Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I'm sure there plenty of evidence, and that he is actually guilty of it. I just think that the Democrats are hurting pretty badly to smear Trump, and this looks like half an opportunity to do so. This won't lead to an impeachment, it won't lead to any more negative press than he is already receiving. He will have to pay a fine and possibly disband the non-profit.
If they waited until the conclusion of the FBIs investigation, and then tacked it on, it would have much more profound results.
Like I said, I don't want the man in office, but I know a lost cause when I see one.
feeder wrote: Frazz's mind is like a wiener dog in a rabbit warren. Dark, twisting tunnels, and full of the certainty that just around the next bend will be the quarry he seeks.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 18:21:18
Kilkrazy wrote: No, but that doesn't mean that Trump isn't a racist.
However let's get back to the new criminal charges.
"A.G. Eric Schneiderman, are doing everything they can to sue me on a foundation that took in $18,800,000 and gave out to charity more money than it took in, $19,200,000. I won’t settle this case!"
#Trump
Hummm....that is interesting. I'd start with trying to disprove that statement.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
No argument from me on that front...
Even Hawaii is having logistic problems with the big Island volcano eruptions... and that's a tiny sliver of issues compared to Maria's aftermath in PR.
Somewhat of a tangent here, but I read an article on Politico that made a case for reviving the Civil Defense program. People have mocked 'duck and cover' for years, but the reality is that seeking shelter, etc. is what folks should do in the event of a limited nuclear strike or nuclear terrorist event. And people don't know that. Of course, there are no political points to be scored with dusting it off and/or expanding/enhancing other preparedness and relief programs. They'd just be prudent moves that should enjoy bipartisan support.
Which means they're non-starters in the current political climate, of course. Why do anything that can't be used as a club against the other party?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Logistical nightmare of PR being an island? 70 years ago the US was in a war which involved shipping millions of tons of equipment and people halfway around the world, much of it moving from small island to small island.
There is no excuse for the US being unable to provide immediate disaster relief to its own citizens. You put how much money into your military? But then cannot load a carrier with generators, plastic, tarpaulins etc. and sail to help your own citizens? What a waste of money.
It's an island of brown people who have no representation in congress and no say in who becomes President, sitting almost 2000 miles from the US mainland. Not exactly a priority for the current government sadly.
Mostly brown?
Ethnic composition: white (mostly Spanish origin) 80.5%, black 8%, Amerindian 0.4%, Asian 0.2%, mixed and other 10.9%.
You are correct and my term was hyperbolic and inappropriate, however the point was that Puerto Rico and its people are often not seen as American. It's a far off place with lower income standards and they predominantly speak something other than English. Half the US population isnt aware that Puerto Rico is part of the US. Whether through simple ignorance or intentional bias, that has consequences.
It's probably because it isn't a state, as you'd think this wouldn't be tolerated if it were a US state, rather than a territory.
Disciple of Fate wrote: If you go by the metric of toppled government and installed new one without any context you come to a grand total of 4 since 82. Grenada (too young for this one to remember), Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Out of those 3 are seriously questionable
You are forgetting quite a few, all since 82 (1882 that is):
Hawaii
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Philippines
Honduras (twice)
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Panama
South Korea
Guatemala
Dominican Republic (again)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (again)
Panama (again)
Libya
Furthermore, the US deployed troops and attempted but failed to install a new regime in the following places:
Mexico
Russia (as part of an allied force)
China
North Vietnam
Cuba
This list includes, without context, all cases where the US deployed military force in any form with the goal to install a new regime in the country, leaving out action during both world wars. It also does not include cases where the US provided support to groups within a country to install a new regime but in which no US military personnel was deployed, nor does it include the many cases where the US deployed troops to intervene in a civil war with the goal of defending a regime or any other goal except 'regime change'.
Pretending that the US isn't an aggressive country that frequently invades places is just being blind to reality. Now, the justification for these invasions and regime changes, and whether they are good or bad is all subject to debate. But don't pretend the US does not have a history that involves a lot of 'invading places we don't like'. Sure, you can argue that there were only 4 invasions since 1982, but most people have longer memories than that, even if they weren't born yet at the time. Also, 4 invasions since 1982 isn't really a record matched by anyone else either. This kind of behaviour is something that every great power does. It is not unique to the US. But the US is extraordinarily active in doing so, much more than the Soviet Union, Russia, or China.
This list is in error.
Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico were Spanish territories conquered as part fo the Spanish American War. The US never attacked or invaded South Korea.
If we drag that list back to 1871 we can say we technically invaded South Korea
(Or at least a place within their 2018 borders)
Xenomancers wrote:
Hadn't seen 2017 results. Why the sudden change? Plus - what is the hold up - they aren't going to get pushback from congress. Statehood = more tax revenue for the US. They will welcome them with open pockets
It is in the hands of congress. They can take it up whenever they want. As is, they are unlikely to go out of their way to add several million new, majority Democratic, voters, and likely 2 new Dem senators.
That said, the most recent referendum did have very low turnout, but the earler 2012 referendum showed a 61.2% result for statehood.
None of this was un-rumoured or even un-known during the election, but somehow got brushed under the carpet and ignored.
This time it's happening in criminal court with written evidence.
Yeah this will be...interesting.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Wolfblade wrote: Is it imagined though? Trump's campaign had very clear racist tones, along with him never really denouncing any of his racist supporters, and just the opposite in fact.
It is absolutely imagined. What are the racist tones you are speaking about? I assume you mean "Muslim ban" and the "fine people on both sides" issues?
Or the gakhole countries, the Mexicans are rapists, wanting more Norwegians etc.
