sh*thole countries

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Jim - why are so few people willing to recognize this?

Not sure what you mean? Are you giving me a subtle hint that if so many people disagree, I must be wrong? Or are you sincerely wondering why so many people disagree?

If it's the former, I hope you know I have zero issue with you disagreeing with me. None whatsoever. But I think the most basic principles of supply and demand suggest I am correct.

If it's the latter, I think people either (1) are liberal ideologues and cannot admit anything that doesn't support liberalism, even if it's obvious truth. Spence is in this category. Or (2) people can't stomach saying it out loud, because it is a harsh reality, which means that we must put strict limits on the number of poor people we let come here. For many people, it's not an easy thing to say 'no' to someone that might desperately want to come here, it might be their only shot at having a comfortable life? It's not easy to slam the door in people's faces. But life ain't always easy. I don't like that more than anybody, I want everybody to be rich and comfortable.

Rand Paul hates Donald Trump. But he was on with Chuck Todd this weekend, explaining how much money Trump gave (before he entered politics) to support humanitarian missions to Haiti, medical mercy missions that Rand Paul, a doctor, was aware of. Trump was a major, major donor to these missions. If all he cared about was his net worth, and if he doesn't like Haitians, why would he do this? Answer...he wouldn't.

I do not think Trump is a super nice guy. I wouldn't want him dating my Mom. He says things that are hard to believe a grown man could say, probably because he's not a grown man in many ways, he's a big spoiled bratty baby in many ways. But he's not Hitler or Darth Vader or Mr Burns from 'The Simpsons' either. There are many stories of his generosity out there (as there should be with any billionaire). All of that gets lost because (1) he has a penchant for saying the most crass things you can imagine, which naturally grab our attention, and (2) 99% of the media is on a mission to demonize him.

He will never, ever get a fair shake in the media. And by 'fair', I don't mean zero negative coverage. I mean negative coverage when he deserves it (not a rare thing), and positive coverage when he deserves it (also not a rare thing, especially if you think a healthy economy is good for Americans). He will never, ever get that, the left and the media are not capable of it. They literally are not capable of it. They could not be fair to Bush, or McCain, or Romney. And their hatred of those men was nothing compared to Trump, because those men were courteous to the media. Trump throws cheap shots right back at them, and is calling them out for exactly what they are. It never occurred to them that they might be held accountable for their yellow journalism, and they don't like it one bit.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Jim - why are so few people willing to recognize this?

Maybe there's another reason. If liberals know this to be true deep down, there's a political advantage to denying it. If they let the Republicans say it, the Democrats can then say "did you hear what he said! He doesn't care about poor people in other countries, he doesn't want them here, so he's probably racist too. I am morally superior, so vote for me!". It works.

Here in CT, we have MASSIVE problems with unfunded pensions. The Democrats won't touch it. So when Republican says "this is not a tenable situation", the Democrats can pounce on him and say "aha! Did you hear that! He wants to steal your pensions, and give the money to his buddies who manage hedge funds! Vote for me, because I think they deserve the pensions they were promised!!" Yet they never, ever say how they will fund them.

I think there's a lot of that from the left. It's dishonest and destructive, almost to the point of calling it diabolical.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Cotton first said he didn't recall. Hell even Lindsey Graham verified the remarks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cotton and Purdue both claimed they couldn't recall it at first.
Then they magically remembered what Trump said. Now in my best Jim voice this goes to show how sleazy and disgusting the conservatives are, their honesty means nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Jim, anybody with any sense of honesty will admit that Republicans all believe the minorities are lazy and enjoy sitting around taking welfare. Welfare is like it dog whistle to Republicans. You yourself have claimed numerous times that welfare is all a grand Democratic scheme to keep minorities down by making them dependent on it and that us why they vote for Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, anybody with any sense of honesty will admit that Republicans all believe the minorities are lazy and enjoy sitting around taking welfare. Welfare is like it dog whistle to Republicans. You yourself have claimed numerous times that welfare is all a grand Democratic scheme to keep minorities down by making them dependent on it and that us why they vote for Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"anybody with any sense of honesty will admit that Republicans all believe the minorities are lazy and enjoy sitting around taking welfare"

Bullsh*t. That's what the media wants you to believe about how the GOP thinks about minorities. What the GOP actually believes, is this - that some people truly cannot fend for themselves, and we need to help those people (evidenced by the fact that conservatives give slightly more to charity than liberals, we have discussed this). But it's better to help people to help themselves, than it is to create more people who cannot fend for themselves. Welfare can have a negative effect if it creates more people who can never go out and take care of themselves.

