World Reacts to Trump's "****hole Countries" Remark

[Sam Flynn]

Well they are not sending thier finest that's for sure.

"Sending"? Isn't it the case that economic migrants, whether legal or otherwise, tend to leave their native country on their own initiative?

Or were you being metaphorical, in the same way that you categorised illegal immigrants as "thieves" of people's rights and resources?

[DirectorDave]

Even if we stipulate the above, it still doesn't help your case. Because like I said earlier:

I don't require it to help my case, you are the one requiring it because if you can't accept that then we have no discussion.

"What he did, however, was calling Mexican illegals criminals

Which they are, they are theifs too stealing resources of American people and legal immigrants who went through the correct process.

and not just criminals because of their illegal status, but because they raped and murdered and were generally nasty people.

Well they are not sending thier finest that's for sure.

That was his selling argument for the wall. Not that "illegals are criminals by default", because that doesn't justify building a brand new wall. Trump's point was that illegals are rapists, drug dealers and killers. Not just some of them, but practically all.

Replace "practically all" with "many" and I think we can have a consensus.

Perhaps if you stopped playing silly bloody semantics in future debates we can reach a resolution with more brevity....i'm sure it will be more enjoyable, bigly.

[Karl]

Yes he was talking about illegal immigration, he constantly mentioned the big beautiful door in his wall for those who follow due process.

Even if we stipulate the above, it still doesn't help your case. Because like I said earlier:

What he did, however, was calling Mexican illegals criminals, and not just criminals because of their illegal status, but because they raped and murdered and were generally nasty people. That was his selling argument for the wall. Not that "illegals are criminals by default", because that doesn't justify building a brand new wall. Trump's point was that illegals are rapists, drug dealers and killers. Not just some of them, but practically all.

[DirectorDave]

Trump wasn't differentiating between illegal immigrants and legal ones. He targeted Mexicans no matter how they got to the US.

Yes he was talking about illegal immigration, he constantly mentioned the big beautiful door in his wall for those who follow due process.

He even targeted an american of Mexican heritage (Judge Curiel).

“What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine,”

Uh huh...

Polite enquiry: What is louder than a foghorn?

It depends how far in-land you live.

[Svensson]

Trump wasn't differentiating between illegal immigrants and legal ones. He targeted Mexicans no matter how they got to the US. He even targeted an american of Mexican heritage (Judge Curiel).

Polite enquiry: What is louder than a foghorn?

[Sam Flynn]

Illegal aliens are criminals the moment they set foot in a country without going through the proper channels that all the rest of us do.

Agreed.

Their first act in the country is a criminal one.

It's their subsequent alleged criminal acts that seemingly (mis)inform Trump's stereotyping propaganda.

[DirectorDave]

Are you serious in the interpretation you have presented?

Of course not, but at least I know that....have you ever asked yourself how serious your interpretation is?

Illegal aliens are criminals the moment they set foot in a country without going through the proper channels that all the rest of us do. Their first act in the country is a criminal one.

Someone jumps the queue in front of me I speak out, I don't sit cowering worried about whether I should "check my privilege".

[Karl]

Yes I'm sure you do.


So what are the effects of Trump implementing the Pope's Muslim ban? Severe vetting from sh1thole countries with no clear sunset clause....exactly the same as Pope Barak.

Melanin privilege Obama could be as racist as he wanted.

How is it racist when a ban does not target people for who they are? Even white people were affected by Obama's ban, as Norway's former prime minister Bondevik discovered when he entered the US with a passport previously stamped in Iran. Let me see if I can explain this in even simpler terms:

Obama placed restrictions on people entering the US travelling from certain countries.

Trump placed restrictions on people entering the US, who originated from certain countries.

And here's the thing: the countries in question are countries from which people with terrorist ties have travelled from. BUT: they did not originate in those countries. It is interesting to note that Saudi Arabia is a country which has spawned several terrorists, but all Saudi terrorists entering the States have travelled from other countries. Countries like Iraq, Iran and Syria.

You see what this leads to? This means that Obama's travel ban targeted the terrorists while at the same time allowing refugees in. Obama's travel ban seems tailor made to do just the opposite.