So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Not really. You have a president who called the predominantly white, descended from Spanish, population of your southern border rapists.
Thinking his supporters who cheered for that would suddenly make a distinction for a separate predominantly white, descended from Spanish, population seems a bit naive.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The guy who said a judge couldn't give him a fair ruling on the case against his con-job of a university because he had Mexican heritage somehow isn't racist? The guy who had to be sued to rent to black people somehow isn't racist?
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 18:36:53
Reviving Civil Defence is a good idea given the amount of extra weather crap coming our way due to Climate Change.
But to return to the topic of Puerto Rico's hurricane disaster versus the USN response to the Japanese tsunami, one of the big differences was that the Japanese government paid for Operation Tomodachi. We know Trump is against military spending, and presumably Puerto Rico is too poor to pay for military intervention there. That doesn't explain the lies, though.
But to return to the topic of the charges against the Trump Foundation and its "proprietors", Trump's counter-blast tweet isn't on the charge sheet. Instead, they've got documentary evidence of Trump personally directing illegal spending of funds on his private affairs. Allegedly.
To be honest I think half that stuff could be Trump's usual sloppiness and disorganisation as much as it might be deliberate embezzlement.
But when you're a top business man operating a charity for years there comes a point where the distinction is irrelevant. You are required to obey some basic rules of governance and if you don't, you're culpable by default.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
The guy who said a judge couldn't give him a fair ruling on the case against his con-job of a university because he had Mexican heritage somehow isn't racist? The guy who had to be sued to rent to black people somehow isn't racist?
Come on.
It's a complete waste of time to rehash this argument.
Trump is someone who has said and done lots of obviously racist things. That appeals to part of his base support. The more you prove it the more they like him.
Plus, 87% of the GOP currently support Trump whatever they think of him privately.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
Well he did say this, so no, not a select few countries:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 18:55:04
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 18:57:12
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did. It actually makes sense not to allow immigrants into your country without a proper vetting process from countries known to have ISIS influence...His proposal was a pause (until a proper vetting process could be established) on immigration from a few select nations because of potential infiltration of the US by ISIS.
This makes a lot of sense actually.
It doesn't as the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the US since the World Trade Center attack have been carried out by american citizens.
Banning people from elsewhere, who are not going to the US to carry out attacks but instead just recruiting people in the US over the internet, from going to the US does nothing to actually stop the people who are carrying out attacks.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Xenomancers wrote: “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Because what Trump actually wanted was illegal, again from the horse's mouth:
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”
And what Vaktathi posted still defeats your claim that the media coined the term Muslim ban
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 19:05:01
Just to clarify, your argument is that Trump didn't coin the term "muslim ban" , despite his spokesman saying that Trump specifically called it "muslim ban".
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Yes, that was them trying to find a way to legally create a muslim ban, which is what Trump asked for.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
Trump's "misspoken" statements (he never says they're misspoken, he even doubles down on them when his staff try to claim such) are his political doctrine.
If you need evidence of that then look no further than the attempted muslim ban.
Muslim ban isn't the term he coined. The media did.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.
"How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me."
"I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
Sure....right after directly calling it a Muslim ban, which they couldnt do, and theyre explaining how they got around that. They're not subtle about the intent here being Muslims, and, it should be pointed out, shows that the term "Muslim Ban" was a not a term created out of thin air by "the media".
That intent is what in fact got those travel ban EO was struck down by the courts initially, and why even the redrafted order is still facing legal challenge. Intent matters in law quite a bit. An action can be legal or illegal depending entirely on intent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/14 19:13:02
Xenomancers wrote: So if I say "everyone from this country is a gakhole" that makes me a racist?
I believe he was referring to illegal Mexican immigrants all being criminals (by definition they are) then mentions that some are rapist too (this is true of any culture of people)?
Nothing racist about wanting immigration from one country and not the other when you consider the facts. Norwegians are well educated, have lots of money and therefor lots to offer. Mexicans are poor, offer litter, drain resources. When you can't talk about objective facts due to PC nonsense - you can't heave real discussions anymore. It's not racism ether - it's insensitive to poor people who aren't your responsibility to begin with. That is about it.
You do realize he called the countries gakholes right? 'Coincidentally' these we're all predominantly 'non-white' countries, then he said he wants more Norwegians. You can ignore that dogwhistle if you want. People can be just as educated coming from Africa or South America, this was about legal US selected immigrants.
No, don't do this man. Trump said the Mexicans coming over were rapists and some he assumed are good people. That's not referring to them being criminals, its referring to them being rapists. He said most, not some, he made that clear with the some are good people line. We can all play it back and hear what he said clear as day. Incredible that you try to defend that statement.
I've heard it hundreds of times. He had hundreds of political rallies. He might have one point said " all Mexicans are rapist" It is not what he ment - it was a mistake if it was said. You can chose to take a misspoken statement as political doctrine if you wish but that is intellectually dishonest. People make mistakes when they speak sometimes - it happens.
He said what he said. Don't go down defending the indefensible statements of a grown ass man. He clearly said most Mexicans are rapists.
It is clearly not what he said - when you take something out of context - it takes on a new meaning. Like I said - you are being intellectually dishonest.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best; they're not sending you,They're sending people that have lots 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."
I'm sorry, which part of that was a mistake? Which is being intellectually dishonest? Those are the exact words from his mouth! In what context can that have been a good thing?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/14 19:24:22
Xenomancers wrote: ... .... ...
“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”
Directly from your article - exactly as I had stated.
'm sorry to say that that is merely Lies and Fake News by Giuliani.
Every muslim who has carried out an act of terrorism in the USA was either a US citizen or came from a country not on Trump's ban list.
3100+
