Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s---hole’ countries

[The manic]

10 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

So why do people flood to the US if they belong to "certain Nations that are not shitholes"? So is Slovania a shithole because Melania came, Is Germany a shithole because Trumps Father came? Is Scotland a shithole because Trumps Mother came? Is America a shithole because so many Americans came to Thailand? or are the other places shitholes to Trump because they are full of Blacks. I assume the pretty little Fox Anchor who was saying the same thing above from the studio in New York considers South Dakota a shithole, that is why she moved to New York. It seems if movement is the requirement then the whole planet is a shithole. Whatever, The Captain of a ship can let the men on the 'lower decks' cuss, whore and fight but he would NEVER engage in such activity himself. He sets the law and leads by example. The US has global policies and Global reach, it should be doing the same and if the US does not want to act responsibly anymore then it should return ALL troops to mainland USA and leave all foreign military installations. Make America Great again, and just keep America to its self.

If it were not for America the British would be speaking German or Russian as would many European countries. American intervention and sacrifice  helped to rescue us from the tyranny of Communism and Nazism. Ask any eastern European about who's 'reach' they prefer: Soviet Socialism or American. I suggest you worry more about Chinese and Russian influence which is growing ever more traction all over the world.

[Andaman Al]

3 minutes ago, greatwhitenorth said:

just keep America to its self

 

like before Plymouth Rock America? 

 

or just white America?  

Whatever they want Greatwhitenorth. Build the wall, very high and go all the way around. Keep everyone in and everyone else out. I think Trumps support base does not know about history before 1920 and thinks that America has always been white and their ancestors were there a thousand years ago. It seems everyone else invaded White America and ruined the party, while in reality white America actually invaded the Americas and committed genocide. Short term memories are useful when it suits.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, The manic said:

If it were not for America the British would be speaking German or Russian as would many European countries. American intervention and sacrifice  helped to rescue us from the tyranny of Communism and Nazism. Ask any eastern European about who's 'reach' they prefer: Soviet Socialism or American. I suggest you worry more about Chinese and Russian influence which is growing ever more traction all over the world.

How wrong. The Germans would have taken care of the Russians and the Russians the Germans as they were wiping each other out and the Brits would have taken care of the rest of the Germans. It would have taken a whole lot longer and a whole lot more lives. Americans are lucky they woke up or they would all be speaking Japanese. Pearl Harbour was the wake up call, funny how America wasn't interested in helping out before then.

 

Quote

Ask any eastern European about who's 'reach' they prefer: Soviet Socialism or American

Maybe Americans need to remind Trump that next time he is licking Putins behind.

 

Quote

I suggest you worry more about Chinese and Russian influence which is growing ever more traction all over the world.

I think that worry is firmly brought in by Trumps incompetence and self serving treasonous family. China and Russia's influence has certainly gained traction in the last 12 months and it won't stop until we get a President in that isn't more concerned about billions of dollars of debt being called in by Russian Mafia and Banks, or the release of tapes showing hookers peeing for him, that the need to look after his own country.

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

The problems Trump is creating now, will last many years past the time he's in the WH.

Example:  the 'shithole' comment will sour US relations with many countries in Africa and the Caribbean and beyond.  

 

It's akin to the screwed up OJ trial.  Even decades after that sham verdict:  If an American talking to a foreigner says something like, "well, at least the US has a fair judicial system..." ...the foreigner can say, "Oh really? what about the OJ trial?!"

 

For decades into the future, when an American happens to be discussing race relations with a foreigner, and deigns to say America has become fully integrated, the foreigner can say, "Oh really?  What about you (assuming all Americans, because a US president said it) ....saying all brown-skinned people came from shitholes?!"

 

I'm not saying it's logical, sensible or true.  Instead, I'm saying that's the perception that Trump is spreading ww.  He did it on another issue by pulling the US out of the Paris Accords (the perception ww is the US doesn't care about environmental issues), and Trump is doing it again with his 'shithole' mouth fart.

 

For those who care about economics and US jobs, .....Trump's mouth farts will adversely affect those also.  Foreign companies looking to go with alternative power solutions will likely shun the US, because Trump ensured the US has an anti-environmental bent.  Similarly, companies in Africa, the Caribbean (and anywhere else where there are a majority of brown-skinned people) will shun US business because of his recent idiotic comments.

Same principle for treaties, trade negotiations, peace negotiations etc. What's the point of any country entering any with the USA when the next President will come along and cancel them. The President is supposed to be the word of the American people, and that word now means nothing.

[katana]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

You should be ashamed of yourself coming out with that BS. You are talking of your major ally , you know the one that fought side by side with the USA in a war despite it being illegal, the one who's sons and daughters died alongside your own. But hey, America first, we get it.

