(01-30-2018 07:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 11:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 12:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look, even if Trump isn't a true racist, he has done enough while in office to make it clear he is bigoted and has, at best, a very poor understanding of racism. As some have argued to me, the shithole country comment isn't racist, but even they admit that it is entrenched in bigotry and xenaphobia (I let them split that hair, and understood why they did).

What, specifically, has he done that you are referring to?
If you want to see true racism, just try to put some Section 8 housing in an upscale Democratic neighborhood.
I don't see the shithole comment as being based in race, unless it is your explicit understanding that all shithole countries are predominantly black.

To the bolded, I literally responded to that in my original post - that I understood why my friends didn't believe it was racist, however, it was bigoted and xenophobic.

Not buying.

Quote:And I also provided specific examples of, what were at best, similarly bigoted actions he has taken or things he has said, in the past. How many more examples do you want? I'm sure I could pull up an article that provides handfuls more.

So you cherry picked some examples and ignored other examples which would indicate just the opposite, such as his role in desegregating Mar-a-Lago.

I find your arguments uncompelling. You're going to have to find examples that are more on point, and explain the ones that don't fit your narrative.

So you’re not buying that Trump saying he didn’t want immigrants from shithole countries/continents (which devalues an immigrant based solely on their place of origin), that all Haitians have AIDS, or that Nigerians would never go back to their huts are not, at best, xenophobic and bigoted????

Nope.

(01-30-2018 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 07:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 11:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 02:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What, specifically, has he done that you are referring to?
If you want to see true racism, just try to put some Section 8 housing in an upscale Democratic neighborhood.
I don't see the shithole comment as being based in race, unless it is your explicit understanding that all shithole countries are predominantly black.

To the bolded, I literally responded to that in my original post - that I understood why my friends didn't believe it was racist, however, it was bigoted and xenophobic.

Not buying.

Quote:And I also provided specific examples of, what were at best, similarly bigoted actions he has taken or things he has said, in the past. How many more examples do you want? I'm sure I could pull up an article that provides handfuls more.

So you cherry picked some examples and ignored other examples which would indicate just the opposite, such as his role in desegregating Mar-a-Lago.

I find your arguments uncompelling. You're going to have to find examples that are more on point, and explain the ones that don't fit your narrative.

So you’re not buying that Trump saying he didn’t want immigrants from shithole countries/continents (which devalues an immigrant based solely on their place of origin), that all Haitians have AIDS, or that Nigerians would never go back to their huts are not, at best, xenophobic and bigoted????

Nope.

Wow, can you explain to me how generalizing that all Haitians have AIDs and that Nigerians would never want to go back to their huts isn't xenophobic or bigoted?

Is that a hill you're willing to stand on and defend?

(01-30-2018 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 07:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 11:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not buying.


So you cherry picked some examples and ignored other examples which would indicate just the opposite, such as his role in desegregating Mar-a-Lago.

I find your arguments uncompelling. You're going to have to find examples that are more on point, and explain the ones that don't fit your narrative.

So you’re not buying that Trump saying he didn’t want immigrants from shithole countries/continents (which devalues an immigrant based solely on their place of origin), that all Haitians have AIDS, or that Nigerians would never go back to their huts are not, at best, xenophobic and bigoted????

He was arguing FOR merit based immigration against those who want to value those same people solely on their place of origin.

"President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting". - WashPo

You are taking the other comments as fact when they are disputed.

I sincerely doubt that Trump is the least racist person there is, as he claims. I also doubt that he is more racist than most of the people in congress, perhaps all of them. Just a convenient peg on which the Resistance can hang its hat.

I heard a pundit say that Republicans oppose more immigration from black or brown countries and Democrats oppose immigration from white or Asian countries for the same reason - more voters for the other side. I don't know if that is true, but it sounds more reasonable than Republicans are racists, Democratic are pure of heart.

OO - finish that quoted article. The very next line says:

Quote: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

While Trump's public opinion is using a merit based system (while I'm not 100% about going all merit, I personally don't see that system as racist, which you seem to keep trying to tie to me), his private comments indicate he is not.