Ok he "assumes" some are good people....he is taking that on faith so he has faith in the inherent good of Mexican people, even though there is evidence to the contrary for many of them.

Not even you can believe that. It means the exact opposite, because what he did take on faith that the Mexican illegals are drug dealers, rapists and murderers - that's why he didn't have to "assume" that they were. He said they WERE - a statement of fact. And then, as an afterthought, to cover his own ass, he added "some of them are ok, I guess." That's what "assume" means: it means "I could be wrong". A mother assumes her son's innocence, but she would never use the word "assume" in parlance with others. When she takes her son's innocence on faith, she says, "he's a good boy". If she says, "he's a good boy, I assume", she is communicating certain doubts.

I don't know why you have to be spoon-fed this. Are you serious in the interpretation you have presented?

[DirectorDave]

So I think I know what this is referring to.

Yes I'm sure you do.


So what are the effects of Trump implementing the Pope's Muslim ban? Severe vetting from sh1thole countries with no clear sunset clause....exactly the same as Pope Barak.

Melanin privilege Obama could be as racist as he wanted.




So onto Mexico I assume.

Ok he "assumes" some are good people....he is taking that on faith so he has faith in the inherent good of Mexican people, even though there is evidence to the contrary for many of them.


I think like many people across the globe many people are waking up to the fact that centrist authoritarian parties (who put on a smiley face and call themselves "liberals") only care about votes as evidence of the USA Democratic party trying to usher out the blacks in favour of Hispanics because they breed faster and there is a ready supply just the other side of the fence.

[Svensson]

"It probably was Trump adopting Obama's Muslim ban"

So I think I know what this is referring to. There was a ban on processing visas from Iraq that Obama had implemented. This was because the DHS had found a problem in the process that would allow some people with a confirmed and documented criminal background to obtain a visa. The ban was to be for 6 months in order to plug the gap in the process and at the end of the 6 months, Iraqi citizens could apply for visas again.

So this is clearly not the same as "a muslim ban" but the seed had of course be planted by the Trump disinformation campaigners who go on Fox/CNN and ABC to shout "but Obama did the same (just not really well because only Trump can fix it)". This whatabout-ism is the core strategy that Trump deploys constantly and mixes it with half-truths and lies like in this example. I can dig out all the articles on it if you want.

"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Notice how he says that he "assumes" that "some" are good people. So he presents it as a fact that they bring drugs, crime and are rapists but for the "good people"part, he provides the proviso that this is a fact-free assumption.

#foghorn

[Karl]

It probably was Trump adopting Obama's Muslim ban

Which never happened. Obama restricted entry for people travelling from certain countries, regardless of nationality. Which makes sense if you want to limit the flow of terrorists. Trump wanted to ban people born in certain countries. Which only makes sense if you want to limit the flow of refugees.

"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Yes, that's what he said.

Said some were good, and some were bad

No, that isn't what he said. What he said was that the vast majority of them are criminals, rapists, and all sorts of nasty things. And some (note that he did not use "some" with criminals) were good people - he assumes. Meaning the first part, about the criminals, that's not his assumption and can be taken as gospel. The last part, however, about good people, that is merely an assumption and he might be mistaken. So the lexical meaning of what he said - and you damn well know this - is that illegal immigrants are scum, though there may be a very few who aren't. He only added that so that he could say, "I didn't say ALL of them". But that's pretty much what he said. If he said what you said, he might as well have said this:

"Mexican illegals are good people. They're good people, folks. Though some, I assume, are criminals."

And you know damn well he said nothing of the kind.

....melanin levels again, can't go calling Mexican criminals, criminals....

Sure he can. No one ever stopped him, or even objected to that. What he did, however, was calling Mexican illegals criminals, and not just criminals because of their illegal status, but because they raped and murdered and were generally nasty people.