The late great liberal democrat senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said 50 years ago that liberal welfare was going to be an absolute Holocaust for blacks. He was excoriated for saying that. And he was 100% correct.

"You yourself have claimed numerous times that welfare is all a grand Democratic scheme to keep minorities down by making them dependent on it and that us why they vote for Democrats."

I believe that to my core, at least as regards to some liberals at the national level who make policy. I also believe that's why many liberal politicians want open borders and more immigration - it leads to more future democrat voters. That's the desired outcome.

How can any sane person be against secure borders? They can't. But they put their sanity aside, for political capital.

Paul, when I see what 50 years of liberalism has done for minorities in Hartford and Bridgeport, I say "these people deserve better". When liberals see what their policies have done there, they say "these people deserve more of the same". Because they aren't proposing anything different.

You tell me, Paul, which conclusion implies greater concern for poor minorities? Mine or theirs? Which one?

Liberalism has been a complete disaster for struggling blacks. Economically, culturally, in terms of family stability...it's been a catastrophe.

And when I say they deserve better than what liberals delivered, you claim that means I don't like them? Suffice to say, I see zero logic there. Just more blind political demonization in spite of the facts and common sense.

Finally, here's the last way I will reject your theory that the GOP doesn't care about poor minorities. The tax reform bill is going to help many minorities increase their net take home pay. You tell me, Paul...if Democrats care so much about minorities, what did they do under Obama, that was better for minorities, than this?

[PaulS]

I saw a poll that says 32% of Americans approve of Trumps handling of race relationships. Isn't that about his favorability rating? I would guess it's all Republicans right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I saw a poll that says 32% of Americans approve of Trumps handling of race relationships. Isn't that about his favorability rating? I would guess it's all Republicans right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're probably right. That's why the liberals conspire with the media to demonize everyone who disagrees with them about anything. Because it works.

Black unemployment has never been as low as it is now. If Obama were still POTUS, they'd give him another Nobel Peace Prize for that. With Trump, the media won't discuss it. So they focus on something vulgar he might have said about Haiti, wherein he implied that it's a horribly run country. Imagine thinking that?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're probably right. That's why the liberals conspire with the media to demonize everyone who disagrees with them about anything. Because it works?

Damn that media for making conservatives looks racist when they point out thier racist comments.

And it's not that he "might" of said what he said, it is that he actually said it . You had two senators who confirmed it and two Republican Senators who now have lied about what he said. So let's not say he might have said it when the facts all point to him actually saying it. And frankly I don't think he cares because if he did care he would be tweeting more about it in denying it. He's not doing that because he's blowing his little dog whistle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Damn that media for making conservatives looks racist when they point out thier racist comments.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with calling out true racists. My issue is, liberals don't stop there. Obama said McCain was a racist. Hilary said half the American people are racist. Everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is somehow a racist.

I have zero issue with accurate criticism. Stop pretending otherwise. I started this thread, and I was attacking Trump. I don't believe it's racist to say that Haiti is a sh*thole (especially when the person who said it has given large amounts of money to help Haiti),. I also don't think it's necessarily racist to say we need more immigrants who are (1) self sufficient, and (2) more likely to be able to assimilate into our culture. There's logic there. And it will always be painted as racist by your side. Always.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Damn that media for making conservatives looks racist when they point out thier racist comments.

And it's not that he "might" of said what he said, it is that he actually said it . You had two senators who confirmed it and two Republican Senators who now have lied about what he said. So let's not say he might have said it when the facts all point to him actually saying it. And frankly I don't think he cares because if he did care he would be tweeting more about it in denying it. He's not doing that because he's blowing his little dog whistle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show me proof that he said it, and I will never respect Tom Cotton again. Fair enough?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Black unemployment has never been as low as it is now. If Obama were still POTUS, they'd give him another Nobel Peace Prize for that. With Trump, the media won't discuss it. So they focus on something vulgar he might have said about Haiti, wherein he implied that it's a horribly run country. Imagine thinking that?

