I've never seen anyone go to the bathroom on the street. I never see road apples on the street. Of course in areas where there are homeless people, there is a distinct urine smell.
I don't think a country being a shithole is a good reason to keep talented people from coming to the US. If they can understand quantum physics or marine biology or rocket science, surely they can learn to use indoor facilities while they enhance the US with their contributions.Do you really think that a quantum physicist, marine biologist or rocket scientist has lived their life without indoor plumbing, never having learned to use a bathroom rather than a street gutter? Because I surely don't - I'd lay very long odds, at any amount you could choose, that every single person in the world with that kind of educational pedigree has lived long enough with indoor plumbing to know how to use it.
List of African educators, scientists and scholars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A … d_scholars
African Inventors by Types of Industries
https://kumatoo.com/african_inventors.html
So not all of Africa is part of the shithole?Do any of those educators, scientists, inventors or scholars go through life (then and now) without indoor plumbing?
No one - not I, not Trump not anyone else, as ever claimed the continent of Africa is a shithole. Why would you exaggerate the comment from a country to a continent? ("Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?" CNN)It is my understanding that he said, "African, El Salvador and Haiti." He didn't say Africa?
I do not believe people like that went through their lives with no indoor plumbing. However, dollars to donuts that many started out that way. Many people value education enough to go through hell to get it. Slaves risk death to learn to read.I quoted CNN who supposedly quoted Trump's statement. Africa is not a country. (Though, knowing Trump, that doesn't preclude his inclusion of a continent, calling it a country
)
But if you think all people have had indoor plumbing for even a few months of their lives, let alone a significant portion of those lives, I think you are sadly mistaken. A visit outside the tourist and wealthy sections of those areas (Africa, El Salvador and Haiti) would quickly dissuade you of those notions, but of course few people see those sections. Read reports from the Peace Corp workers, maybe, or some missionaries. We don't spend millions to dig wells for villages with running water, for instance, and without running water you don't have indoor plumbing.I take "Africa" to mean every country in Africa.
I cannot believe you have never been to an outhouse!?? I've used an outhouse many times. But never lived where that was the only "bathroom", although my grandparents did in their younger years.
And everyone should have the right to improve their living conditions ... right? That's why people want to move ... to improve.
They certainly do have that right. Now...do they have the right to require someone else to do it for them? That they want improved living conditions, but can't provide it themselves, does not (IMO) grant them some kind of innate right to require others to do it for them.
This presumes that every single person coming is going to be on assistance; otherwise, it is a stereotype. So people from Haiti or Africa will need assistance. However, people from Norway won't need assistance. I don't think that can be proven by statistics.
That made me so dizzy, I had to grab for support Cred.
Following your link, and others that Google provided, here is the dastardly statement:
""Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?"
Your link provided the info that the countries he was referring to were: "...Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations."
Considering that my reading of the statement - in the context it was made, (merit-based immigration), is that he was referring to the countries relative to global standards.
So, Haiti is commonly referred to as one of the poorest and most corrupt 3rd world nations. El Salvador also makes the list of poorest and most corrupt 3rd world nations.
Now, it was certainly crude and impolitic to refer to these countries like this, and probably does indicate an elitist attitude, but, what polite euphemism would you have accepted to carry the same message - contextually speaking, that these are, globally-speaking, bottom of the barrel countries by almost all standards used to globally rank nations., There is nothing racist or racial about that.
I am listening to the CNN as I write this, and it is amazing the things that they are saying Pres. Trump said with this one statement - when the fact is he only actually said what the statement said.
It's like the statement was a shot of adrenaline-laced coke for these commentators. Their outrage over such an overt racial statement has them almost drooling.
You can read racism into that statement if you want, all I read into it is typical Trumpian crudity and bluntness.
GA+1 It was certainly "typical Trumpian crudity and bluntness" and, as often the case, inappropriate.
Racist it was not.Crudity and bluntness are ok, right, Wilderness? Trump is your boy, regardless.
LOL. It really doesn't matter how many times he says it was crude and vulgar now, does it. Are you and Pretty Panther one in the same, or equally incapable of understanding an opposing view.
Um, where did I say anything about not believing wilderness' assertion that Trump was crude and vulgar? On the contrary, I acknowledged that he and GA were agreeing with Trump's point, not the manner in which he delivered it.
Ok,' O rational one'. Why don't you share that cornucopia of wisdom as to how we are to make lemonade from a lemon?
The rightwingers on this thread are at least as thistle headed...First, I'd stop jumping to the worst possible conclusion at every juncture.
Greetings, GA, I would wonder when the PURPLE people eater would weigh in on this. See the latest comments that I made to Wilderness.
All of Africa and its nations and its people are bottom feeders? That is what Trump implies. Who is to say that the residents of these countries evaluated on an individual basis would prove not capable of being good American citizens? Is it any wonder so many of US despise Trump so much?
Yes, it is racist in the lines of all the other dumb things that Trump has said and done.Hey buddy, I will be brief. I am sure with all the stretching and extrapolating, you must be tired.
My response to PrettyPanther, addresses most of your comment also. If you missed it, here it is:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/144 … ost2935954
Considering the things I have been hearing CNN say is the "real" Trump statement, your OP was almost moderate. Now, a CNN "contributor" says "shithole" is a White "Code word." Maybe that's where promisem got the thought that the KKK was giving Pres. Trump a thumbs-up. . Geesh who knew Shithole was a racist code word?
GAMy dad's racist code word was "different." My dad firmly believed he was not racist. Blacks are "different" but they should be treated just the same as "us." Since he believed they should receive equal treatment, he wasn't racist in his mind. They couldn't help it that they were different and that made things harder for them. Not their fault. That's why they would always be "a little behind" whites. They just weren't made quite the same. They think different ly and therefore act differently, but they should be treated just the same ad us.
Nope, not racist at all. Racists are good at rationalizing their racism.*sigh...
Sally, (did I remember right?), we seldom reach such an impasse in our conversations, but I think this one is a line neither of us will be able to cross.
After listening to just such explanations all day from CNN, I understand that we are not on the same plane regarding this "statement."
To me, context is most important, and to me this "statement" was all about the discussion of merit-based immigration, and nothing about racism, or the discarding of our American values as expressed on the Statue of Liberty's poem, (as Randy is saying).
As cold as it sounds, Wilderness' response to Randy about the reality of limits is the reality of the point. It may not be the "feel good, we're a good people" answer we all desire, but it is the truth reality demands.
I am not finding fault with the thoughts of your heart, but I am strongly disagreeing with your assessment of Pres. Trump's "statement."
GAOkay, fine.
Trump's statements about immigrants from Norway being preferable to immigrants from Haiti are based on an assumption.
as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
That is why I have persisted in asking for proof. If there is no proof that immigrants from Norway are somehow preferable to immigrants from African countries, then where did this assumption come from?
Based on Trump's own prior history of racist remarks and behavior, well....oh gawd... PrettyPanther" Now you are channeling Katheryn and throwing definitions at me.
But look at the evolution of our discussion. We have gone from self-righteous indignation of the "statement," to a valid discussion of whether his "assumptions" are right. I see that as progress.
To answer your question, I will make the "assumption" that Pres. Trump's perspective comes from the same source as mine - historical reporting on those countries' and their social and economic realities.
GALol, that's a big assumption.
Are Norwegian immigrants more desirable than Haitians? The only way we can evaluate that is by examining what they do after they arrive. What they did before they arrived has no bearing at all.
There is method to my madness, even if I am the only one who can see it.
... even if I am the only one who can see it.
"
Okay, I will succumb to "popular practice" and give you a "LOL"
What a marathon. It's almost 2:30 am here in the East, and 7 am isn't going to wait just because I couldn't get off the keyboard. ;-)
I do see your method, and I am gratified to see that it is now about validation and not racism. You are still defending your position, but to your credit you are basing it on validity and not perception..
GAI can see it! I’ve had maybe two too many adult beverages to discuss this properly at this point but I’ll come jump in in the morning (err, later morning) if this is still going on. In the meantime you keep fighting the good fight *fist bump*.
Thank you for the fist bump. Posting after consuming adult beverages can be dangerous.
Ha! Don't I know it! Usually happens to me after I break the Martini***caution: crudity alert ahead****
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Breast Rule.
GA ;-Ha GA, I suspected you had a sense of humor somewhere about your body!
Hey, you made me laugh! I had to look it up, as I was clueless. "One is far too few and three is one too many."
You got it PrettyPanther. Guess that makes me a bit of a sexist, because I am sure there are other "applicable" measures for correct martini consumption. Like maybe a "balls" rule for some folks that find one is enough. Or maybe an "Udder" rule for those that think more is always better?
GA ;-)
Hey Credence. It's been a while. Hope you're doing well.
The hubbers I recognize responded as I would have expected. Needless to say, I am a bit perplexed by some of your conclusions.
I propose a few hypotheticals. First, if you were to separate a pair of twins and raise one in Norway and one in Haiti, which one is more likely to be in a better position to contribute to society?
Second, if you were to raise a Norwegian child in Haiti, and a Haitian child in Norway, which one is more likely to be in a better position to contribute to society?
That should tell you whether Trump's statements are race-based or a reflection of environmental/socio-cultural conditions.
Edit: I meant to reply to Credence, but I guess I don't know how to press the right button.LOL Press the "reply" button at the bottom of the post you wish to reply to.
To tell you the truth I was going to reply to PrettyPanther as well - I made a bunch of tabs to reply to people. But it was getting late so I settled on just one comment, and ended up picking the wrong reply tab
Whatever - it fit in pretty good with the thread. I liked the question, although the immediate answer will be to use a Norwegian child (or Haitian living there) from the slums and a Haitian child from the upper crust.
Well, yeah, that’s sort of the point. Every country has undesirable areas and every country has well-developed areas. Some have more of one than of the other but you still cannot write off an entire country based on that.
Arguably not many Norwegians who are successful in Norway are going to want to immigrate to the US. Seriously, Norway ranks extremely high on every quality of life factor you can think of. So the people who want to immigrate from Norway aren’t necessarily the ones who have the “desirable” qualities the US is looking for. Is an uneducated, unskilled person from Norway still more desirable than an educated and skillled person living in Haiti because the “culture is similar” or whatever it is you said earlier?That's a great point, but it can be argued that Trump's rationale is to try and create more incentives for skilled workers from Norway to come to the U.S., to better tap into that skilled population.
Do you have a source that demonstrates that Norway's immigration to the U.S. is primarily from people who are uneducated/unskilled? Norwegian's immigration to the U.S. is so low that I'm not sure we can make any judgements either way.One can argue anything about Trump's intentions, but he lies so often how can one tell? Are you happy with his lies, popo?
You’re correct, we can’t make judgments either way. Yet Trump assumes that workers from Norway would be more skilled based on the country’s access to education and western amenities, presumably. But individuals immigrate, not the country’s statistics. There’s no guarantee that you’re getting a more skilled worker from Norway than from Haiti. So shouldn’t the focus be on individuals and not the country they’re coming from?
For what it’s worth I see nothing wrong with saying he’d be interested in seeing more immigration from countries that don’t currently have high immigration rates. It was his comments about wanting more Norwegian immigration coupled with the “less immigration from shithole countries” comment that left a bad taste in my mouth.
Edited to add: For what it’s worth, I actually don’t think the comment in itself was necessarily racist (though absolutely offensive) but I think it’s really toeing the line, especially if he were to try to enforce his desire for less immigration from “shithole” countries. That would have some racial implications whether it was intended or not.You are doing a good job of making the point that encouraging or discouraging immigration from a particular country based on their economic conditions is not a merit-based system. Merit-based systems focus on individuals, not their country of origin.
