Trump blames U.S. Senator Durbin for blowing immigration deal

[MajarTheLion]

On 1/20/2018 at 10:04 PM, ilostmypassword said:

To correct your misinformation, the billion dollar bailouts were given by the Bush Administration. And if you're referring to the automobile companies, the money was all paid back with interest and lots of American jobs were saved. Thank you, George Bush.  As for the banks and hedge funds that created the financial disaster, Trump wants to undo the regulations that kept them in check so that they can do it all again.

As for "his regulations and restrictions drove jobs out of the US'" , just more data-free rightwing cant.

 

Actually, you're incorrect. It's true George w. Bush gave the first infusion of cash to the incompetent US auto makers. Barack Hussein Obama, who voted for TARP as a Senator, also gave the US auto makers tens of billions in taxpayer funds. Even the left-leaning Politifact rates Barack Hussein Obama's claim that the loans were paid back in  full as "mostly false".

 

Personally, I am against rewarding corporations who can't run their business with bailouts. Let the strong survive.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

Edited January 22, 2018 by MajarTheLion
adding information

[MajarTheLion]

On 1/20/2018 at 2:29 AM, klikster said:

Are you really having trouble connecting those dots? Trump's "s_hole countries" are predominately black/brown/tan, aren't they? Surely sounds racist to me.

 

As far as the "best" goes, you are putting that additional spin on the issue.

Whose fault is it that many if not most sh!t hole countries are dominated by skin colors other than white? Should one not tell the truth so that whiny leftist snowflakes aren't offended? Is Haiti not a sh!t hole country? Are many countries in Africa and other parts of the world not sh!t hole countries?

 

Of course, the reality is this. If one uses skin color as part of the process of determining whether a country is a sh!t hole or not, that is obviously racist. However, I have not seen anyone use that criteria. All I have seen is the usual knee jerk leftist whining about racism without much regard for the truth. Should we not call countries where the majority of people live in poverty or are enslaved just because we're afraid of being called a racist? I think not. Sticking to the actual facts is the way to go. Let's try a quick exercise to make the point.

 

I Googled the name of a particular country. It doesn't matter where it is or the skin color of the inhabitants. The quote is word for word other than editing out the country's name.

 

"Seventy percent of the population lives below the poverty line . Residents collect most of their drinking water from polluted sources. Pollutants and poor sanitation are attributed to some of the health problems in the country. This is one of the toughest countries to survive in."

 

I submit to you this is a sh!t hole country. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[metisdead]

An offensive post has been removed as well as troll post. 

[simple1]

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Whose fault is it that many if not most sh!t hole countries are dominated by skin colors other than white? Should one not tell the truth so that whiny leftist snowflakes aren't offended? Is Haiti not a sh!t hole country? Are many countries in Africa and other parts of the world not sh!t hole countries?

 

Of course, the reality is this. If one uses skin color as part of the process of determining whether a country is a sh!t hole or not, that is obviously racist. However, I have not seen anyone use that criteria. All I have seen is the usual knee jerk leftist whining about racism without much regard for the truth. Should we not call countries where the majority of people live in poverty or are enslaved just because we're afraid of being called a racist? I think not. Sticking to the actual facts is the way to go. Let's try a quick exercise to make the point.

 

I Googled the name of a particular country. It doesn't matter where it is or the skin color of the inhabitants. The quote is word for word other than editing out the country's name.

 

"Seventy percent of the population lives below the poverty line . Residents collect most of their drinking water from polluted sources. Pollutants and poor sanitation are attributed to some of the health problems in the country. This is one of the toughest countries to survive in."

 

I submit to you this is a sh!t hole country. Do you agree or disagree?

 

Trump's comments were in context to immigration intake from some countries, thereby clearly linking the general population of those countries as undesirables, not the 'leadership' of those countries. As previously posted and easily accessed via search engines, African immigrants have a overall higher level of education than US nationals, thereby one would assume of benefit to the US and it's economy.

[MajarTheLion]

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Trump's comments were in context to immigration intake from some countries, thereby clearly linking the general population of those countries as undesirables, not the 'leadership' of those countries. As previously posted and easily accessed via search engines, African immigrants have a overall higher level of education than US nationals, thereby one would assume of benefit to the US and it's economy.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to get to your conclusion. But yes, I'm aware of the education stats on immigrants from Africa. I'm also aware you dodged the question about the country I described. I can't say I blame you.

[simple1]

12 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to get to your conclusion. But yes, I'm aware of the education stats on immigrants from Africa. I'm also aware you dodged the question about the country I described. I can't say I blame you.