Black unemployment is low because unemployment in general is low.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I saw a poll that says 32% of Americans approve of Trumps handling of race relationships. Isn't that about his favorability rating? I would guess it's all Republicans right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And if the media portrayed him honestly, the number would be higher. How many people know that he helped fund medical missions to Haiti? How many people know that black unemployment is at record lows, and Trump is happy about that?

I concede he's not a good man. But he's not remotely what CNN wants him to be. He trounced them at their own game (by virtue of winning when they all said he was going to get clobbered, hell they convinced me) and they hate him for it. He pulled back the curtain and for a moment, showed us how dishonest and contemptible they are.

[PaulS]

You say cotton is honest but he already lied. First he said he didn't hear it now he's saying he didn't say it. So which time was he more credible and which time did he lie? Off for a haircut and the gym now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You say cotton is honest but he already lied. First he said he didn't hear it now he's saying he didn't say it. So which time was he more credible and which time did he lie? Off for a haircut and the gym now
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't say he was honest. I said there's no evidence that he is dishonest. He wa sin the room, and didn't hear the remarks attributed to Trump. You show me proof that he's wrong, and I'll concede your point. I don't deny the obvious Paul.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I didn't say he was honest. I said there's no evidence that he is dishonest. He wa sin the room, and didn't hear the remarks attributed to Trump. You show me proof that he's wrong, and I'll concede your point. I don't deny the obvious Paul.

All you need to do is look at trumps past behavior and ask yourself..”would he really say that?” Of course he would say that.

Grab em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I didn't say he was honest. I said there's no evidence that he is dishonest. He wa sin the room, and didn't hear the remarks attributed to Trump. You show me proof that he's wrong, and I'll concede your point. I don't deny the obvious Paul.

But cotton and Purdue both change their story from saying they didn't hear the statement to now saying it didn't happen. What would have changed their mind was there a tape of it? I know you would concede that that is something president Trump would say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

#^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin has a track record of misrepresenting what was said in a closed door meeting in which no notes or recordings were made, such as this. He is one of the most vociferous personal attackers in the Senate. And he does not adhere to the traditional "collegiality" of Senate décor. The use of salty language during heated negotiations, especially when it is not directed at another member of the negotiation, need not be broadcast to the public, unless it is intended to harm the other member or his party. That's a cheap, dirty trick.

If Trump were a Democrat, or if he had agreed to all or most of what Durbin had proposed, would he have been outraged at Trump's language?

[Got Stripers]

The internet is full of examples of Trumps racists views, I don't have all day to read them all, nor do I need to; I've heard enough sh*thole type comments from him to know exactly what he is. If Trump donated money to third world countries, I'm pretty sure his accountant advised him he need some additional deductions; only so many bankruptcy you can file.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mp-racist.html

[spence]

His own behavior reveals his true feelings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Here are some great examples of why Trump is labeled a racist.
In my eyes, when I see people defend this douchebag, I just see another racist or closet racist. Especially when they say ' everyone thinks these things, he just says what he thinks'.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...imes&smtyp=cur

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Here are some great examples of why Trump is labeled a racist.
In my eyes, when I see people defend this douchebag, I just see another racist or closet racist. Especially when they say ' everyone thinks these things, he just says what he thinks'.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...imes&smtyp=cur

I called San Francisco a crap hole. Does that make me racist? What about if you drove through a crappy town like central falls and referred to it in a way that isn't exactly a complement,are you racist? If you were watching the news within he past two years and saw Aleppo getting torn to shreds and called it a craphole,would the left consider that racism. It is getting difficult to keep up. Nowadays I suppose you just say there is a lot of potential and move along so you don't hurt any feelings. Maybe distribute some puppies to pet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

No one comment on it's own would likely label him a racist, but the complete body of work that is Trump running off his mouth (when not reading speeches written for him), I think clearly does just that. He not only walks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats like a duck, he quacks the same way over and over again; me thinks he must be a duck.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I called San Francisco a crap hole. Does that make me racist? What about if you drove through a crappy town like central falls and referred to it in a way that isn't exactly a complement,are you racist? If you were watching the news within he past two years and saw Aleppo getting torn to shreds and called it a craphole,would the left consider that racism. It is getting difficult to keep up. Nowadays I suppose you just say there is a lot of potential and move along so you don't hurt any feelings. Maybe distribute some puppies to pet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you making policy impacting the people of San Francisco?