That said, I'm uncomfortable with saying we won't allow poor or undereducated immigrants into our country. Many of our ancestors fit that bill and they did just fine. Heck, I'm of Irish and German descent and I'm the only female in my huge, extended family to get a college degree. My parents didn't even graduate from high school, but they both worked full-time in positions such as cat skinner, school maintenance man, lunch lady, and janitor. Are they less worthy? I don't think so.I'm not sure we need more "lunch ladies" or "janitors". With millions still out of work it would seem that there are plenty of people that can fill those jobs.
Cat skinners are another matter though; we need cat skinners. Whereupon the question becomes should we "import" uneducated, unskilled laborers and support them and their families while training them to be a cat skinner or should we train someone already here, someone we're already supporting?
My father only finished the 8th grade, and managed to support a family of 7 reasonably well anyway, but I fear those days are gone. A new immigrant, without education or skills, simply cannot feed, house and clothe his family without large contributions from someone else and that doesn't include all the other necessities such as health care and education. 70 years ago (Dad's youth, when he was just starting out with a new wife) a person could, but no longer. Leave those positions that we need to provide support for to refugees chased from their home country, then, rather than accepting immigrants that we will have to support for months or years.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there are enough want-to-be immigrants that can hit the ground running and never look back that we don't need to bring in thousands, or tens of thousands, of additional people that cannot support themselves and their families. It may mean an end to "if you're a relative you can come", but I don't have a problem with that. It may even mean (or may not) that we don't get many from Haiti or El Salvador, but I don't have a problem with that, either.
The focus can be on individuals while focusing on populations that have a greater proportion of the required traits.
For example, let's say I wanted someone to help me move a fridge. I put up flyers in a local gym and flyers in the local public library, offering financial compensation. I get one gym goer and one librarian offering their services. Which of these two is more likely to be able to help me move my fridge?
Well, doesn't matter - I look at the two and it turns out the librarian is Dolph Lundgren in his prime. So I take him in a heartbeat.
But what if I wanted 1000 helpers? Should I be focusing my efforts more on recruiting gym goers or librarians?
I wouldn't necessarily discourage librarians from helping, if they're able to. But I'd try to target gym goers in some way. It just wouldn't make sense to target the few librarians that are capable of helping when there are thousands of gym goers who can.
As I said to Credence, only 1% of young people in Haiti go on to acquire a university degree. 38% of people in Norway have a tertiary education degree. This is without speaking about the difference in quality of the education.Sure, but it’s not just one skillset that you’re looking for and not all of them require an education. Here there are constantly job openings for service positions that don’t really require any skill beyond showing up and answering simple questions, or a very basic grasp of how to work a cash register. These are still important jobs and there’s seemingly always a demand for people willing to do them.
I can’t tell you how often I talk to someone who complains about not being able to find a job but refuses to apply at a fast food restaurant or a department store. The fact is that many people just don’t want to do those jobs while someone else from a different country who wants a better life will do it in a heartbeat. So doesn’t that hold value that sometimes can be hard to find in people who maybe do have an education? The sheer willingness to do a job no matter how glamourous or far removed from what they actually want to be doing? And I’m not sure you can pin that willingness down to any particular country or subset of people.Really? Because in Canada it is usually the jobs requiring skill or education that are not being filled: http://manpowergroup.ca/campaigns/talen … raphic.pdf
There are still some demands for drivers and labourers, although it's decreased from the previous year. I don't think that demand will last for long, given the coming advents of AI in the next few decades.
Yes, willingness to do hard work is a value in itself. But there's a difference between not having enough cash registers and not having enough electricians. Aside from that, I don't know of a way to directly measure a person's willingness to work hard on jobs nobody wants to do (things like credentials and educational attainment are indirect measures - but those people would be skilled workers).With this I can agree with - lots of people refuse to work because they can't find work they want to do. But the solution isn't to import labor from another country, it's to shut off the welfare to those that won't work. Along with a re-do of how welfare is paid - right now it is designed to permanently tie the poor to the largess of politicians and that MUST stop.
Hey Credence. It's been a while. Hope you're doing well.
Hiya, Mr. P, it is nice to have you back. I missed my old sparing partner, where have you been?
----------------------------------------------------
The hubbers I recognize responded as I would have expected. Needless to say, I am a bit perplexed by some of your conclusions.
I propose a few hypotheticals. First, if you were to separate a pair of twins and raise one in Norway and one in Haiti, which one is more likely to be in a better position to contribute to society?
I see your example, but we are not in a position to have make that choice. They both should be considered equally. There are cultural advantages to being raised in a wealthy society verses a poor one but that does not speak to the qualities of the individual, his or her drive, talent and the determination to succeed once they arrive here. To do it any other way is not in the "American" spirit to me.
-------------------------------------------------------
Second, if you were to raise a Norwegian child in Haiti, and a Haitian child in Norway, which one is more likely to be in a better position to contribute to society?
When I decide the fate of a person in such a decision it has to based on more than just 'more likely' hinging on where they were raised. I can only deal with the individual as to how to make that determination.
----------------------------------
That should tell you whether Trump's statements are race-based or a reflection of environmental/socio-cultural conditions.
Trump, in attacking African and Caribbean Societies in such a vulgar manner, paints a broad brush over the individuals that live there as being of no value, while implying that Norway will provide us all with successful, assimilating immigration. To so callously apply immigration standards attacking all shows disrespect for nations dominated by people of color and their ability to assimilate into the American society and be good citizens.
That is why he has got into so much trouble over this sordid affair."Hiya, Mr. P, it is nice to have you back. I missed my old sparing partner, where have you been?"
Likewise! I've been mostly busy with school and work. I was also sidelined with some health issues with are finally beginning to be resolved.
To clarify, my hypotheticals make no mention of choosing people based on probabilities. In a merit-based system we consider the individual, of course. We are considering the two twins based on what they are, not what they are likely to be.
But you're missing the point. Raise the same individual (down to the same genetics) in Norway and in Haiti, and the Norwegian will be in a better position to making positive contributions to society, most of the time. Note that personality aspects like drive and determination are mostly governed by genetics, likewise with talent. The twins would have a great deal of overlap in those dimensions, so those factors wouldn't be the deciding ones.
What would be a deciding factor is that Norway is ranked #1 in the Human Development Index, whereas Haiti is ranked #163. How do you expect these two vastly different environments to produce the same quality of people at the same rate? If we were to consider (equally) 1000 Norwegians and 1000 Haitians for immigration, how many Norwegians would qualify? How many Haitians? This is where the estimates of likelihood would come into play, to determine which population we should select from if we want skilled workers. I don't know how it works in the U.S., but in Canada we have a points-based system where things like education, experience, language etc. all increase your points, and thus your ranking in the immigrant selection pool. If you're ranked high enough the government will offer you a spot.
Norway's society puts you in a good position to have a high ranking. Haiti's society doesn't. Less than 22% of children go into secondary-education, and less than 1% go into university. Going by age-demographics of under-19 year olds, that's 1,000,000 people in Haiti who go into secondary-education and 47,000 who go into tertiary education. Norway has 1.8 million who go into tertiary education. Despite having half the population of Haiti, Norway has almost double the number of tertiary educated people than Haiti number of secondary educated people. And this speaks nothing of the quality of that education.
Don't get me wrong. There will be many Haitians who are able to surpass these difficulties, meet all requirements, and put themselves in a position to make contributions to society. These are exceptional individuals who have merit and should be accepted just like anyone else. But the number of Norwegians that will be in that position will be far greater. If you want to tap into a source of skilled workers you wouldn't tap into the Haitian population, you'd tap into the Norwegian population.
I don't know what you mean by Haitians having no value. Generally speaking, all human life is valuable. But when dealing with merit-based immigration, the countries that accept the immigrants want something in return. What is true is that Haiti will not provide the same number of skilled workers as Norway. In that sense, the Norwegian population has more value to the U.S. than the Haitian one. That speaks nothing of the races of those demographics, unless you think the reason that Norway's society is superior to Haiti's is primarily a result of racial differences.
I agree that stating that they are sh*thole countries is callous and unwarranted. But I don't see it as racist. Haiti's population has less skilled workers than Norway's, and it is the environmental/socio-economic differences that result in this disparity. If you want skilled workers, you'd want to try selecting from Norway.
As a side note, I also wonder if taking the best away from Haiti would result in the country being slower to progress, if at all.To clarify, my hypotheticals make no mention of choosing people based on probabilities. In a merit-based system we consider the individual, of course. We are considering the two twins based on what they are, not what they are likely to be.
What would be the aspects of 'merit'? It is an inappropriate approach to the issue to solely consider what they are rather than not to consider potential. Whose standard regarding 'merit' and what standard?
--------------------------------------------
But you're missing the point. Raise the same individual (down to the same genetics) in Norway and in Haiti, and the Norwegian will be in a better position to making positive contributions to society, most of the time. Note that personality aspects like drive and determination are mostly governed by genetics, likewise with talent. The twins would have a great deal of overlap in those dimensions, so those factors wouldn't be the deciding ones.
Depending on what you look for, anyone from a relatively wealthy country would have an advantage in the U.S, but not absolutely. Absolutely is the only way to fairly evaluate here. Drive and determination are not genetic but are aspects of personality and nurture more than anything else. Leaders are bred not born. Genetics is an inadequate explanation for who has talent and who does not.
------------------------------------
What would be a deciding factor is that Norway is ranked #1 in the Human Development Index, whereas Haiti is ranked #163. How do you expect these two vastly different environments to produce the same quality of people at the same rate? If we were to consider (equally) 1000 Norwegians and 1000 Haitians for immigration, how many Norwegians would qualify? How many Haitians? This is where the estimates of likelihood would come into play, to determine which population we should select from if we want skilled workers. I don't know how it works in the U.S., but in Canada we have a points-based system where things like education, experience, language etc. all increase your points, and thus your ranking in the immigrant selection pool. If you're ranked high enough the government will offer you a spot.
I hear you, but the idea that entire nations and their inhabitants are to be disqualified summarily based on this is not fair. What is the standard regarding 'quality'. If you are looking for Anglo folks raised in relatively affluent societies, identifying that disparity between the groups would be valid. Is the standard about education? Is it about the likelihood of the ease of cultural assimilation? Who is making that call? America is diversity, a melting pot. I have no problems with Canada's system, the factors that you mention increases your points, but does not disqualify others who may have lower scores, outright. Trump talks about disqualifying nations wholesale and that is not the same as your system. Canada has a better record of accepting refugees and the dispossessed than that of the United States. That is what I hear and see, so you are doing something right.
-------------------------------------------------------
Norway's society puts you in a good position to have a high ranking. Haiti's society doesn't. Less than 22% of children go into secondary-education, and less than 1% go into university. Going by age-demographics of under-19 year olds, that's 1,000,000 people in Haiti who go into secondary-education and 47,000 who go into tertiary education. Norway has 1.8 million who go into tertiary education. Despite having half the population of Haiti, Norway has almost double the number of tertiary educated people than Haiti number of secondary educated people. And this speaks nothing of the quality of that education.
I don't subscribe to the 'merit based' system exclusively. But look to "lady liberty" who says 'give us your tired and poor". While the merit based system has its place, there is the other aspect that just because someone comes from a 'sh*thole country does not mean that we can only expect only 'sh*thole people from there. There are more than a few people in American history that come from what was once considered sh*thole countries that have made great contributions to the country. That is what this is all about.
Not everyone has the privilege of being from a rich country like Norway, should that advantage be cut in stone?