 

Trump is the one causing the issue, he behaves like a complete SOB (Presidentially used term) and a shithole (another Presidentially used term) to his allies and expects them to flag wave and cheer when he comes. Brits are not those kind of people and that is why you should value the strength of the friendship we have had with the US- we don't give that kind of commitment away lightly. Trump certainly does not value it. 

 

The embassy in London did not cost the US taxpayer a single cent and it is set on 450 acres of the UK's prime real estate. It is the most secure, high tech Embassy the USA has EVER built and Trump uses a kindergarten excuse to snub the effort of all the Americans and Brits that have contributed to this amazing facility. Shame on him and shame and you and those that liked your post for being sheeple. 

Er..You seem to be plucking things from thin air. I'm not American. So, that and the rest of your post seeming to accuse me of US bias because I'm American doesn't apply or make sense. It's also hard to work out if you're American or British and what side you're arguing from.

As to lecturing me what the Brits think, you seem out of touch. Yesterday Sadiq Khan's lecture at the far left Fabian Society was interrupted by British protesters making it clear Khan doesn't speak for them and they welcome a state visit to the UK from Trump.

Also, 74% of Brits in a recent poll favoured a state visit for Trump:

 

[Jingthing]

That's not a scientific poll so it's meaningless. Online self selecting polls aren't real polls. They're about as consequential as Thaivisa polls.

 

Protests at events don't indicate what percentage of people they represent either. 

[katana]

5 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Who said Trump is not welcome?  He cancelled his visit, no one cancelled him.

Sadiq Khan did. Google it.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, katana said:

Sadiq Khan did. Google it.

I don't think he has the power to block a U.S. president from visiting his own embassy if he chooses to. I don't doubt Khan didn't want him to come though. Not the same thing. 

[katana]

Khan said he's not welcome. It's clear what I meant. Don't misquote me.

[Jingthing]

Humor break.

 

The twitter troll president getting trolled himself --

 

"The comments, which Trump has denied uttering, have sparked fury and backlash against the President, with protests taking many different forms.

Perhaps the most elaborate and eye-catching protest to date has come from multimedia artist Robin Bell, who projected "This place is a sh**hole" onto a Trump hotel in Washington D.C."

https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-us-president-hotel-washington-dc-shithole-projection-robin-bell-viral-video-8158226

Edited January 14, 2018 by Jingthing

[buick]

shouldn't the focus be on the immigration policies rather than trump calling a bunch of countries 'shitholes' (i did see an interesting article that suggested the cities in haiti don't have proper sewage systems !!!).  the discussion amongst the politicians was about protections for certain immigrants.  and it appears that those brought to the USA due to a natural disaster in their home country was one of the main items for discussion.  as i noted earlier in this thread, it sure seems like this practice has alot of flaws.  how does one choose which people come to USA and which people stay in the affected country ?  how does one choose which countries are eligible for such a 'policy' ?  isn't it far better to provide aid to the needy people in their home country (with none coming to the USA) ?  can anyone have a dialogue about the real issue or will it always be about trump ?  i say this because it was an issue a long time before trump took office.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, katana said:

Khan said he's not welcome. It's clear what I meant. Don't misquote me.

So what? But he's a mayor and doesn't have the power to stop him. 

[amvet]

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

How wrong. The Germans would have taken care of the Russians and the Russians the Germans as they were wiping each other out and the Brits would have taken care of the rest of the Germans. It would have taken a whole lot longer and a whole lot more lives. Americans are lucky they woke up or they would all be speaking Japanese. Pearl Harbour was the wake up call, funny how America wasn't interested in helping out before then.

 

Maybe Americans need to remind Trump that next time he is licking Putins behind.

 

I think that worry is firmly brought in by Trumps incompetence and self serving treasonous family. China and Russia's influence has certainly gained traction in the last 12 months and it won't stop until we get a President in that isn't more concerned about billions of dollars of debt being called in by Russian Mafia and Banks, or the release of tapes showing hookers peeing for him, that the need to look after his own country.

           https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf  

 

                   1935-9      1940    1941     1942    1943     1944

U.S.A.           0.3            1.5       4.5          20         38          42

Canada           0               0         0.5           1        1.5          1.5

U.K.                0.5           3.5        6.5          9          11           11

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, katana said:

Er..You seem to be plucking things from thin air. I'm not American. So, that and the rest of your post seeming to accuse me of US bias because I'm American doesn't apply or make sense. It's also hard to work out if you're American or British and what side you're arguing from.

As to lecturing me what the Brits think, you seem out of touch. Yesterday Sadiq Khan's lecture at the far left Fabian Society was interrupted by British protesters making it clear Khan doesn't speak for them and they welcome a state visit to the UK from Trump.

Also, 74% of Brits in a recent poll favoured a state visit for Trump:

 

Except of course, this is not a statisictally valid poll is it? Anyone can vote in it. So it's garbage. Here are the results of a poll conducted according to validated statistical principles.