Are your comments about San Francisco directed at a single race that you've previously disparaged?

Do you have a rich history of making statements many find racist and or racially divisive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you making policy impacting the people of San Francisco?

Are your comments about San Francisco directed at a single race that you've previously disparaged?

Do you have a rich history of making statements many find racist and or racially divisive?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeff, I was responding to Eben. That is why I quoted him in my post. I am hoping you understand the context of my post, if you don't then you are still a #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

statements many find racist . ..?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like a squirrel finding a nut, or finding a stone and calling it a nut?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Here are some great examples of why Trump is labeled a racist.
In my eyes, when I see people defend this douchebag, I just see another racist or closet racist. Especially when they say ' everyone thinks these things, he just says what he thinks'.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...imes&smtyp=cur

Here's another list of Trumps supposed racisms. Can anyone explain how and why they are racist?

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-...htmlstory.html

[Pete F.]

Here is an interesting article about immigration and you can read the sources also.
Surprise, immigrants have always typically been poor people, even Norwegians.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ut-we-once-did

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is an interesting article about immigration and you can read the sources also.
Surprise, immigrants have always typically been poor people, even Norwegians.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...ut-we-once-did

This was an interesting article which, though it may not be its intention, supports Jim's idea that importing low skilled people can have a negative impact on the economy of the immigrant receiving country. As in this from the article:

"Back then Norway was quite poor. Wages were less than a third of what they were in the United States. And the wave of emigration out of the country quickly benefited those who remained. That's because it reduced the supply of workers in Norway, so those left behind could demand higher wages. And this helped narrow Norway's wage gap with the U.S. by 25 percent over that same 40-year period, putting Norway on the path toward its status today as one of world's most prosperous nations."

So reducing the supply of workers allows the remaining workers the ability to get higher wages. And, conversely, as in Norway when it had excess workers, (and was a sh*thole) it decreases the wage potential of the receiving country by supplying it with more unskilled workers thus making it easier to fill the demand for them and to pay lower wages because of the competition for jobs. (And thus creates pockets of sh*tholes.)

Norway became "one of the world's most prosperous nations" today by dumping a whole lot of their low skill workers into America. And, today, many American low skill citizens are unemployed, on welfare, and those who are employed are paid less because there is an over supply of them.

Now, the notion that Trump is off the mark when he would rather have immigrants from Norway than unskilled ones from sh*tholes because the past immigrants from Norway were just as unskilled and poor as are those from present day sh*tholes is not, at least if this article is correct, off the mark. The immigrants from Norway today would not be the same as the ignorant, unskilled ones of the past. That's the point of why he would prefer immigrants from places like Norway of today. He wants the kind of immigrants who made Norway one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This was an interesting article which, though it may not be its intention, supports Jim's idea that importing low skilled people can have a negative impact on the economy of the immigrant receiving country. As in this from the article:

"Back then Norway was quite poor. Wages were less than a third of what they were in the United States. And the wave of emigration out of the country quickly benefited those who remained. That's because it reduced the supply of workers in Norway, so those left behind could demand higher wages. And this helped narrow Norway's wage gap with the U.S. by 25 percent over that same 40-year period, putting Norway on the path toward its status today as one of world's most prosperous nations."

So reducing the supply of workers allows the remaining workers the ability to get higher wages. And, conversely, as in Norway when it had excess workers, (and was a sh*thole) it decreases the wage potential of the receiving country by supplying it with more unskilled workers thus making it easier to fill the demand for them and to pay lower wages because of the competition for jobs. (And thus creates pockets of sh*tholes.)

Norway became "one of the world's most prosperous nations" today by dumping a whole lot of their low skill workers into America. And, today, many American low skill citizens are unemployed, on welfare, and those who are employed are paid less because there is an over supply of them.

Now, the notion that Trump is off the mark when he would rather have immigrants from Norway than unskilled ones from sh*tholes because the past immigrants from Norway were just as unskilled and poor as are those from present day sh*tholes is not, at least if this article is correct, off the mark. The immigrants from Norway today would not be the same as the ignorant, unskilled ones of the past. That's the point of why he would prefer immigrants from places like Norway of today. He wants the kind of immigrants who made Norway one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

That was over a hundred years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That was over a hundred years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We can all read. Why are you essentially repeating a not terribly significant bit of information that's in the article?