-----------------------------------------------
Don't get me wrong. There will be many Haitians who are able to surpass these difficulties, meet all requirements, and put themselves in a position to make contributions to society. These are exceptional individuals who have merit and should be accepted just like anyone else. But the number of Norwegians that will be in that position will be far greater. If you want to tap into a source of skilled workers you wouldn't tap into the Haitian population, you'd tap into the Norwegian population.
You know, they may not be as "exceptional" as you think. They just have to have the opportunity. The Jamaican and Haitian immigrants I know are quite entrepreneurial and fit in well here. I am sure that if we are looking at skilled (so what does that mean today?) workers in an industrialized setting certain countries have the advantage. I am just saying that using that yardstick by itself is not enough in every single instance.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you mean by Haitians having no value. Generally speaking, all human life is valuable. But when dealing with merit-based immigration, the countries that accept the immigrants want something in return. What is true is that Haiti will not provide the same number of skilled workers as Norway. In that sense, the Norwegian population has more value to the U.S. than the Haitian one. That speaks nothing of the races of those demographics, unless you think the reason that Norway's society is superior to Haiti's is primarily a result of racial differences.
So, when the President of the United States refers to a country as a sh*thole, he is saying that the people have no greater value as individuals. If that is not what he meant, it was a pretty dumb thing to say, don't you think? You are right, if Haiti as a nation had to compete with a rich country like Norway as both the US and Norway are developed societies, of course Norway has the advantage. But, is that the only consideration in determining who is qualified to enter the U.S., Canada takes on many refugees, do they apply this idea in stone?
---------------------------------
I agree that stating that they are sh*thole countries is callous and unwarranted. But I don't see it as racist. Haiti's population has less skilled workers than Norway's, and it is the environmental/socio-economic differences that result in this disparity. If you want skilled workers, you'd want to try selecting from Norway.
I have discussed this with many on this forum, we have been talked out of racist, but racially insensitive is still quite accurate. I just say that being a skilled worker verses someone who is not should not be the sole determinant as to whether one should be considered for immigration. But it will be balanced out as, like you said, most Norwegians are doing well and are not likely to come to the U.S.
---------------------------------
As a side note, I also wonder if taking the best away from Haiti would result in the country being slower to progress, if at all.
Perhaps...."What would be the aspects of 'merit'? It is an inappropriate approach to the issue to solely consider what they are rather than not to consider potential. Whose standard regarding 'merit' and what standard?"
What do you mean by potential? Sure, we can take that into consideration if you want - but then we start playing the game of probabilities, and you didn't like that! A potential is not something that's set in stone - it is what an individual is likely to become. Again though, I must emphasize that (on average) being raised in Norway gives one greater potential than being raised in Haiti.
Typically with economic immigrants we evaluate merit based on economic upsides for the country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Depending on what you look for, anyone from a relatively wealthy country would have an advantage in the U.S, but not absolutely. Absolutely is the only way to fairly evaluate here."
The only way to evaluate with absolute certainty that these individuals can contribute to society is by bringing them here and seeing what they're capable of doing. But that would be inefficient, to put it mildly. We can rule out a majority of people who would not succeed by looking at parameters of education or mastery of English, for instance. Your proposal that we bring them here and then evaluate their success would be like Harvard accepting anyone into their school and evaluating their success afterward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Drive and determination are not genetic but are aspects of personality and nurture more than anything else. Leaders are bred not born. Genetics is an inadequate explanation for who has talent and who does not."
"Aspects of personality" are a result of genetics, Cred. Have you considered the logical consequence of your statements? If you think drive and talent are primarily a result of nurture, then on average Norwegian immigrants would have a significant advantage in drive and talent. If you think it is genetic and that there is no significant difference between Norwegians and Haitians, then Haitian immigrants still have a chance to compete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trump talks about disqualifying nations wholesale and that is not the same as your system."
If he is talking about disqualifying nations wholesale, then I agree with you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are more than a few people in American history that come from what was once considered sh*thole countries that have made great contributions to the country."
I would not make economic immigration policies based on a few exceptional people in history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, they may not be as "exceptional" as you think."
Being part of less than 1% of the population is exceptional to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They just have to have the opportunity. The Jamaican and Haitian immigrants I know are quite entrepreneurial and fit in well here. I am sure that if we are looking at skilled (so what does that mean today?) workers in an industrialized setting certain countries have the advantage. I am just saying that using that yardstick by itself is not enough in every single instance."
I don't see a proposed alternative other than "accept everyone wholesale and let's see how well they do here."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, when the President of the United States refers to a country as a sh*thole, he is saying that the people have no greater value as individuals. If that is not what he meant, it was a pretty dumb thing to say, don't you think?"
I have no idea what he means when he refers to a country as a sh*thole. My interpretation of such a statement is that the country scores poorly on economic, health and human rights metrics. I don't see how such a statement reflects on people's value as individuals - plenty of fine people are dealt sh*tty hands. Still, it was a dumb thing to say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Canada takes on many refugees, do they apply this idea in stone?"
Refugees != economic migrants. I thought Trump was referring to the latter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just say that being a skilled worker verses someone who is not should not be the sole determinant as to whether one should be considered for immigration."
It's not, but it is one of the main ones.
At least your father was more truthful in recognizing the reality of race relations than so many others that will turn their heads 180 degrees about in pure denial of what is clearly before them.
You seem to be quite bothered or amused by the outrage displayed on television in response to Trump's statement. I watched Anderson Cooper, and some other news programs, too. I noticed that outrage,was not limited to Democrats or liberals, whites or blacks or Latinos, younger or older. The support for Trump, on the other hand, seemed to come from a uniform demographic.....
Think about that. Or not.Nah, I will let it go. You have already worn out my brain for the day. ;-)
I didn't say it was a partisan response. I would say it is more like a mob rush to jump on the righteous indignation and outrage train of "How dare he say that!" It doesn't matter if it is true or not, and it doesn't matter if what I am saying he said is actually what he said, it is only "How dare he say that!"
GAHe did say it, so I'm confused by this post, but we can just let it go.
Yes, he did say it. How dare he be so insensitive.
So now let's get back to whether, in the context of his statement, he is right or wrong. Which would be a more valuable immigrant to our nation; a destitute Haitian, (do you believe this would not cover the majority of Haitian immigrants?), or a most likely productive Norwegian?
Maybe if someone took a look at Wilderness' point about the number, and quality of Norwegian immigration applicants vs. Haitian applicants. I would wonder if the lesser number of Norwegian applicants has anything to do with their success and satisfaction within their own country, vs. a Haitian fleeing a terrible national situation?
Of course there will be Haitians, (or El Salvadorians, or African nation's citizens), that turn out to be outstanding additions to our society, but will they be the exception or the rule? What about the Norwegians, will they be more likely to be the exception or the rule - in the context of merit-based immigration of course.
GAWe should be able to answer those questions by looking at outcomes for immigrants from both countries. Did Trump do that? If not, on what does he base his assumptions? Images of "train-roof-riding immigrants with all their possessions in a bundle on their back"? Who is to say how many of them aren't plumbers, electricians, social workers, teachers? How would you possibly know?
I'm actually less interested in the racist qualification of the statement then in these thoughts:
1. If you were a genius, why would you ask a question about people from s-hole countries coming here? Isn't the answer self-evident.
2. The White House defended the comment and apparently thinks it will play well to his base. What does that say about his base?I'll add the thought that his comment was another one in a long series of comments over the years about minorities and the countries where they were born.
Even if his comment was not meant to be racist, he added to the perception that he is one.
Politically it's stupid because he just offended the entire continent of Africa, which includes U.S. allies and trading partners.I'm actually less interested in the racist qualification of the statement then in these thoughts:
"1. If you were a genius, why would you ask a question about people from s-hole countries coming here? Isn't the answer self-evident.
2. The White House defended the comment and apparently thinks it will play well to his base. What does that say about his base?"
I am interested in how Trump deals with ethnic issues.
I did mention at the outset regardless of Trump's attitude or intention, it was dumb and vulgar for him to express himself the way he did. It is no wonder that he won't merit a visit to the Queen of England.
His base, if not directly hostile, is indifferent to the outrages put upon those considered "the other" non-whites, immigrants, etc.
Anybody ever been to these countries? I've been to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica and a few countries in Africa. I guarantee you will see things, smell things and experience things you never thought possible. I could go on an on and on. I understand why they would want to come here. Trust me.
Exactly! So if you were a genius, why would you ask that question in the first place? Of course people from third world countries want to come here. They want a better life.
Maybe he was being rhetorical?
I think we have a new name for Trump supporters: sh**holes.
Does anyone think they will be upset by that?Apparently this whole thing is fake news because Trump denies making the comment.
so, now he says that he did not say it? Just how dumb does he think everybody is?
He's a genius, remember, and a stable one at that. His supporters are too, obviously.
Yeah, 'genius' in the Wile E Coyote vein.....
Ahh, Credence, you bring back memories. The greatness of early Warner Brothers cartoons...
Some of the funniest animation in the business. The history of the animators as such that one must conclude that they were all smoking something.
I did a hub entitled "Boomer Chronicles: Will E. Coyote, Supergenius" as a salute to Warner Brothers and some of the funniest cartoons out there. Drop by when you have the time for a chuckle or two.
To put it succinctly, Trump has demonstrated himself to be an....OVERT RACIST. Yes, Trump is an avowed racist. It is now time for all discerning Americans to disassociate themselves from Donald Trump. Trump is using coded language to indicate that non-Caucasians are inferior to Caucasians. Now, the prevaricating "president" is now denying what he said. Anyone who respects Trump is now suspect. Trump is damaging America's reputation on the world scene. Trump has damaged himself, showing his TRUE colors.
Grace, I am trying to understand the reasoning of the conservatives on this thread as to why Trump's comments were not racially offensive in nature.
We all make mistakes, but with Trump this stuff has been happening too much for me to come to that conclusion.
It starts with the Birther Thing, which in my mind was outrageous. Demanding transcripts and birth certificates from a sitting President, just who does he think he is? I try to explain to people that racism is not just simply about burning crosses on your lawn. It is about barbs of resentment that I am positive that he would not have subjected GW Bush to.
About a month ago, Trump interacts with the British version of the KKK, Britain First, through his stupid tweets. He was condemned by the British Government for cozying up to a source of racial antagonism in the country, clearly outside of Government channels. What would I think if Theresa May, British PM, were playing patty cake with the KKK here?
There have been a number of lesser events that I have not commented upon, but this current one was quite egregious. He gets a 'high five' from the white supremacists, with their attitude that anything that leads to advantages given to 'white' immigration as opposed to those 'others' is great. Well, I live here as too, and that attitude is dead in the water. So, I say that to the hood wearers as well as to Trump, that I will resist them with ever fiber of my being.It begins to make a little more sense. When birther comments are seen as indicative that the speaker is racist it's rather obvious that anything, anything at all, can and will be used to play the race card. Actual racism is not necessary; just random words than will then be used to claim racist attitudes.
So when all the other 'cards' are rationally removed from the table what is left?
You don't get it, and I suspect that you are not able to see it.They don't want to see the truth, Cred. I cannot blame them as the truth about Trump is hard to handle for those putting their trust in an arrogant, lying buffoon. Their credibility as far as making a good political choice is gone forever.
I certainly wanted to avoid having to come to that conclusion, Randy. But, I guess that is all that remains.
Randy, exactly. Trumpites know the truth- the real, unvarnished truth about their Donald. However, they went along w/the program because to them, Donald was the lesser of the two evils. However, since the real truth came out, many Trumpites refuse to acknowledge that Trump is a racist. They are going into the inverse logic or as the late Dr. Hawkins, psychiatrist & spiritualist more aptly put it Luciferian inference i.e. bad is good while good is bad. There will be Trumpites who will follow Donald into HELL. They aren't about to admit the bigotry & the overall racism of Donald. If they admit to such, they will admit that Donald is a .....MISTAKE.