If Trump was 100% behind merit based immigration, he would not be prejudiced against people from shithole countries, because a person's merit has no connection to their place of origin. In fact, Nigerians, who come from the African countries he called shitholes, are some of the most, if not THE most, successful immigrant groups in the country.

Spelling this out even more (as I have done already), this comment is at BEST bigoted and xenophobic. He is showing an obvious prejudice against people because of where they come from and is only using their ethnicity and place of origin as the basis for that.

His previous comments about all Haitians having AIDs and Nigerians wanting to return to their huts echo those same sentiments.

As I have also said, let's go ahead and drop the racist nomenclature because it appears to trigger all the snowflakes on this board, and because it is much clearer that Trump is bigoted and xenophobic.

His repeated calls for banning Muslim immigrants from entering the US while he was campaigning (not to be confused with the travel ban), his comments about Judge Curiel being unable to do his job due to his race, his handling of the Charlottesville response, his use of Twitter to share anti-Muslim videos (some of which have been proven to be completely fabricated), him responding to April Ryan that she (a reporter) should set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, and so on, make it clear that Trump is intolerant of others and has animus towards "others" (the textbook definitions of bigotry and xenophobia).

Did that spell it out enough for you?

His response to those who want to reserve places for people from certain countries could certainly have been more artful. The gist is still that people should be admitted on merit, not country of origin. Who was arguing for country of origin?

You are still taking reported comments that are disputed as facts.

His call for a ban on Muslims entering the country was only until they could figure out what was going on. The travel was the result of that, and it failed to ban Muslims from a lot of places.

some of those others I am unfamiliar with, despite your insistence that you have previously cited them. I have no idea why he referred April Ryan (who?) to the CBC.

I am beginning to lose hope for you.

April Ryan is a report for CNN who is black. She asked Trump about the CBC and CHC and he responded by asking her to set up a meeting with the CBC.

And losing hope for me? About what? My opinion of Trump's character is founded on reality and what he says. My opinion of his policy has generally been critical, but I have stated (recently in fact!) that some things he has done are good and that he does deserve some positive credit.

But I'm not the one who is twisting myself into a pretzel to try and brush off all of the ways in which Trump has been less than "artful" in his speech. If Trump had slipped up once or twice when saying these less than "artful" things, I would agree with the sentiment Tanq touched on earlier that basically the Dems were crying wolf (see some of my old posts about my conversations with friends about Romney and how crying wolf then, got us to where we are now). However, Trump has shown a repeated pattern that relies on bigoted and xenophobic ideas and statements over, and over again. The pattern is troubling, and the fact that you continue to try and twist yourself into knots to excuse it is troubling to me. I guess I'm beginning to lose hope for you too.

Go ahead and plant yourself on the hill defending statements such as Haitians all have AIDs, and Nigerians won't want to go back to their huts, and we don't want people from shithole countries. That's a really good hill to defend.

(01-30-2018 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wow, can you explain to me how generalizing that all Haitians have AIDs and that Nigerians would never want to go back to their huts isn't xenophobic or bigoted?
Is that a hill you're willing to stand on and defend?

That's not exactly what I heard him say, and I'm not defending any hill against anyone. But I'm not going to overreact to isolated comments when there is a greater reality that suggests otherwise.

What part of bigotry, xenophobia, or racism were his extensive efforts to fight the establishment to desegregate Mar-a-Lago? What parts of bigotry, xenophobia or racism was his proposal to offer citizenship to "dreamers," an offer that I would not have made, by the way. I give those things more weight than I give stray comments, like Obama's "57 states," for another example.

Could you give me the verbatim quotes where he said precisely those things?

(01-30-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 07:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re not buying that Trump saying he didn’t want immigrants from shithole countries/continents (which devalues an immigrant based solely on their place of origin), that all Haitians have AIDS, or that Nigerians would never go back to their huts are not, at best, xenophobic and bigoted????

He was arguing FOR merit based immigration against those who want to value those same people solely on their place of origin.