[DirectorDave]

Notwithstanding what Svensson said in reply to this, I thought Scotland started turning its back on Trump over whole golf course scandal - way before his presidential campaign. In fact, when Trump was awarded an honorary degree from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, the former principle of that institution handed his honorary degree back in disgust. And five years later, in 2015, Robert Gordon University revoked Trump's honorary degree following his remarks on wanting a Muslim ban. So even if your account of what Trump said of Mexican immigrants were correct (it isn't), it would still be highly misleading to suggest that that was what all the huff huff was about.

Trump started criticising the Scottish government over wind farms and he came under criticism during the construction of the golf course, but the SNP were still running after him like flunkies.

It probably was Trump adopting Obama's Muslim ban that sent the SNP into meltdown, It's fine for a president with high melanin levels to do that, but can't have some thistle-arsed kraut doing it.

"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Said some were good, and some were bad....melanin levels again, can't go calling Mexican criminals, criminals....the sense of entitlement from Trump thinking he has a voice when his melanin levels are so low is astounding.

[Karl]

Trump's Mum was Scottish, we were happy to claim him when he was just a businessman, both the Labour and SNP governments stalked him and made him a "Business ambassador".

Then he said some of the immigrants from Mexico that crossed the border illegally were good people, but some were also bad people then they removed him from the list for apparently being racist.

Very strange deranged behaviour by politicians to Trump.

Notwithstanding what Svensson said in reply to this, I thought Scotland started turning its back on Trump over whole golf course scandal - way before his presidential campaign. In fact, when Trump was awarded an honorary degree from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, the former principle of that institution handed his honorary degree back in disgust. And five years later, in 2015, Robert Gordon University revoked Trump's honorary degree following his remarks on wanting a Muslim ban. So even if your account of what Trump said of Mexican immigrants were correct (it isn't), it would still be highly misleading to suggest that that was what all the huff huff was about.

[Karl]

So now Comrade Trump is conducting his own Witch Hunt at the White House.
I hope they never find out who wrote that piece, it will eat him alive from the inside out.

The thing about that which interests me the most is the fact that Trump didn't dismiss the article as "fake news". This was the New York Times, after all, one of the fakestest of the fakest of the fakes - according to Trump. Indeed, couldn't just anyone have written that article? Couldn't it be a complete fabrication, as Trump has suggested is the case when it comes from "a source" - with no name? But no, apparently he had no doubts about the NYT's journalistic integrity this time. He must have thought, "this fits", because he immediately wanted to know who the traitor was. Trump would have been best served by playing it cool and publicly (and casually) denounced the article as "fake news". I thought he would, but he didn't.

[Svensson]

Then he said some of the immigrants from Mexico that crossed the border illegally were good people, but some were also bad people then they removed him from the list for apparently being racist.

This is of course not exactly true because this is the exact trick that Trump is using with his racist foghorn. The meaning of his statement was unmistakably racist. For the record, the complete statement is

“They are not our friend, believe me,” he said, before disparaging Mexican immigrants: “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

So the "And some, I assume, are good people." is specifically made to give his supporters cover, to be able to point out that this was a weighted statement. Yes, you could theoretically retreat to the position that what he has said is demonstrably factual, but this could be said about anything while making a completely outrageous and unacceptable statement. Let me demonstrate:

"About 1 million children will be born in the UK this year. Some of them will grow up to be murderers, rapists and drug-dealers. Therefore, all fetuses should be aborted to protect the wider public".

The point with the above is that this is factually correct. Some of those kids will undoubtedly become murderers and rapists but the conclusion from those facts is utterly wrong. Or how about:

"Mental and physical disability management and treatment is a drain on the National Health Service. These people should have all their costly treatment withdrawn to expedite a quicker reduction in the number of people receiving such treatment"

The interesting part is that I think you actually KNOW that Trump's statement's are racist, but you are belittling the gravity of them in order to defend him. Trust me, there is nothing to be gained by defending the indefensible except for massive shame further down the line. And this is a something that I have concluded from my many talks with my grandfather who served in the Hitler-youth and the German Army as a gunner from 1940 - 1945 before he passed away in 1997. And no, I am not shouting "Nazi", I am merely using this as an example of how people can get swept away by a second grade used-car salesman and then the realisation a few years later that his followers had lost all critical perspective and it has all gone rather pear-shaped.