Nope, I've got it. Completely.
This little bit has made it completely, 100% clear. Birther statements are NOT about racism. Have nothing to do with racism. Aren't even approaching racism - not even pointed the right direction.
But they're now racist...to those that wish to demonize Trump. Anything, anything at all, will be used to accomplish that task. It doesn't need to be true, it doesn't need to make sense, it doesn't to have any connection at all to reality or even any honest perception of reality. If it can be spun hard enough to be used to run down the president it will be done.
Yes, I got it. All of it. You've made it crystal clear.I suppose you also understand why Trump's lawyer paid a porn star to be silent right before the election year. $130,000 a month according to Fox news. I wonder what she was doing for Trump only a year after he married Melania........
Perhaps you have an answer Dan, you usually do. Gee, Randy, that is strong to last long. If FOX is bringing this out, I can't imagine what the other news outlets are going to do with it..
That is a whole, heaping lot of hush money!!Actually Fox brought this out at the time it happened, Cred. It was about a month before DT announced his being a presidential candidate. I don't believe they've recently addressed this as other outlets are reporting it now.
Not at all, Dan. She was a white porn star, of course. You know Don Boy!
I remember the outrage that Hillary supposedly participated in suppressing Bill's accusers. Somehow, being the wife of an adulterer was worse than being an adulterer like Trump. It was well known before the election that he was a sexual predator. He bragged about it. On tape!
Trump voters were fine with it then, so why should now be any different? Hillary was an evil bitch, but boys will be boys. In our house, we call it "ConLogic."
Whether you think Trump is a racist or not, here is a good summary of things he's said:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … acist.html
Sorry, POTUS, not all of us can be rich white men...
I find this tidbit (courtesy of "Fake News" USA Today) rather interesting:
In response to the reported "shithole countries" comments, the White House did not deny that the president used the phrase.
"The president will only accept an immigration deal that adequately addresses the visa lottery system and chain migration -- two programs that hurt our country and allow terrorists into our country," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation."- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago
0But, of course, no matter how many times he makes an offensive statement of this nature, his supporters will claim there is no evidence Trump could be racist.
And his detractors will claim that everything negative IS about race, whether it is or not.
I started to begin a thread on this same topic earlier today. but I knew there a few who'd defend the Buffoon-In-Chief no matter what foul statement he spewed from his racist pie hole. Disgusting at the very least!
So? I'll ask you too as PP declined to answer: what part of what he said indicates racism? Bear in mind that he is big on "America First" and on merit based immigration as you answer, and that that was the context in which the statement was delivered...
He prefers white people from Norway over the brown folk. You've never noticed that, Dan? He claimed an American judge wouldn't be fair because he was of "Mexican" heritage. Or did you miss that? You want a few more examples you can apologize for?
Uh...you want to put that Mexican judge comment into context? What was being discussed, what case was it and just why would the judge be unfair? If you're going to bring up past events, at least make the effort to look at the whole picture, not a snapshot of a single sentence.
I listened to an interview with the producer of The Apprentice that suggested strongly that Trump uses the N-word often. Would that qualify as racist or is the context important?
Wilderness, I totally see your point and pretty much agree with you that, on its surface, Trump's statement is not racist.
That said, it does seem that he has a pattern that, when he's discussing people who are not white, he brings their heritage or color into the equation. While a one-off statement does not mean he's a racist, if one could prove a pattern, it probably does. And having said that, I'm not making an assumption about whether one can prove a pattern or not.
I would offer this up: if you've ever used the n-word in your life to refer to an African-American, you're probably a racist of some kind (perhaps just slightly racist or perhaps a member of the KKK).While I find that word abhorrent, I find your statement funny. Unless we can assume any black person using that term is KKK. Since a large percentage of blacks I encounter are prone to use that term.
Use of that term does not immediately indicate racism, although I make it clear when I encounter the word that I find it offensive.I should clarify - any white person who uses the n-word to demean an African-American.
It's well-known that use of the n-word by black people has been done to take control of the word rather than allow it to be continued to be used to demean them. That concept has been studied ad naseum.
Similarly, if you use the word "kike" or "spic" and "slant-eye" and you are not a member of that group, you are probably racist to some degree. What's a word for white people that non-whites use? That counts too.
Sorry I did not clarify, but did a really have to? Throwing the "black people use the word all the time" comment back at me sounds like a pretty typical rationalization for somebody who has used the word (not that you use it, but I've heard people who like to use it use that exact rationalization).Interesting. Since I've heard countless commentaries by black individuals using the word in a derogatory manner, to describe those they consider undesirables.
Care to try again?No. You're rationalizing. I'm talking about use of the word by non-blacks. White people who use the word are racist to some degree, as are people who use similar language to paint entire groups of people by race.
And since you're rationalizing, perhaps it's worth asking: have you ever used the n-word to refer to a black person? (it doesn't absolve you of possibly being racist, but it's at least a good start)Sounds to me as if you're rationalizing and making excuses. I will say that if I were to use the term it would apply to a specific subset of humanity displaying certain characteristics; not tied to any race or color.
But, you'd call me a racist anyway. Because, well, you'd be judging by color. Which is even funnier than your initial comment.Amazing that this can actually be a point of contention for some people.
Your statement is so perplexing it almost defies commentary. You're saying that one can use the n-word, but not have it be tied to any race or color?
And you seem to be falling back on this argument that if somebody is a racist and somebody else calls them out as being a racist, the person who called them out is also a racist for judging them based on the color of their skin. So, apparently, nobody can be a racist or call anyone a racist. We just live in a land of ice cream sundaes and lollipops where everyone treats everyone on the basis of their character and nothing else.
Please provide your definition of racism.
Or perhaps you want me to distinguish between prejudice and racism? Difficult thing to do since everyone has prejudices. When does a prejudice become racism?I haven't made up a definition of racism. I simply allude to the definition as it is written. Maybe you should provide your special definition.
My point was that although I would be speaking from a stand of judging by character, you would be responding based solely on color.
Which would be the more racist position? By your definition.Can't really answer your question since it makes absolutely no sense.
If I'm understanding what you're saying, you're saying that you can use the n-word in polite conversation with your white friends when referring to a group of people, but when doing so, you are only judging them on the content of their character.Well, if you can't answer a simple question honestly, we can't hold a reasonable conversation.
Forgive me if I'm not surprised at this outcome.
Yes, we use it among ourselves, but YOU can't use it as it takes on a entirely different meaning. My closest friends and relatives call me 'shivers', it has a history. But that is among trusted friends and colleagues, it is considered offensive from someone I did not know. That is a hidden truth, the same as why I greet or am greeted by blacks while on the street as total strangers, we always acknowledge each other and I wish we would do it better.
Ah. You can. I can't. It's a color thing, apparently. How laughable. It's so hard to be colorblind among those who make certain they always take note of color.
No, it is an ethnic thing.... its is a cultural things...its a history thing... its a camaraderie thing..
That is just for starters.
Blacks find the use of that word by whites toward them as provocative, we don't need to resurrect Dr. King to understand that basic concept nor to harp on ideas of colorblind society over acknowledging this simple premise. We speak to each other and chide each other in a sense of familiarity that you cannot share. You don't have to understand it, it just is....Then you won't mind at all if the men on Hubpages (and women for that matter) start referring to you as "bitch." I mean, as long as we say we mean it in a completely gender-blind way. it shouldn't be offensive to you. We're just being cool with the word, ya know? Inventing a new way of looking at it, without the baggage. You're cool with that, right?
I don't want to discourage you or anybody that we cannot find common ground between our groups, we can.
The custom of slinging around that word by our groups is promoted by those of the lower class. I was an officer and a gentlemen and did not wear a tattoo nor did I allow my language descend to that point. I was just explaining, growing up African American, how we could accommodate this pattern of behavior.This is a pretty simple concept. I’m having a truly hard time believing you don’t understand it.
Though the posts in this thread are starting to make me believe I’ve misjudged a few people, unfortunately.Aime F, Trump is saying that non-Caucasian people are inferior to Caucasian people. The statement that Trump said was totally self-explanatory. I used to say President Trump, now he is just Trump. No respect for him after that scurrilous remark about Haiti & African countries. How dare he! Anyone who doesn't see Trump for the rabid racist he is in deep denial.
"While a one-off statement does not mean he's a racist, if one could prove a pattern, it probably does."
Probably true, at least to some extent. But an interview from a decade ago that "suggests" poor language control doesn't show a pattern. Not to me anyway, not enough to make a call of being racist.
So being a racist is okay depending on what the case is about?
LOL Bound and determined to make it about race - to play that nasty race card and demonize someone aren't you? No, Randy, not everything is about race no matter how hard you try to make it so. Sometimes it's about other things - poverty, nationality, bigotry, religion or any of a thousand other things.
What could a judge's Mexican heritage have to do with anything? Unless he is ruling on something that will directly affect him, in which case he would recuse himself, I don't see how it has any bearing at all, which is why bringing it up might indicate racism. And why do you need Randy to provide the context? It was all over the news and you could easily read about it to get the most accurate take on it.
I don't think President Trump is a racist. I think he's a capitalist. I don't think he is thinking about race, but money. Now, be honest, how many countries have a successful economy and such a high standard of living as Norway? How many Caribbean and African countries can provide for their people in the same way as Norway? This question is not about race, but about how a country takes care of its people. The people of Norway know how to have a successful country. Why wouldn't we want people from such a successful country to come here? It only makes sense.
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
"We don't need more people from sh!thole countries like Ireland, Poland, or France. Take them out. We need more people like those in Kenya." --Barack Obama
Aside from the crude language, perfectly acceptable, according to wilderness and GA.Well, rather stupid, but it IS an opinion. And, without further information, not a racist one, either.
"Some Republicans also raised objections. Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah), whose family is from Haiti, said in a statement that Trump’s remarks were “unkind, divisive, elitist, and fly in the face of our nation’s values. This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation.”
I guess from the standpoint of the typical rightwing GOP male, one cannot make the most obvious and likely explanation for Trump's statement. I put in this statement from Congresswoman Love to make a point that this comment and the criticism of Trump is not partisan.
America prior to 1965 had a race based immigration policy, Trump is bringing this back again. The bias of the rightwinger is clear. Only white folks assume that you cannot come from a nation primarily inhabited by people of color and still make a positive contribution to American life. It is racist to assume that the only acceptable immigrants (hands down) are those that come from Caucasian nations. Trump can have his standards giving the appearance of being reasonable with this "America First" stuff but is racist at its core. And, I say that it is racist."unkind, divisive, elitist, and fly in the face of our nation’s values"
Not Trump's words and I still don't see anything about racism. You seem to be pretty much alone in making that claim...or can you find something in his words indicating racism? You still haven't shown anything...merely making the claim because you don't like the man doesn't make it true.Of course you don't see racism. You never do. How about showing how his statement is an accurate assessment of immigrants from Norway versus African countries? How are Norwegian immigrants more desirable?
Are they better educated? More employed? Less criminal? What?
Show us the facts to back up Trump's statements.Okay, I'll provide something. Racism might not be present in a single statement, but I believe people are making the accusation based on a pattern of behavior. See if you agree:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … acist.html
Hi there PrettyyPanther, Need some mustard for that baloney sandwich?
If you are going to draw assumptions from what I say, then at least read what I say, and not what you want to draw from what I say.
My response to the OP addressed the charge of racism by the OP's author. And his spin of course.