48 percent of UK citizens don't want a state visit for Trump. When you remove the don't knows, it jumps to 61 percent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trumps-state-visit-poll-uk-people-against-want-scrapped-latest-a8106506.html

 

And here's another one

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/12/07/big-jump-in-support-for-cancelling-a-trump-state-visit/

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

           https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ehr88postprint.pdf  

 

                   1935-9      1940    1941     1942    1943     1944

U.S.A.           0.3            1.5       4.5          20         38          42

Canada           0               0         0.5           1        1.5          1.5

U.K.                0.5           3.5        6.5          9          11           11

The table you show is the annual expenditure in billion US dollars.

 

In 1944 the population of the USA was 138 Million. Population of the UK was 49 Million. Therefore if we take the money spent per capita and take the USA as the standard amount, adjusting the table for a population of 138 million (which conveniently happens to be exactly 3 times difference in population) we would get:

 

                 1935-9      1940    1941     1942    1943     1944

U.S.A.           0.3            1.5       4.5          20         38          42           Total = 106

 

U.K.                1,5           10.5        19.5          27          33           33    Total =  125

 

So the UK spent far more per head of population than the USA. Next.

[amvet]

17 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

The table you show is the annual expenditure in billion US dollars.

 

In 1944 the population of the USA was 138 Million. Population of the UK was 49 Million. Therefore if we take the money spent per capita and take the USA as the standard amount, adjusting the table for a population of 138 million (which conveniently happens to be exactly 3 times difference in population) we would get:

 

                 1935-9      1940    1941     1942    1943     1944

U.S.A.           0.3            1.5       4.5          20         38          42           Total = 106

 

U.K.                1,5           10.5        19.5          27          33           33    Total =  125

 

So the UK spent far more per head of population than the USA. Next.

I didn't know that wars were won or lost based on per capita spending.  So did Churchill ask the Yanks for money per capita?  In any event if memory serves me right the population of the British Empire was 529 million.  In that case the US spent far more per head than the British.  Next.

Edited January 14, 2018 by amvet

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, amvet said:

I didn't know that wars were won or lost based on per capita spending.  So did Churchill ask the Yanks for money per capita?  In any event if memory serves me right the population of the British Empire was 529 million.  In that case the US spent far more per head than the British.  Next.

Except of course most of that population didn't pay enough in taxes to support administration of the empire much less to the budget for administering the UK. So they were actually a burden on the UK. So citizens of the UK did spend more per capita than those of the USA. Next.

[The manic]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except of course most of that population didn't pay enough in taxes to support administration of the empire much less to the budget for administering the UK. So they were actually a burden on the UK. So citizens of the UK did spend more per capita than those of the USA. Next.

By the mid 30s the Empire was becoming a burden and plans to dissolve it were being discussed at cabinet level how to let it go.

[The manic]

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Same principle for treaties, trade negotiations, peace negotiations etc. What's the point of any country entering any with the USA when the next President will come along and cancel them. The President is supposed to be the word of the American people, and that word now means nothing.

The Russian Army won the war and then occupied Eastern Europe. The American contribution was important and the British contribution minor. The Great Patriotic War is what the Russians call World War Two and 20 million people Russians died in that war.

[Andaman Al]

13 minutes ago, The manic said:

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Same principle for treaties, trade negotiations, peace negotiations etc. What's the point of any country entering any with the USA when the next President will come along and cancel them. The President is supposed to be the word of the American people, and that word now means nothing.

The Russian Army won the war and then occupied Eastern Europe. The American contribution was important and the British contribution minor. The Great Patriotic War is what the Russians call World War Two and 20 million people Russians died in that war

? Your reply has nothing to do with my quoted text. Lets get back on topic. 

[katana]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except of course, this is not a statisictally valid poll is it? Anyone can vote in it. So it's garbage. Here are the results of a poll conducted according to validated statistical principles.

48 percent of UK citizens don't want a state visit for Trump. When you remove the don't knows, it jumps to 61 percent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trumps-state-visit-poll-uk-people-against-want-scrapped-latest-a8106506.html

 

And here's another one

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/12/07/big-jump-in-support-for-cancelling-a-trump-state-visit/

Er...Yougov, who you quote, only two years ago incorrectly called the 2015 UK election as a hung parliament or even a narrow win for Ed Milliband's Labour party, when in reality the Conservatives won a clear majority. Looks like your sources who you put so much faith in are sometimes garbage, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/12077405/Polling-companies-admit-they-got-2015-election-wrong-by-ignoring-the-views-of-pensioners.html

[katana]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So what? But he's a mayor and doesn't have the power to stop him. 

I didn't say he did.

