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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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".

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[Karl]

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.

This doesn't even begin to make sense. If the words you utter do not support your argument, even by your own admission here, why utter them at all? Here's how discussion works:

I present my arguments, and I require my arguments to help my case.
You then present your arguments, and you require your arguments to help your case. If your arguments do not help your case, then you have no case. That's why you require your arguments to help. I do not require anything of your arguments, why would I?

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

Which is irrelevant in this discussion.

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

They're not sending anyone. Illegals move on their own accord, in no small part due to the illegal weapon trafficking from the US, which bolsters crime. Be that as it may, the illegals who come over are normal people, who may well be among the finest. What, do you think they sneak across the border because they want to live a life of crime in the US? No, just the opposite: they want to escape crime. The primary motivation is, of course, an escape from poverty. But if someone has decided to pursue crime, there is no reason to leave Mexico for it. Some turn to crime in the US, but in most of these cases it isn't something they planned. But poverty and prejudice cause frustration, and some people will be pushed over the edge.

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

But that isn't what you mean, is it? You do mean practically all, or you would have countered what I said with something other than "Well they are not sending thier finest that's for sure". Because what that is, is a tacit admission. Here, try this one on for size:

A: "So you're suggesting that Jews are evil?"
B: "Well, they're not the good guys, that's for sure."

What does the above say of B's position? If A were incorrect, B would have contradicted A, surely? Instead, B attempted a half-hearted justification of his position instead. Just like you did.

And when you say "many", we both know you mean "most", or "practically all". I'll prove it: rate the below statements in terms of strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree or strongly disagree:

1. Almost all illegal immigrants are good people who, aside from their illegal status, are just as law-abiding as anyone else.
2. Most illegal immigrants are good people who, aside from their illegal status, are just as law-abiding as anyone else.
3. Many illegal immigrants are good people who, aside from their illegal status, are just as law-abiding as anyone else.
4. Some illegal immigrants are good people who, aside from their illegal status, are just as law-abiding as anyone else.
5. A few illegal immigrants are good people who, aside from their illegal status, are just as law-abiding as anyone else.
6. Practically no illegal immigrant is a good person who, aside from his or her illegal status, is just as law-abiding as anyone else.

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.

Well, that's a clear cut case of projection if ever there was one. The semantic nitpicking is entirely on you. No one else. You are the one who have been trying to use semantics to pretend Trump said something he clearly didn't, and we others have been forced to use semantics to explain to you why you are wrong. No one would have bothered with a semantic argument here if it wasn't for you.

[DirectorDave]

"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?

I was not being metaphorical with "sending" I was quoting Trump directly from his golden elevator speech.

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best (he looks up and points to people watching) they are not sending you or you."

"Theives" was not metaphorical, they are using resources meant for US tax payers, legal immigrants and asylum seekers.