What I said was that, in the context of the issue - merit-based immigration; and if you will keep that context in mind, his error was in the crudeness of his descriptor, and that I saw nothing racist in his comment.
If he had said poorest, most economical and socially disadvantaged , and whose immigrants were least likely to add economic and social value to our nation - without first drawing on our national resources; would you have been as outraged over such a racist statement? Global rankings, made long before Pres. Trump came along, rank those countries as the "poorest, most economical and socially disadvantaged" in the Americas. So are those euphemisms for "shithole" so far off-base in the context of merit-based immigration? Do you disagree with those countries' global rankings?
Is it a racist statement because those countries' inhabitants are mostly dark skinned? Is it racist to say anything negative about anything that involves dark skinned people? Is it racist to say that the ghettos of most South American cities are "shitholes" to live in?
Where is the racism in his statement PrettyPanther?
Now back to your misreading of what I said - I don't think you will find that I said, or indicated, I found his statement acceptable:
I think I was saying, and indicating, that I believed, (and again, remember the context), his descriptor carried the message of those nations being not a good choice for merit-based immigration goals to benefit the U.S., and that I saw nothing racist in that statement.
Yet, from that you drew the inference that I found the remark "acceptable..."
ps. I have had CNN on most of the day and they have been practically orgasmic in their coverage. They have crowded the screen with up to 8 or 9 "contributors" voicing their outrage over the racism in the statement and the heart of Pres. Trump. The charges have ranged from the basic "this is a racist statement," to deep evaluations that his statement said everything horribly racist that has ever been said since before the Jim Crow era. I'm gonna send Anderson Cooper a pack of wet-wipes. I don't think he has left the screen since early afternoon. And you folks talk about the sycophancy of Trump's base. Geesh!
GAWhat I meant by "acceptable" is the blanket statement that immigrants from Norway are more desirable than immigrants from those other countries, which is what you and wilderness seem to believe Trump meant by his statements. Am I wrong about that?
If you agree with that assessment, can you show it is accurate and not merely based on assumptions?. Are immigrants from Norway "better" for our country than immigrants from African countries? If so, how?
"....and whose immigrants were least likely to add economic and social value to our nation"
Is this actually true?Well, there you go then, Your explanation of what you "meant" was not what you said. I didn't address what you "meant."
But, speaking to what you "meant" to say, re. the Norwegians; speaking for myself, no you are not wrong. I think Wilderness has spoken to your question... very accurately, and very well, so rather than just repeat his rational, you can consider his responses to be mine also.
Can you prove that his reasoning is wrong and your humanitarian rationalizations are right?
*Damn! I would have made this a two-martini night if had known this would such a lively discussion.
GAWilderness has proven nothing about Norwegian immigrants versus African ones. He has made some assumptions but has provided no actual data about how each fares once they arrive in the U.S.
Hey, if you want to just say your assumptions are right so there, that is your prerogative.
I have not made any assertions either way, so I have nothing I need to prove. The only assertion I have made is that I believe Trump's statements to be racist. He didn't present compelling facts to back them up, but since you seem to agree with them, I thought you might.Hold on now, take a breath. Hasn't this entire thread been about assumptions? Now you want someone to take a deep-dive and come up with stats and surveys to prove they are right?
Hmm.. asking for proof, (stats and studies), isn't saying I think you are wrong? And adding parameters, " ... once they arrive in the U.S...." isn't challenging a statement?
As for my agreement with Wilderness' thoughts... well, they match my recollections of past reporting, and what I would see as logical assumptions. But, you're right, no hard data to back-up my agreement with his thoughts. I just think he is right. And ... I don't think that position is a repeat in my error of 78'
GA
Is it a racist statement because those countries' inhabitants are mostly dark skinned? Is it racist to say anything negative about anything that involves dark skinned people? Is it racist to say that the ghettos of most South American cities are "shitholes" to live in?
It is a racist statement because by disqualifying entire country you say that no one living there deserves to be given opportunity regardless of skills or education, etc. You cover for this guy, Trump, quite a bit, he has proven himself to be an ignorant follower of some rather tiresome stereotypes.
You conservatives irritate me, Trump has been condemned the world over for stupidity and somehow you continue to remain the devils' advocate. Time after time, offense after offense?"It is a racist statement because by disqualifying entire country you say that no one living there deserves to be given opportunity regardless of skills or education, etc...."
Does that also hold if the country referred to was a predominately white-skinned country?
GA'Does that also hold if the country referred to was a predominately white-skinned country?"
Of course it does, my argument would be disingenuous if it did not. There are no "sh*thole countries or selected groups of people pre-destined for the slag heap relative to their worthiness to become America citizens. Someone should remind Trump and his entourage of that simple fact.Time for a little clarity Cred. You used the word racist, but by this explanation maybe you meant something like; offensive? Can a White man be racist towards another white man?
GA"Time for a little clarity Cred. You used the word racist, but by this explanation maybe you meant something like; offensive? Can a White man be racist towards another white man?"
----------------------------------------------
OK, GA, I am all for clarity. No, obviously, if there is animosity between groups of whites, it is not racial as they are of the same race.
Tales of the 'Shanty Irish", and Jews, who are for the most part in the United States, assimilated as "white".
They are all perfectly nice people, for which there is no reason to discriminate or treat them differently. So, why get hung up on a term, when its meaning and outcome when applied is the same as "racist", or debate the exact definition from the dictionary. People who employ such tactics are no less guilty whether we define this behavior as deriving from racism or not.
So, looking at the outcome "offensive" and "racism" are cut from the same cloth.Cred, If your justification for saying the "statement" was racist is because it was from an offensive source, then I think we are talking about different things. No wonder you see racism everywhere you look.
GAand consistent attacks and negativity directed at nonwhite peoples and cultures is to be interpreted how?
-------------------------------
GA, I am certainly not the only one attacking Trump on this point, I see very few sources taking the approach to this issue that either you or wilderness are taking. So, you have a knowledge that is missed by the rest of the planet?
You all endlessly defend him by comparing him to the toddler who naturally and is expected to throw his bowl of oatmeal on the floor from the high chair. That wont do. I say that he knows what he is doing and to say that racial animus is not part of his equation is like sticking your head in the sand.
Here is an article about the typical conservative responses to Trump's unfortunate comments:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wing-people- … 56733.htmlHi Cred, What I have, (and it is not "missed" knowledge), is my understanding of what I read. And if you were to pedal back through my comments in this, (and other Anti-Trump threads), you will find that it is those differences: what you say it says, and what my eyes say it says, that I am almost always addressing.
That I don't agree with what I may perceive to be an invalid anti-Trump criticism doesn't make me a Trump supporter, a Trumpster, or a Trumpite.
It seems to escape notice that I did not defend the "statement's" crudeness, offensiveness, or insensitivity, but the fact that I didn't agree it was racist sure got your attention.
As for your link, thanks, but no, I am comfortable with what my typical response means.
You will likely not feel you have a need for this either:
Mixed Signals: Why People Misunderstand Each Other
GAIt seems to escape notice that I did not defend the "statement's" crudeness, offensiveness, or insensitivity, but the fact that I didn't agree it was racist sure got your attention.
------------------
Ok, one question, why are the statements of credeness, offensiveness and insensitivity always appear to target people of color? He never seems to 'offend' the White Supremacists in the same way. This is not an isolated incident but a pattern
But, it is like you implied before, while the toddlers spits up and makes a mess, you live with the toddler as ultimately he is what you conservatives believe is needed as part of making America Great Again. You guys are more than willing to overlook the rough edges under such circumstances, as you see him, as basically, one of your own. So you are not terribly concerned over whose toes are stepped upon as long as they are not yours, so it has to be just the Left overreacting?
Is that a fair assessment?No Cred, it is not a fair assessment. It failed the instant you lumped me into that "you guys" group. If any group, I think I would be in the "we refuse to join the gang" group.
As for your "one question" Why would you ask me that when you know I haven't entered those discussions from either position? There are plenty of other folks here - from both sides, that you can ask. I don't have the credentials.
GARide that thar fence till yer butt gets raw, GA. Bet you'll fall off on the right side when the time comes though.
The secret is corduroy pants Randy. The grooves help.
GA
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago0
Figure 3. Top Ten Countries of Origin of College-Educated Immigrants, 2014
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article … ted-states
Interesting. Norway is not even in the top ten In fact, no European country is in the top ten. Perhaps assumptions have been made, based on....what?
I challenge you and GA to back up your premise that immigrants from African countries are less desirable than those from Norway."Interesting. Norway is not even in the top ten In fact, no European country is in the top ten. Perhaps assumptions have been made, based on....what?"
"I challenge you and GA to back up your premise that immigrants from African countries are less desirable than those from Norway."
----------------------------------------
Gosh, Pretty Panther, we all better stay away from those talons.
Ouch!!!I'd say your graph says it all, doesn't it? Haiti isn't there, El Salvador isn't there, and not a single nation from the entire continent of Africa nations is there in spite of that continent being a major supplier of immigrants.
4% of our immigration came from Africa in 2007 but isn't represented on the graph of college educated immigrants.. Haiti produced 1.7% of our immigrants in 2008, but isn't on the graph. Yet Vietnam, producing 3% of immigrants is on it, and at 3%. China sent 5%, and are on the graph at 8%. India sent 5% of the immigrants and are shown on the graph at 14%. 4% of our immigrant population came from the Philippines, and low and behold they are shown at 8% of college educated immigrants.
Did you stop to think that Norway isn't sending college educated immigrants to the US because it isn't sending hardly any immigrants at all? Too bad, as the percentage of Norwegians that ARE college educated is higher than the US - Norway has the highest rate of 4 year degrees in the world.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article … d-states-0
So tell me again how it is better for the United States to accept large numbers of immigrants from Africa, El Salvador and Haiti, nations that send almost no educated immigrants to us, while other nations do much better at sending educated, skilled people?Can you tell me what the words on the Statue of Liberty mean, Dan?
And we should take the poverty stricken until we pass the population density of India and/or China, right? That way we can join the 3rd world.
I'm sorry, Randy, but those words were great when we needed warm bodies. That is no longer the case - we can't supply reasonable work for the unskilled we have now. There is absolutely no reason to take more in.Spoken by a true Trump fan. Should we tear the statue down now that what it represents is antiquated and no longer apt, Comrade?
Maybe so. But tell me - how many third world members do you have living in tents in YOUR backyard?
You did not give me a single stat that shows Norwegian immigrants are more desirable than African ones.
Edited to add: I do not consider being college educated, in and of itself, to necessarily be "more desirable." An employed taxi driver is just as worthy as an employed doctor.?? You got exactly the same thing as you've provided showing a Haitian is preferable to a Norwegian one.
"An employed taxi driver is just as worthy as an employed doctor."
Especially if they can read road signs. Literacy rate in Haiti is about 55% and less than 2% of children pass the 5th grade exam at the end of the year. But more desirable than a Norwegian, right?
https://www.classbase.com/countries/Hai … ion-SystemThat is not a stat related to immigrants. As you well know (well, maybe you don't), immigrants tend to be wealthier and better educated than the general populace of the countries from which they come.
I did not show a Haitian immigrant is more preferable than a Norwegian. I merely pointed out that Norway, nor any other European country, is in the top ten countries of origin for college educated immigrants, and the only reason I did that, is you specifically mentioned education as a desirable trait for immigrants in your defense of Trump's position.
" it seems he would prefer educated, skilled immigrants able to support themselves and with a similar culture to those without. "Gezz Louise...
"As you well know (well, maybe you don't), immigrants tend to be wealthier and better educated than the general populace of the countries from which they come."