"President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting". - WashPo

You are taking the other comments as fact when they are disputed.

I sincerely doubt that Trump is the least racist person there is, as he claims. I also doubt that he is more racist than most of the people in congress, perhaps all of them. Just a convenient peg on which the Resistance can hang its hat.

I heard a pundit say that Republicans oppose more immigration from black or brown countries and Democrats oppose immigration from white or Asian countries for the same reason - more voters for the other side. I don't know if that is true, but it sounds more reasonable than Republicans are racists, Democratic are pure of heart.

OO - finish that quoted article. The very next line says:

Quote: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

While Trump's public opinion is using a merit based system (while I'm not 100% about going all merit, I personally don't see that system as racist, which you seem to keep trying to tie to me), his private comments indicate he is not.

If Trump was 100% behind merit based immigration, he would not be prejudiced against people from shithole countries, because a person's merit has no connection to their place of origin. In fact, Nigerians, who come from the African countries he called shitholes, are some of the most, if not THE most, successful immigrant groups in the country.

Spelling this out even more (as I have done already), this comment is at BEST bigoted and xenophobic. He is showing an obvious prejudice against people because of where they come from and is only using their ethnicity and place of origin as the basis for that.

His previous comments about all Haitians having AIDs and Nigerians wanting to return to their huts echo those same sentiments.

As I have also said, let's go ahead and drop the racist nomenclature because it appears to trigger all the snowflakes on this board, and because it is much clearer that Trump is bigoted and xenophobic.

His repeated calls for banning Muslim immigrants from entering the US while he was campaigning (not to be confused with the travel ban), his comments about Judge Curiel being unable to do his job due to his race, his handling of the Charlottesville response, his use of Twitter to share anti-Muslim videos (some of which have been proven to be completely fabricated), him responding to April Ryan that she (a reporter) should set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, and so on, make it clear that Trump is intolerant of others and has animus towards "others" (the textbook definitions of bigotry and xenophobia).

Did that spell it out enough for you?

His response to those who want to reserve places for people from certain countries could certainly have been more artful. The gist is still that people should be admitted on merit, not country of origin. Who was arguing for country of origin?

You are still taking reported comments that are disputed as facts.

His call for a ban on Muslims entering the country was only until they could figure out what was going on. The travel was the result of that, and it failed to ban Muslims from a lot of places.

some of those others I am unfamiliar with, despite your insistence that you have previously cited them. I have no idea why he referred April Ryan (who?) to the CBC.

I am beginning to lose hope for you.

April Ryan is a report for CNN who is black. She asked Trump about the CBC and CHC and he responded by asking her to set up a meeting with the CBC.

And losing hope for me? About what? My opinion of Trump's character is founded on reality and what he says. My opinion of his policy has generally been critical, but I have stated (recently in fact!) that some things he has done are good and that he does deserve some positive credit.

But I'm not the one who is twisting myself into a pretzel to try and brush off all of the ways in which Trump has been less than "artful" in his speech. If Trump had slipped up once or twice when saying these less than "artful" things, I would agree with the sentiment Tanq touched on earlier that basically the Dems were crying wolf (see some of my old posts about my conversations with friends about Romney and how crying wolf then, got us to where we are now). However, Trump has shown a repeated pattern that relies on bigoted and xenophobic ideas and statements over, and over again. The pattern is troubling, and the fact that you continue to try and twist yourself into knots to excuse it is troubling to me. I guess I'm beginning to lose hope for you too.

Go ahead and plant yourself on the hill defending statements such as Haitians all have AIDs, and Nigerians won't want to go back to their huts, and we don't want people from shithole countries. That's a really good hill to defend.

Speaking of twisting, it would be nice if you wouldn't twist my statements. All I said was that the statements are disputed, and yet you take them as fact. See above.