Nope, very logical.

 

Your question is irrelevant in context to immigration policy. A relevant question would be how many of the 'elite' from the the named countries have been banned from entry / financial sanctions applied to them by the Trump Administration to encourage them to reform their corrupt and abusive practises rather than blame the victims. Plus what vetting criteria is applied to those given entry to the US from the named countries? Is Trump saying current criteria for the named countries is not adequate - haven't heard that one to date, so one assumes Trump is utilising an argument based upon bigotry, rather than based upon facts 

Edited January 22, 2018 by simple1

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

Booming economy??? Sure, if you think slow, European-style growth is *booming*. The fact is, Barack Hussein Obama is the first president in decades to not pull off 3% annual economic growth. Booming is obviously and clearly a poor choice of an already highly subjective term.

Yes, you'd have to go all the way back to George W. Bush to find such a president.

4 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

Actually, you're incorrect. It's true George w. Bush gave the first infusion of cash to the incompetent US auto makers. Barack Hussein Obama, who voted for TARP as a Senator, also gave the US auto makers tens of billions in taxpayer funds. Even the left-leaning Politifact rates Barack Hussein Obama's claim that the loans were paid back in  full as "mostly false".

 

Personally, I am against rewarding corporations who can't run their business with bailouts. Let the strong survive.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/22/barack-obama/obama-says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

Thank you for the correction. The government did lose money on the loans. According to Politifact about 9 billion. According to the Treasury about 13 billion. But once you factor in the saving on unemployment benefits. the government came out way ahead:

While U.S. Treasury’s final loss on the bailout is estimated at $13.7 billion including $11.8 billion related to its investment in GM, it avoided the loss of $105.3 billion in unemployment benefit payments and the loss of personal and social insurance tax collections, according to CAR.

In the GM-only scenario, the lost tax collections would have totaled $39.4 billion, according to CAR.

https://www.reuters.com/article/autos-bailout-study/auto-bailout-saved-1-5-million-u-s-jobs-study-idUSL1N0JO0XU20131209

 

And in reference to your nonsensical characterization of Politifact as "left leaning" (the same Politifact that gave Obama the Lie of the Year Award for claiming you can keep your doctor) it must be nice to be able to pick and choose what data you accept and what you don't depending on whether or not it comports with your beliefs. It reminds of those children's fantasy books where the child gets to go through a magic mirror or such and live in an alternative reality whenever it suits.

 

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Again you're blaming the victims rather than the corrupt country elites. You've already acknowledged the average higher level of education achievement of Africa migrants than US nationals, so why carry on with such behaviour.

 

IMO harping on about conspiracy theories is just deflection. Where aid money has been spent so far and what is allocated for future projects is under the control of the U.S. Agency for International Development, whom I understand have acknowledged some decision errors and some projects underperformance.

Actually, I blame the governments in charge of the countries, not the citizens. Let's take Haiti, for example. Of course it's a sh1t hole. Even you acknowledge some fancy-sounding US Agency realizes they screwed up. That admission means much more than it reads. But I digress.

 

It's not the Haitian people's fault their country sucks. It's not the Sierra Leone's people's fault their country sucks. It's their leaders who have sold them out, cut deals with various devils and found that the poverty business is very profitable.

[simple1]

1 minute ago, MajarTheLion said:

Actually, I blame the governments in charge of the countries, not the citizens. Let's take Haiti, for example. Of course it's a sh1t hole. Even you acknowledge some fancy-sounding US Agency realizes they screwed up. That admission means much more than it reads. But I digress.

 

It's not the Haitian people's fault their country sucks. It's not the Sierra Leone's people's fault their country sucks. It's their leaders who have sold them out, cut deals with various devils and found that the poverty business is very profitable.

Precisely. So again why did Trump want to reduce people immigration from countries with failed leadership, when the stats show such immigrants, at least from Africa, outperform the average American citizen on university qualifications which, subject to immigration clearance, is a clear indicator of suitability.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Precisely. So again why did Trump want to reduce people immigration from countries with failed leadership, when the stats show such immigrants, at least from Africa, outperform the average American citizen on university qualifications which, subject to immigration clearance, is a clear indicator of suitability.

Because Americans come first. Frankly, I don't think Trump goes far enough. I would suspend all immigration to the US until good mechanisms were put in place to determine our needs as well as a system of vetting that insures we only import people that benefit our country. A college degree, assuming it is in a field we need here, is obviously a good thing.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.