You're still talking about the South Americas right? Haiti, El Salvador? The immigration images I have seen in recent years didn't show too many "wealthy" immigrants passing through the gates, but I did see a lot of train-roof-riding immigrants with all their possessions in a bundle on their back.
Or, did I misunderstand your point?
GAHmm, still no actual data to support your position. You have a lot of confidence in Trump's assumptions about people from sh!tholes versus people from Norway.
I'd be very nervous about that, if I were you. After all, it is what they do after they arrive here that counts most in that assessment, don't you think?Nope, no data PrettyPanther. My interest isn't in proving whether Pres. Trump is right or wrong in his "statement," and "my confidence" is only in the generalities of the statement. Which I admit is a dangerous place to stake a claim. But that confidence is based on an impression derived from years of listening to reporting about those nations, (Haiti and El Salvador).
So, yes, I agree, in the context of merit-based immigration, with Pres. Trump's assumptions of those "shitholes." But that confidence, assumption, or agreement, doesn't carry-over to the Norwegian part. I hadn't given that any thought before this thread.
GA
"As you well know (well, maybe you don't), immigrants tend to be wealthier and better educated than the general populace of the countries from which they come."
No, I don't know that. Can you provide stats to show it to be true? Be sure to include all refugees immigrating to the country as well as all those that sneak across the borders at night in your calculations.
On the face of it, the two graphs show that the statement is false, or at a minimum that it isn't enough to counter the large differences in education. So...your statement would certainly be better for proof.Illegal immigrants are not the subject of this thread. I will see what I can find, but I do have to go to work this morning so it will be later today.
Are you giving up on backing up your assumption that Norwegian immigrants are more desirable than African ones?Nope. Seems self evident to me, starting with no need to provide housing, groceries, utilities, etc. to incoming immigrants. To those wishing to play the race card I'm sure that such things are disregarded, as are lack of salable skills, lack of a understanding of our culture or customs and a host of other things.
Well, I've done some checking, and I fear that answers to both of our questions, yours and mine, are not easily found. Here is a an easy to understand fact sheet from the Economic Policy Institute, though it doesn't directly address the question of whether immigrants tend to be better educated or wealthier than the average citizens of their origin countries. I wish I could remember where I read that, but it makes sense, given that immigrants must jump through a lot of hoops to immigrate to another country, hoops that are perhaps more easily navigated by better-educated and more financially stable people. I say perhaps, because I am making an assumption. Assumptions can be wrong.
http://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
As far as comparing outcomes between immigrants from African countries versus Norway, or even Europe, I haven't been able to find data on that, in the amount of time I'm willing to spend. Maybe someone who enjoys that type of endeavor will take it on.
Anyway, you can "think" your common sense is right, but that doesn't guarantee that it is. This, for example, indicates that immigrants are pulling their weight in our economy. Again, not really an answer to our more specific questions, but an indication that the oft-repeated idea that many immigrants come here and are a drain on our economy is not supported by the facts.
"Immigrants have an outsized role in U.S. economic output because they are disproportionately likely to be working and are concentrated among prime working ages. Indeed, despite being 13 percent of the population, immigrants comprise 16 percent of the labor force. Moreover, many immigrants are business owners. In fact, the share of immigrant workers who own small businesses is slightly higher than the comparable share among U.S.-born workers. (Immigrants comprise 18 percent of small business owners.)"
You seem to be a 'man in the know" Wilderness. Why are we making 'blanket' determinations on the eligibility of entire nations for the immigration program. All should at least be considered on an equal basis ignoring the 'culture" stuff which is basically saying, "are you white"? If there is a fair evaluation of proposed immigrants anywhere based on applicant education and skills that means that the Norwegian does not necessarily have the advantage.
Beside Norway has a strong socialist economy and does relatively well only because of petrodollars from resources in the vicinity, I guess we wish that we all had that advantage, yes? These people are socialists, you people dislike socialism. So what is their advantage regarding cultural assimilation outside of their being white people?ah... Hmm... After me making such a point that this whole "issue" must be fairly viewed in the context of "merit-based" immigration... You make a valid point Cred. Hmm... is that a bit more Purple showing there?
GAGA, I don't know if I am willing to go so far to say that all of our immigration has to be merit based. I understand the argument but that is not really what we (USA) is supposed to be about. A combination of a merit based system with a lottery system applied equally about the globe is fair for me. Not everyone is going to come here with a pocket full of money, and I see many hard working Jamaicans and Haitians in this area that are hardly candidates for the welfare rolls as Trump seems to imply.
Credence, the issue here is RACE, pure and simple. Trump wants America to return to the period when there were quotas placed on immigration, particularly from "undesirable" countries. Trump wants "desirable" immigrants. Trump was speaking in so-called code but he wasn't smart enough to use covert code language.
Hello again PrettyPanther, I accepted your challenge, and offered an answer in a previous response. I am sure you have seen it by now, but here it is again:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/144 … ost2935954
But you will notice that my response to your challenge was to support my response that I did not think the "statement" that created this storm was inaccurate. Or racist. I did not address the African nations, (the logic I used to address Haiti and El Salvador would probably carry those African examples also), or the superior fit of Norwegian immigrants - although, as Wilderness has stated, I do think it likely that Norwegians would be a more beneficial fit, (remember the context?); economically, socially, and culturally.
GA
Two weeks ago every leftist in 49 states was referring to Alabama by the sort of terms Trump used to day to describe some seriously ugly nations. And now they act offended at Trump. LOL
I'm a "leftist" from Oregon, one of the 49 states. Please quote and link to where I ever referred to the state of Alabama in a derogatory manner.
Ah, everything is about YOU. Yes, I agree, you are a leftist.
Even if what you say is true, the "leftists" are not the leaders of the free world touting freedom and equality for all. Do you see a difference? Or are you a Fox watcher instead?
Wait, isn’t “formal education isn’t everything and people work their way to success without it” a common conservative talking point since it’s been shown that liberals tend to be more educated? Yet you make this a highly important factor in immigration? Seems... not quite consistent...
You'd assume a 'stable genius' would (sooner or later) figure out the definition of insanity.
Trump's word choice was poor but, his intent did not appear to be racist. Unless you contend that singling out one example of a first world nation implies racism.I've heard everything now. Don't you mean Normay? The most upsetting thing about those who put this man in office is their total inability to recognize the magnitude of the blunder they've made.
Could have been worse. Hillary could now be in office.
Okay, here's a link to the Washington Post story about what Trump said. Interesting thing is nobody has been identified as a source for what Trump is alleged to have said. Read it. There is nothing to prove what Trump said. This is yet another example of fake news. Where's the source? Who claim's Trump made these statements?
I like the part of the story that says "Lawmakers were taken aback by the comments, according to people familiar with their reactions." People familiar with their reaction? Who are these people? Why aren't they identified?
It is nowhere to be found in the article that started the firestorm. So, how is this NOT made up? Show me in the article the source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … fbdf2687a3Durbin went on TV today to say Trump used the term "sh!thole" several times. No one in that room has called Durbin a liar, although I'm sure Honest Don won't wait long. Of course, certain Republican lawmakers who were present have been struck with the "I don't recall" bug. Must be spending too much time with Sessions. Courageous bunch.
Let's be honest. Dick Durban is hardly an unbiased source. One more example of the Democrat party working with the media to smear Trump. Again, as usual, Journalistic ethics are dead in the United States. You see, Dick Durban has a history of telling blatant lies.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25817/di … edra#exit-Seriously? Are you seriously going to believe that Trump did not say what everyone knows he said?
Trump is the most prolific liar of them all.
I swear, I am still shocked at the things Trump defenders will say for their man."Everyone knows he said" based on what? Your imagination? Dick Durban? The Washington Post article ? The article's quote "People familiar with their reactions?" One more bit of evidence liberals can't comprehend the concept of fact, truth and reality. The fact is there is no proof Trump said this. The reality is everyone does NOT know he said this AND the reality is you believe it because you want to believe it not because it's been proven to be true.
Cmon Mike, cut the crap. After all this time, Trump now denies that he used the expletive? It is not just Durbin whose acknowledged that Trump said it but many on both side of the political divide, are they all lying and your Grand Poobah is telling the truth? I doubt it.
Anybody other than "Dishonest Dick Durban?" (Maybe Trump will use my nickname for him). Or the Washington "Pathetic" Post? (I'm getting good at this, I may be able to get a job with the Administration).
I'm sure Trump would welcome your sort of intelligence, Mike. After all, you would be representative of those who admire him as an honest person and therefore put him in office.
I don't know if I would want to work for him, Mike, from what I understand he is a pretty fickle employer
Lindsay Graham backed up what Durbin heard, Mike. Does Fox have to tell you that before you believe it? The others in the room have developed amnesia in their fright of Trump. Of course, anything you don't want to believe is "fake news," right?
Come on Randy, you shouldn't make such claims and believe they're not going to be checked. You are not correct.
"Lindsey Graham: 'I said my piece' to Trump. But senator doesn't address 'shithole countries' comment"
Here's the link. It is NOT Fox news. Try again. This is turning into one more thing from the left that is making me laugh. So desperate.
https://www.postandcourier.com/politics … 7b81f.htmlGot another site to link, Mike? This one doesn't tell the whole story. Graham mentioned Durbin's comment and agreed the language was uncalled for. Trump was correct on one thing though, he could murder someone on the streets and you guys would find some way to excuse him.
Your turn to provide a link Randy. Let's see what you have.
Let's be honest. With Trump's track record of pretty bizarre and ignorant comments it is, at least, possible that he said it.
The difference between him and his counterparts is that he doesn't usually hide it behind closed doors. Like Hillary and her hot sauce comment.
Everyone screams racist but only if it's a candidate not in their own party.
I simply knew the rationalizations from the DT apologists would be entertaining. Not enlightening, of course, but at the very least humorous, as well as, imaginative in the extreme. I am not disappointed.
Trump is hanging himself. In fact, he has doomed himself as president. People are losing whatever respect they had for him as president. Let us state that the Liberals & Progressives were right about Trump. The Conservatives, Reactionaries, & Retrogressives are about to be in their death throes. Smart, discerning people are beginning to view the GOP for the antiquated dinosaurs they are. Maybe Trump will cause Americans to become powerful people, taking back their political power & electing candidates who will benefit them.
Yes, conservatism as we know it in America is dying. The old order is in its decay. There is a rising of those considered to be so-called outsiders in American society: women, the socioeconomically disenfranchised, the LBGT community, Blacks, Latinos, & others who are marginalized. They want equality & are progressing towards it. Those in the dominant society are threatened by women, the socioeconomically disenfranchised, the LBGT community, Blacks, Latinos, etc. The dominants want a society where there were strict demarcations along gender, socioeconomic, racial, & orientation lines. The dominants are threatened by a full equality & that is why they are fanatical in maintaining the old social order. The dominants are going through hellbent death throes. They intend to hold on to their old order by any means necessary.I am glad to see you weigh in on this thread. I know from past discussions you were open to the possibility that a Trump presidency would be good for the U.S.
Reading some of the,defenses of Trump's remarks leaves me dismayed and astonished. Of course, I was dismayed and astonished that so many of my fellow Americans considered him to be of acceptable character and temperament to be president.I don't know how many times this must be pointed out. We had the choices. Vote for an idiot. Vote for a crook. Throw away our vote worth a write in candidate.
I'll take an idiot over a crook at every juncture. An idiot is an idiot,for all eyes to see. With a crook (of Hillary's caliber) there was no limit to the damage that could be done.I wasn't aware that Hillary had ever been charged with a crime, much less convicted, despite the many investigations mounted against her.