So, what was this reporter asking about, specifically? Did he tell her to go to the source? Sorry, I missed it the first 18 times you referenced it.

yep, i am losing hope for you. i thought you might be one, like me, who traversed the political landscape from left to right, but your insistence that your "opinion of Trump's character is founded on reality" puts that in doubt. Sounds to me like you are just accepting uncritically what others say. I guess we will find out in 20 years. Well, you will. I won't.

I think qualified people from those SH countries will still be wanted under a merit basis. No problems with Somali engineers. But illiterate and unskilled people from El Salvador will not be accepted just because they are from El Salvador. Who wants that? Your guys. The people who have a problem with not having set asides based solely on country of origin and who think El Salvador is NOT a shithole. Also the people accusing Trump of being a racist . Tell you this, it is not where I want to retire to. I wonder why so many want out. Because it is a paradise, maybe?

sometimes, you have to call a shithole a shithole, regardless of the race of the people who live there.

So twist yourself into an accusatory pretzel. I give up on you.

Question for the group: are national origin preferences necessarily wrong?

I know that British Commonwealth countries have historically given preference to immigrants from other Commonwealth countries.
The Francophone Union may have something similar.
For many years, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had a preferential arrangement for young workers. (That's why so many employees at the ski resorts in Western Canada are Aussies and Kiwis -- they work in the Canadian resorts in the northern winter, and then at the NZ resorts in the southern winter.)
The European Union of course gives preferential treatment to fellow EU members.
Other regional associations (ASEAN, USAN, Arab League, African Union) may have similar preferences.
I'm sure there are countries (perhaps including the US) that give preference to historic allies.

Are these wrong?

There are also countries have explicit or implicit religion preferences -- but I will leave that to another day.

(01-30-2018 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Wow, can you explain to me how generalizing that all Haitians have AIDs and that Nigerians would never want to go back to their huts isn't xenophobic or bigoted?
Is that a hill you're willing to stand on and defend?

That's not exactly what I heard him say, and I'm not defending any hill against anyone. But I'm not going to overreact to isolated comments when there is a greater reality that suggests otherwise.

What part of bigotry, xenophobia, or racism were his extensive efforts to fight the establishment to desegregate Mar-a-Lago? What parts of bigotry, xenophobia or racism was his proposal to offer citizenship to "dreamers," an offer that I would not have made, by the way. I give those things more weight than I give stray comments, like Obama's "57 states," for another example.

Could you give me the verbatim quotes where he said precisely those things?

To the bold:

Quote: According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, Mr. Trump then began reading aloud from the document, which his domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, had given him just before the meeting. The document listed how many immigrants had received visas to enter the United States in 2017.

More than 2,500 were from Afghanistan, a terrorist haven, the president complained.

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/po....html?_r=2

(01-30-2018 11:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Question for the group: are national origin preferences necessarily wrong?

I know that British Commonwealth countries have historically given preference to immigrants from other Commonwealth countries.
The Francophone Union may have something similar.
For many years, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had a preferential arrangement for young workers. (That's why so many employees at the ski resorts in Western Canada are Aussies and Kiwis -- they work in the Canadian resorts in the northern winter, and then at the NZ resorts in the southern winter.)
The European Union of course gives preferential treatment to fellow EU members.
Other regional associations (ASEAN, USAN, Arab League, African Union) may have similar preferences.
I'm sure there are countries (perhaps including the US) that give preference to historic allies.

Are these wrong?

There are also countries have explicit or implicit religion preferences -- but I will leave that to another day.

It's a fine line to navigate, and one where nuance and reasoning is VERY important (which is why the shithole comment is so terrible). One, there is a difference between giving preference to people of one nation and putting up barriers to people of another nation.

And I think that the rationale as to why there would be preferences one way or another needs to be built on solid footing that isn't rooted in racism/xenophobia/bigotry. For example, as I have said before, Nigerians as an immigrant group outperform pretty much every other one, so it would make sense if we actually wanted to try and encourage more Nigerian immigrants, as that would likely bolster our economy. Or, let's say a historic ally is experiencing a civil war - it would also make sense to give preference to immigrants from their country as a way to repay them for their assistance in the past.