 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

That's not a scientific poll so it's meaningless. Online self selecting polls aren't real polls. They're about as consequential as Thaivisa polls.

 

Protests at events don't indicate what percentage of people they represent either. 

LBC radio who took the poll, broadcasts to London, a cosmopolitan city with many religions and ethnicities. It has hourly local news, weather and traffic reports. Yet the city Khan claims to represent voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Trump state visit when over 28,000 were polled. If the poll had been taken from outside London in more rural areas with a greater white population, the results could have been skewed even further in his favour.
You argue more 'scientific' polls would give a different picture, without defining what 'scientific' means. Do you mean the US polls from last year which all (bar one) incorrectly predicted a Clinton win against Trump?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/how-wrong-were-the-polls-in-predicting-the-us-election/

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, katana said:

Er...Yougov, who you quote, only two years ago incorrectly called the 2015 UK election as a hung parliament or even a narrow win for Ed Milliband's Labour party, when in reality the Conservatives won a clear majority. Looks like your sources who you put so much faith in are sometimes garbage, too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/12077405/Polling-companies-admit-they-got-2015-election-wrong-by-ignoring-the-views-of-pensioners.html

And now does Yougov's record compare to LBC's?

[chippendale]

If the countries mentioned by Trump aren't pestilential sh!tholes, then why are so many of their citizens trying to flee to Europe's welfare paradise and to Trump's land of opportunity?

 

They badly messed up their own countries. They should stay and fix them instead of becoming a nuisance in civilized societies.

[katana]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And now does Yougov's record compare to LBC's?

YouGov are the same kind of official, 'trusted' sources who incorrectly predicted a Clinton victory last year. These are paid professional pollsters who got the result wrong. Nice work if you can get it.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/how-wrong-were-the-polls-in-predicting-the-us-election/

Edited January 14, 2018 by katana

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, katana said:

I didn't say he did.

 

LBC radio who took the poll, broadcasts to London, a cosmopolitan city with many religions and ethnicities. It has hourly local news, weather and traffic reports. Yet the city Khan claims to represent voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Trump state visit when over 28,000 were polled. If the poll had been taken from outside London in more rural areas with a greater white population, the results could have been skewed even further in his favour.
You argue more 'scientific' polls would give a different picture, without defining what 'scientific' means. Do you mean the US polls from last year which all (bar one) incorrectly predicted a Clinton win against Trump?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/how-wrong-were-the-polls-in-predicting-the-us-election/

I noticed you cited five thirty eight. Their aggregate of all the polls had clintion a 3 percentage point margin over trump in the popular vote. She beat him by 2. On the basis of those same polls five thirty eight gave Trump a 28.6 percent chance of winning. So I'm not sure what you're on about.

It should be obvious that a poll composed of self selected voters will not be accurate. And common sense itself should tell you that Trump is unpopular in London given Labour's standing there. Or do you believe that people who voted for Khan really want a visit from Trump?

[Jingthing]

23 minutes ago, katana said:

I didn't say he did.

 

LBC radio who took the poll, broadcasts to London, a cosmopolitan city with many religions and ethnicities. It has hourly local news, weather and traffic reports. Yet the city Khan claims to represent voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Trump state visit when over 28,000 were polled. If the poll had been taken from outside London in more rural areas with a greater white population, the results could have been skewed even further in his favour.
You argue more 'scientific' polls would give a different picture, without defining what 'scientific' means. Do you mean the US polls from last year which all (bar one) incorrectly predicted a Clinton win against Trump?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/how-wrong-were-the-polls-in-predicting-the-us-election/

If you don't know what a scientific poll is, google it. I'm not your google bot.

Again, some of us prefer to live in the reality based world.

Online self selecting polls are MEANINGLESS. That is a fact.

 

[Jingthing]

Norway responds --

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/13/opinions/norway-says-no-thanks-to-trump-aurdal-opinion/index.html?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist

Quote

 

Norwegian: No thank you, President Trump
 

We are proud of our country, but not because we are white. The historical connotations are unpleasant; Norwegians have been praised for our "ethnic purity" before. We resisted Nazi Germany, and the America that we love helped fight those ideas. So, thanks, but no thanks for the offer, Mr. President.

 

To add, I really don't think Norway resisted the Nazis all that effectively, but that's beside the point. 

[lannarebirth]

I think there's enough anedotal evidence from meeting participants that Trump didn't say what this topic says he said. Since they decline to say what he actually did say it's possible that what he actually said is something worse.

[F4UCorsair]

14 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

How wrong. The Germans would have taken care of the Russians and the Russians the Germans as they were wiping each other out and the Brits would have taken care of the rest of the Germans. It would have taken a whole lot longer and a whole lot more lives. 

 

Well, good to see you have it sorted out.   I bet the generals of the day would be sorry they didn't have you on the team as their tactical adviser.