So, calling her a "crook" is a lie, unless you would like to clarify that it is just your opinion.I believe in America a person is innocent until proven guilty. But maybe that's no longer true for some people.
Yes, in the strictest sense, but sometimes we do have to make judgment calls when evaluating the fitness of a candidate for office. Roy Moore is a good example. That said, you really can't legitimately say a person is a "crook" unless they have been convicted of a crime, admitted a crime, or you have personality seen them commit a crime -- unless you say it is just your opinion, of course.
I don't know how many times this must be pointed out. We had the choices. Vote for an idiot. Vote for a crook. Throw away our vote worth a write in candidate.
I'll take an idiot over a crook at every juncture. An idiot is an idiot,for all eyes to see. With a crook (of Hillary's caliber) there was no limit to the damage that could be done.
----------------------------------------------------
The problem is that Trump IS a crook, a coward AND an idiot
That Bunko stuff regarding his 'so called' university, conservatives say has not been proven. But the very fact that these issues arise and the very appearance of dishonesty is more than just a fleeting one gives me pause. Anyone who wants to be 'my leader' has to be exemplary in deportment and behavior.
He draft dodged while being the loud mouthed chicken hawk, with no real appreciation of what is means to self sacrifice.
He has the persona of a ham handed clown in conducting both foreign and domestic policy with the finesse and deftness of a busted chain saw.
So, I repeat, NOW THAT Is DANGEROUS and I have a hard time imagining Hillary Clinton doing much worse.Now to think about it, Hillary wouldn't be worse at all. Trump is the most blatantly racist president of the 21st century. If Hillary was elected president, she would be a much better character than Donald. Donald is HANGING himself. The world is disrespecting him. America is now viewed as a racist bully because of Donald.
That's where we differ. I can imagine much worse from Hillary.
Look at a Trump. Few friends on either side of the aisle. The bureaucrats despise him. The FBI full of those who hold him in contempt.
Look at Hillary. Deep,deep ties within the government. A proven track record of an adept ability to weasel out of any scandal.
An idiot with few political ties trumps a crook in that scenario. Hands down."The problem is that Trump IS a crook"
Got a list of court convictions of Donald Trump Sr.? Or just another "gives me pause" moment, where you make judgements without proof?That's really rich coming from you, a guy who claims that Clinton is guilty of over 100 crimes. And if you're going to question Credence's use of the word *crook" you should also be questioning LtL's use of the term. Unless, of course, you're not applying equal standards to both people.
That changes it doesn't it? If we can switch the topic to someone else it means it must be true, right? It makes it OK to make unsupportable claims that are false on the face of it; because someone else made claims supported by FBI reports it's OK to make the same claim without support.
"Got a list of court convictions of Donald Trump Sr.? "
If this is your standard for Don, then it should be your standard for Hillary. If not, just admit your bias.
Personally, I have avoided using the term "crook" for Honest Don as there are enough undisputed terms to use, like liar, sexual predator, adulterer, and erratic blowhard.Good for you - that's the way to go. Although some of those terms go beyond a mere opinion into factual statements that I doubt you can support (adulterer, for instance).
But, of course, that's not what was said. [i]That[/] post was a statement, purportedly factual, that Trump is a criminal - something for which there is zero evidence, let alone a conviction.
There's the crux of the problem. We all like to use the term, but some complain when it's used against someone they like.
Trump does appear to be a crook. So does Hillary. The difference is Trump may have been one in the private sector. Hillary was one in the public sector. Hillary,having proven herself to be a crook in the public sector, wasn't fit to hold office. Trump needs to be watched.Good. If the guy has done something wrong, I'm all for punishment.
That depends. If we hold him to the same standard Hillary was,at every turn, not much will happen.
I hope we don't spend as much money investigating Trump as has been spent on Hillary and Bill in the past. A bj by Bill was the only result out of all that.
If that happens, then I expect you will also follow your own standard of assigning guilt to Trump even if the investigation results in no indictment, as you have done with Hillary.
Me, I will accept the results of the investigation but stand by my assessment that Trump is an incompetent, lying, buffoon and an embarrassment to most of the citizens of our great country.Let's think about this for a moment. One example. The emails. We know what was done. We know the law was broken. We know the outcome. Under similar circumstances I would declare Trump guilty,
- Trump personally delivered classified material to the Russians during a meeting. I suppose hacked emails are worse though.
Hacked email? That's all you consider that to be?
With your open willingness to cut Hillary the same amount of slack I'd only give a person mentally challenged, no wonder you consider her fit for office.
He'll, by your standard I'm surprised you raise an eyebrow at anything Trump might do.
"Trump does appear to be a crook."
"The problem is that Trump IS a crook..."
The difference in the two statements is readily apparent. Given that the first is a matter of opinion, with some evidence to back it, your conclusion is reasonable (Watch Trump, but Hillary is unfit). The second, on the other hand, cannot be declared to have any truth at all with the evidence available.There is probably more evidence that Trump is a crook, if one would care to look, but the fact remains that neither has been convicted of a crime.
I'm sure there is. Evidence such as "I didn't get paid!" or "They discriminated against me!". But nowhere (that I've seen) is a statement by the FBI that Trump committed a crime, such as was released about Clinton.
"The problem is that Trump IS a crook"
Got a list of court convictions of Donald Trump Sr.? Or just another "gives me pause" moment, where you make judgements without proof?
--------------------------
Wilderness,
I was in error, perhaps I should not say that he is a crook, or is guilty of unethical business practices. But I do say that the very fact that this issue comes up does show that is behavior is far from exemplary. Regardless of this, there are other things that pi$$ me off regarding this fellow. See below.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ … red-120317
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … f56c15f11c
You conservatives are ALWAYS talking about "patriotism" and respect for the country. Yet, you get bent out of shape when a few football players kneel during the national anthem, but allow Trump to attack at the very heart of what it means to serve and sacrifice. Is that not the ultimate expression of patriotism? As a veteran, I certainly do not appreciate it.
Rightwingers disgust me, you would find a way to support Trump even if he had shot the Pope.The idea that we are not the world's nanny - that merit based immigration is needed - disgusts you. Fair enough - that the TDS crowd will choose words rather than actions to scream about disgusts me, and doubly so when they use unsupported claims to decide that wrong doing happened and we should all be appalled over events that may or may not have taken place. "But I do say that the very fact that this issue comes up does show that is behavior is far from exemplary." shows that claims were made, not that anything happened...except that the left wingers accepted it all as truth and began screaming again that Trump is the devil.
"The idea that we are not the world's nanny - that merit based immigration is needed - disgusts you. Fair enough - that the TDS crowd will choose words rather than actions to scream about disgusts me, and doubly so when they use unsupported claims to decide that wrong doing happened and we should all be appalled over events that may or may not have taken place. "But I do say that the very fact that this issue comes up does show that is behavior is far from exemplary." shows that claims were made, not that anything happened...except that the left wingers accepted it all as truth and began screaming again that Trump is the devil."
---------------------------------------------------
Dodge and parry, alright...
So, lets talk about that. You dodged the question I asked you when you said that American immigration policy according to Trump should focus on letting in those from nations most similar in culture to ours. Which non-white country qualifies under that standard in your eyes?Sorry Credence, but I'm not nearly interested in race as you are. I don't care what race immigrants are, and I don't have a "my people" for them to fit into. Just Americans...all Americans.
You go ahead and insist that "your people" are immigrating - you can count each race and make all is even and "fair". I'll congratulate them when they earn their citizenship, and it won't matter whether they are black, white, yellow or brown. Heck, they can be bright pink with blue polka dots for all I care as long as they want to be here, to assimilate and to be an American, willing and able to add something to this great country. I'll even help a limited number of refugees become Americans and I still don't care where they come from.
And if we have to turn away immigrants with needed and useful skills because they are the wrong race and the racists of our country won't let them in, well, I guess we'll just have to do without them.
It's a real shame, though, to think that there are such people; that race should determine whether one is welcome in our country. Don't you think?Sorry Credence, but I'm not nearly interested in race as you are. I don't care what race immigrants are, and I don't have a "my people" for them to fit into. Just Americans...all Americans.
That is good to know, Wilderness. Then you would not object to all people applying for residency being evaluated equally regardless of their point of origin? To speak about cultural assimilation implies that there is something to "fit into".
-----------------------------------------
You go ahead and insist that "your people" are immigrating - you can count each race and make all is even and "fair". I'll congratulate them when they earn their citizenship, and it won't matter whether they are black, white, yellow or brown. Heck, they can be bright pink with blue polka dots for all I care as long as they want to be here, to assimilate and to be an American, willing and able to add something to this great country. I'll even help a limited number of refugees become Americans and I still don't care where they come from.
Great, this is where I stand, I must have misunderstood you.
--------------------------------------
And if we have to turn away immigrants with needed and useful skills because they are the wrong race and the racists of our country won't let them in, well, I guess we'll just have to do without them.
Who said that we have to turn away immigrants with skills? I just say that all such immigrants should be considered equally and what country that they come from should have nothing to do with it. I say that the 'lottery system' should remain but those that have appropriate skill sets can apply at any time.
-----------------------------
It's a real shame, though, to think that there are such people; that race should determine whether one is welcome in our country. Don't you think?
I say that race should not determine who is welcome, but is Trump saying that by clearly giving preferential treatment to a Nordic society?
-----------------------------------------It is reminiscent of the 1920s when America wanted Nordic i.e. immigrants from Northern & Western Europe while disparaging the so-called undesirables from Southern & Eastern Europe, hmmmm.............Among many American minds in the 1920s, it was the Southern & Eastern European immigrants who were causing "crime, mayhem, & lowering the quality of American life." Sounds familiar?
It is reminiscent of the 1920s when America wanted Nordic i.e. immigrants from Northern & Western Europe while disparaging the so-called undesirables from Southern & Eastern Europe, hmmmm.............Among many American minds in the 1920s, it was the Southern & Eastern European immigrants who were causing "crime, mayhem, & lowering the quality of American life." Sounds familiar?
------------------------------------------
That attests to the time when America clearly had a "racist" (I dread using the word) immigration policy. It is funny how people so quickly and conveniently forget this. Who decided that Nordic immigrants were more desirable than those, who were also Anglo, from Southern and Eastern Europe? There were policies that applied to Asians on the West Coast. We had to wait until 1965 for the more race baiting aspects of American immigration policy to be eliminated.
"That is good to know, Wilderness. Then you would not object to all people applying for residency being evaluated equally regardless of their point of origin? To speak about cultural assimilation implies that there is something to "fit into". "
Yep - don't care where they are from. And yes, there is most certainly something to "fit into" - the American life and culture.
"It's a real shame, though, to think that there are such people; that race should determine whether one is welcome in our country. Don't you think?"
Sure is. Which is why I question your insistence that caucasians be denied entry, or at best that "colored" races (black, asian, hispanic, etc.) be given preferential treatment solely because of their color. How about it is determined by merit, with color completely ignored rather than using it as a guideline of who to invite?
"I say that race should not determine who is welcome, but is Trump saying that by clearly giving preferential treatment to a Nordic society?"
Except that Trump did not say to give preferential treatment to a Nordic society; he said to give prefential treatment to those individuals that have something to offer the country instead of the other way around. And that residents of Norway are far more likely to be able to do that than those of Haiti. Now you can pretend that the average citizen of Haiti does have more to offer than the average citizen of Norway, but no one is going to believe that. Which, when insisting that Haitians as a group be welcomed because of their color, goes back to giving preference because of race, not merit.
Make up your mind; either we use merit as a requirement or we use color. If you choose color, whether flat out preferred or as some kind of racist quota system using color (race) as the guideline, I'll be on the other side of the fence.Yep - don't care where they are from. And yes, there is most certainly something to "fit into" - the American life and culture.