(01-30-2018 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 09:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He was arguing FOR merit based immigration against those who want to value those same people solely on their place of origin.

"President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting". - WashPo

You are taking the other comments as fact when they are disputed.

I sincerely doubt that Trump is the least racist person there is, as he claims. I also doubt that he is more racist than most of the people in congress, perhaps all of them. Just a convenient peg on which the Resistance can hang its hat.

I heard a pundit say that Republicans oppose more immigration from black or brown countries and Democrats oppose immigration from white or Asian countries for the same reason - more voters for the other side. I don't know if that is true, but it sounds more reasonable than Republicans are racists, Democratic are pure of heart.

OO - finish that quoted article. The very next line says:

Quote: “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.
In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

While Trump's public opinion is using a merit based system (while I'm not 100% about going all merit, I personally don't see that system as racist, which you seem to keep trying to tie to me), his private comments indicate he is not.

If Trump was 100% behind merit based immigration, he would not be prejudiced against people from shithole countries, because a person's merit has no connection to their place of origin. In fact, Nigerians, who come from the African countries he called shitholes, are some of the most, if not THE most, successful immigrant groups in the country.

Spelling this out even more (as I have done already), this comment is at BEST bigoted and xenophobic. He is showing an obvious prejudice against people because of where they come from and is only using their ethnicity and place of origin as the basis for that.

His previous comments about all Haitians having AIDs and Nigerians wanting to return to their huts echo those same sentiments.

As I have also said, let's go ahead and drop the racist nomenclature because it appears to trigger all the snowflakes on this board, and because it is much clearer that Trump is bigoted and xenophobic.

His repeated calls for banning Muslim immigrants from entering the US while he was campaigning (not to be confused with the travel ban), his comments about Judge Curiel being unable to do his job due to his race, his handling of the Charlottesville response, his use of Twitter to share anti-Muslim videos (some of which have been proven to be completely fabricated), him responding to April Ryan that she (a reporter) should set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, and so on, make it clear that Trump is intolerant of others and has animus towards "others" (the textbook definitions of bigotry and xenophobia).

Did that spell it out enough for you?

His response to those who want to reserve places for people from certain countries could certainly have been more artful. The gist is still that people should be admitted on merit, not country of origin. Who was arguing for country of origin?

You are still taking reported comments that are disputed as facts.

His call for a ban on Muslims entering the country was only until they could figure out what was going on. The travel was the result of that, and it failed to ban Muslims from a lot of places.

some of those others I am unfamiliar with, despite your insistence that you have previously cited them. I have no idea why he referred April Ryan (who?) to the CBC.

I am beginning to lose hope for you.

April Ryan is a report for CNN who is black. She asked Trump about the CBC and CHC and he responded by asking her to set up a meeting with the CBC.

And losing hope for me? About what? My opinion of Trump's character is founded on reality and what he says. My opinion of his policy has generally been critical, but I have stated (recently in fact!) that some things he has done are good and that he does deserve some positive credit.

But I'm not the one who is twisting myself into a pretzel to try and brush off all of the ways in which Trump has been less than "artful" in his speech. If Trump had slipped up once or twice when saying these less than "artful" things, I would agree with the sentiment Tanq touched on earlier that basically the Dems were crying wolf (see some of my old posts about my conversations with friends about Romney and how crying wolf then, got us to where we are now). However, Trump has shown a repeated pattern that relies on bigoted and xenophobic ideas and statements over, and over again. The pattern is troubling, and the fact that you continue to try and twist yourself into knots to excuse it is troubling to me. I guess I'm beginning to lose hope for you too.

Go ahead and plant yourself on the hill defending statements such as Haitians all have AIDs, and Nigerians won't want to go back to their huts, and we don't want people from shithole countries. That's a really good hill to defend.

Speaking of twisting, it would be nice if you wouldn't twist my statements. All I said was that the statements are disputed, and yet you take them as fact. See above.