So how do they fit in? What is American life and culture? The only thing we all have in common would be a national allegiance, acceptance of democracy/ the rule of law and acknowledgement of capitalism as our economic system. There is no one culture that can be defined as "American Culture".
------------------------------------------
Sure is. Which is why I question your insistence that caucasians be denied entry, or at best that "colored" races (black, asian, hispanic, etc.) be given preferential treatment solely because of their color. How about it is determined by merit, with color completely ignored rather than using it as a guideline of who to invite?
I did not say that Caucasians should be denied entry, where did you get that? I said, equal treatment, to all, not preferential treatment for some. And what is your definition of merit, that the applicant has to come from a relatively wealthy Caucasian society? Outside of screening out criminals and such from those that are eligible under a lottery system, how do we really know about 'merit' until they arrive here.
-----------------------------------
Except that Trump did not say to give preferential treatment to a Nordic society; he said to give prefential treatment to those individuals that have something to offer the country instead of the other way around. And that residents of Norway are far more likely to be able to do that than those of Haiti. Now you can pretend that the average citizen of Haiti does have more to offer than the average citizen of Norway, but no one is going to believe that. Which, when insisting that Haitians as a group be welcomed because of their color, goes back to giving preference because of race, not merit.
Who is to say who has something to offer the country and who does not? Scandinavia has a socialist economic base and a tightly woven safety net, how would any one of them fare in a 'free wheeling" capitalist society? Who is to say that any one of them would adapt more successfully? I have known and seen Haitians in this area who are natural entrepreneurs, who see immigrating here as a opportunity to make their own way. Those that say otherwise, are drowning in biases and stereotypes. I don't want my immigration policies based upon those spurious values.
I have known African students in my college days, who were determined scholars and would be a positive addition to any society. All that they needed was the opportunity. Their determination and scholarship, embarrassing enough, put most of us homegrown African-Americans to shame. This more likely scenario you speak of, believing that just because someone comes from Norway, a relatively rich country, makes him a better candidate than someone from Haiti, solely based upon their relative national demographics, is BS.
So, we are not talking about "average" anything, we are talking about individuals. We use merit, but what is that merit based upon? Perhaps that is where the impasse lies? The guidelines are based upon opportunities given to individuals of nations to emigrate, not races. So, under those circumstances, I guess my mind is made up?"This more likely scenario you speak of, believing that just because someone comes from Norway, a relatively rich country, makes him a better candidate than someone from Haiti, solely based upon their relative national demographics"
Guess therein lies the disagreement, doesn't it? For no one - not Trump, not I, no one with any sense - will ever make that claim that ALL those from a European country are better candidates than ANYONE from Haiti.
But at the same time, pretending that a randomly selected group of 10,000 Norwegians will not have far more "better candidates" than a randomly selected group of 10,000 Haitians is silly indeed. And no, you don't get to say that we're not talking about individuals and therefore the term "average" or "normal" for the area doesn't apply. Nor do you get to pretend that the culture and norms of Norway are not closer to those of the US than Haiti is.
None of which shuts out Haitians, of course, or Africans or someone from any specific country. But it DOES mean that keeping track of the numbers of each race admitted is foolish. It's not a racial game, played by racists, to somehow "even out" or "balance" the numbers of each race. It's choosing applicants based on merit without regard to race, for both of us claim that race doesn't matter at all.
Given that, we seem to be in agreement. Right?Guess therein lies the disagreement, doesn't it? For no one - not Trump, not I, no one with any sense - will ever make that claim that ALL those from a European country are better candidates than ANYONE from Haiti.
But, if you want to disqualify entire nations from consideration, summarily, isn't that what you are saying?
----------------------------------------
But at the same time, pretending that a randomly selected group of 10,000 Norwegians will not have far more "better candidates" than a randomly selected group of 10,000 Haitians is silly indeed. And no, you don't get to say that we're not talking about individuals and therefore the term "average" or "normal" for the area doesn't apply. Nor do you get to pretend that the culture and norms of Norway are not closer to those of the US than Haiti is.
I also told you at one time that the average net worth of African Americans if 1/20th that of white Americans here in America and you quickly poo-pooed that. So, now you are giving this 'average' approach some credibility when it aligns with your points of discussion? The main thing is that Norway is a rich country, from that standpoint, yes. But, that in itself should not be a disqualifier for those not privileged to hail from such a place.
---------------------------------------------------
None of which shuts out Haitians, of course, or Africans or someone from any specific country. But it DOES mean that keeping track of the numbers of each race admitted is foolish. It's not a racial game, played by racists, to somehow "even out" or "balance" the numbers of each race. It's choosing applicants based on merit without regard to race, for both of us claim that race doesn't matter at all.
Why does it not shut out Haitians, isn't that what Trump alluded to in his statement? Nobody is talking about racial tracking, as I have told you before. I am saying that there should be no nation on Earth that is summarily dismissed from having the opportunity of having people that would qualify for admission here. Race has nothing to do with it.
----------------------
Given that, we seem to be in agreement. Right?
To the extent that I have clarified my perspective in this matter, we can say that we are in agreement.
Trump is beyond despicable. His minions including Kirstjen Nielson, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, "claims" that she "can't recall" Trump calling Haiti & other African countries ******holes. Yes, Ms. Nielsen is a pathological liar.
I am listening to the senate investigations regarding the questioning of Ms. Nielson at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. She was totally nonplussed at the incident. She was actually smiling & nonchalant. B********h!The two GOP senators and Secretary Nielsen should be featured in "Profiles in Cowardice."
Trump is beyond despicable. His minions including Kirstjen Nielson, United States Secretary of Homeland Security, "claims" that she "can't recall" Trump calling Haiti & other African countries ******holes. Yes, Ms. Nielsen is a pathological liar.
I am listening to the senate investigations regarding the questioning of Ms. Nielson at the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. She was totally nonplussed at the incident. She was actually smiling & nonchalant. B********h!
-------------------------
Grace, his leadership style is one of intimidation, just like any tin-horn dictator. Ms. Neilson does not want to face the ire of Trump, even if means she has to lie. That is not someone who I would want to work for and it probably explains the greater than average turnover of staff in his administration to date.
The people who do not stand up for the correct course are no better than TrumpHeaven forbid that,even if said, someone can mentally wander off in a meeting and not catch every word spoken. Let's call them all bitc#es and basta##s if they can't give us something to grasp on to. Shame on them if they don't retain perfect attention.
There seems to have been a lot of GOP in attendance that 'wandered off and did not pay attention'. I know that I would find it difficult to believe that you did not recall the President of the United States using foul mouthed expletives at a staff meeting. I would find that a bit incredulous.
I heard once that, to showcase how little attention was paid in these meetings, someone on President Kennedy's staff put forth a motion to send to Congress a request to put forth a bill to have him removed from office. The motion passed.
I think a lot of minds wander during endless meetings. And, yes, there have been times when I was apologized to because of foul language use when I wasn't paying attention and didn't hear a word,
Whether said, or not, demonizing someone who says they didn't hear it is asinine and beneath adult behavior. And we lament the bullying unkind behavior of our teens. Sounds to me as if they are emulating their parents in many cases.Look! A Trump voter decrying bullying behavior (even though suggesting someone is avoiding the truth because it could damage their boss is hardly bullying behavior).
Our president.I have,repeatedly, referred to the president as an ass. That is not grounds for impeachment.
Sorry. No happy dance for you,today.
I did not call her a name, but this thing with people now saying that they did not recall, is not good enough and I don't buy it. There are a lot of GOP that are saying that "they did not recall" hearing Trump use the words, are we just suppose to ignore all of it? Funny how they just could not simply affirm or deny? Were they ALL inattentive at the crucial moment?
What he said was UNACCEPTABLE, even EGREGIOUS. What he has stated indicates his racial character which is abominable. People will accept what they want to accept. They know that Trump said these things but they elect to brush such things under the table. At this juncture, they claim that Trump "never said it" or "what he said wasn't really racist." This is psychotic denial to say the least.
However, the world is watching the United States. The world is wondering that America has sunk to a new low. Isn't it ironic that Trump would utter such near Martin Luther King's holiday. Also, it is furthermore ironic that Trump has cut off funds to the United Nations. The United Nations has condemned Trump's comments. Trump can no longer LIE his way out of egregious behavior. He is MORE THAN GUILTY as charged. It is time for those who are behind Trump(won't say president anymore as he doesn't deserve the title) to WAKE UP & see EVIL as it IS.
Be Careful In Africa!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kJ3cEWklE
(Nov. 27, 2017)Africa is simply exciting.
On the other hand, newspapers have to make their sales.
Africa is the next emerging business frontierAnjili, Africa has been an "emerging business frontier" for years. It's been regarded as an open door to get rich, provided the "natives" can be easily exploited, hood-winked into signing their freedom and self respect away. America has not let up on the effort for 250 years. It seems your own aspirations would be in the realm of opportunism. Right?
"It's the people who don't recognize the racism within themselves that can be the most damaging because they don't see it."
To add a little more context - relative to those folks commenting on individual consideration versus nationality consideration.
The original context of the "statement" was all about nations, as in legislated immigration-slot allotments for each country.
Wouldn't that logically extrapolate to a choice to offer a slot, (one of a limited number), to a statistically-likely poor choice, to be one of charity, and not purpose, (merit-based)?
Wouldn't that also mean two different immigration issues are being co-mingled in this discussion; Humanitarian immigration, (ie. Asylum seekers), vs. Goal immigration, (merit-based additions)?
Obviously I think the answer to both is yes, which means that declarations of individual possibilities being both unknowable, and un-provable - before the fact, aren't really a point of the original issue.
If you are looking for merit, and you have a limited number of "looks" wouldn't you want to look in the most statistically-likely places?
ps. it is progress to see the diminishing of the more strident racist and racial declarations.
GA
Related Discussions
- 38
Example of racist differences between US and Canada
by Castlepaloma 4 years ago
Don Cherry a hockey Icon got fired on Remembrance Day after 30 years of hockey top broadcast. His comment was...Downtown Toronto, forget it . . . Nobody wears a poppy.” Cherry said: “You people love, that come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life. You love our milk and honey. At...
- 73
Fixing America's Immigration System
by Ralph Schwartz 6 years ago
Immigration reform is long-overdue in America. There is a growing conflict over treatment of illegal aliens and the associated processing procedures. Other topics such as chain-migration, anchor babies, a border wall in the South, unaccompanied minors, what benefits immigrants can...
- 44
Harris/Walz first interview. Did it hurt or help their campaign?
by Readmikenow 6 days ago
Did anyone see the CNN interview of harris/walz?What was walz doing there in the first place? She is the one running for president and this is her FIRST interview since designated as the democrat nominee for president. He has been referred to as her emotional-support white guy.I thought...
- 63
Trump Jokes About Shooting Immigrants at the Border
by Sychophantastic 5 years ago
I once made a joke about this very same thing and my post was deleted.Why was my post deleted? Because it was an incendiary, horrible thing to suggest and might incite somebody to actually go shoot an immigrant.Yet, here we have the POTUS hearing somebody yell out "Shoot them!" and not...
- 217
Where President Trump's Latest Controversial Actually Racists?
by Sharlee 5 years ago
rac·ist/ˈrāsəst/ Learn to pronouncenoun1.a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose...
- 16
"Make America White Again". Agree or Disagree? Is that statement racist or not?
by VC L Veasey 8 years ago
"Make America White Again". Agree or Disagree? Is that statement racist or not?What do you think motivated Tennessee Congressional candidate,Rick Tyler, to put that message on a billboard?