So, what was this reporter asking about, specifically? Did he tell her to go to the source? Sorry, I missed it the first 18 times you referenced it.

yep, i am losing hope for you. i thought you might be one, like me, who traversed the political landscape from left to right, but your insistence that your "opinion of Trump's character is founded on reality" puts that in doubt. Sounds to me like you are just accepting uncritically what others say. I guess we will find out in 20 years. Well, you will. I won't.

I think qualified people from those SH countries will still be wanted under a merit basis. No problems with Somali engineers. But illiterate and unskilled people from El Salvador will not be accepted just because they are from El Salvador. Who wants that? Your guys. The people who have a problem with not having set asides based solely on country of origin and who think El Salvador is NOT a shithole. Also the people accusing Trump of being a racist . Tell you this, it is not where I want to retire to. I wonder why so many want out. Because it is a paradise, maybe?

sometimes, you have to call a shithole a shithole, regardless of the race of the people who live there.

So twist yourself into an accusatory pretzel. I give up on you.

“When you say the inner cities, are you going to include the CBC, Mr. President, in your conversations with your urban agenda...”

“Well I would. I’d tell you what -- do you want to set up the meeting? Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?”

“No, no, no, I’m just a reporter...I know some of them but --”

“No, get us -- set up the meeting. Let’s go, set up the meeting, I would love to meet with the black caucus - the Congressional Black Caucus.”

https://youtu.be/p_r2Hldgrng?t=2m54s

(01-30-2018 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What part of bigotry, xenophobia, or racism were his extensive efforts to fight the establishment to desegregate Mar-a-Lago? What parts of bigotry, xenophobia or racism was his proposal to offer citizenship to "dreamers," an offer that I would not have made, by the way? I give those things more weight than I give stray comments, like Obama's "57 states," for another example.
Could you give me the verbatim quotes where he said precisely those things?

According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting...

according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there...

recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office..

So I asked for verbatim quotes and you gave me accounts which I believe had been disputed. Gotcha. I'm not saying he did or did not say those things, I don't know and neither do you. If I had to guess, I'd say he probably said some things at least similar. But I'm asking for direct verbatim quotes, and those aren't.

And how do you respond to the questions I asked (repeated and bolded)? Do you want to stand on the hill of attacking those things as racist, bigoted, and/or xenophobic?

(01-30-2018 11:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Question for the group: are national origin preferences necessarily wrong?

I know that British Commonwealth countries have historically given preference to immigrants from other Commonwealth countries.
The Francophone Union may have something similar.
For many years, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had a preferential arrangement for young workers. (That's why so many employees at the ski resorts in Western Canada are Aussies and Kiwis -- they work in the Canadian resorts in the northern winter, and then at the NZ resorts in the southern winter.)
The European Union of course gives preferential treatment to fellow EU members.
Other regional associations (ASEAN, USAN, Arab League, African Union) may have similar preferences.
I'm sure there are countries (perhaps including the US) that give preference to historic allies.

Are these wrong?

There are also countries have explicit or implicit religion preferences -- but I will leave that to another day.

We should encourage preferential immigration from countries whose immigrants to the United States have largely achieved success in both the professional sense, but also success in simultaneously sharing their customs from their countries with Americans, as well as adapting to the American way of life.

(01-30-2018 12:05 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 11:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Question for the group: are national origin preferences necessarily wrong?
I know that British Commonwealth countries have historically given preference to immigrants from other Commonwealth countries.
The Francophone Union may have something similar.
For many years, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have had a preferential arrangement for young workers. (That's why so many employees at the ski resorts in Western Canada are Aussies and Kiwis -- they work in the Canadian resorts in the northern winter, and then at the NZ resorts in the southern winter.)
The European Union of course gives preferential treatment to fellow EU members.
Other regional associations (ASEAN, USAN, Arab League, African Union) may have similar preferences.
I'm sure there are countries (perhaps including the US) that give preference to historic allies.
Are these wrong?
There are also countries have explicit or implicit religion preferences -- but I will leave that to another day.

We should encourage preferential immigration from countries whose immigrants to the United States have largely achieved success in both the professional sense, but also success in simultaneously sharing their customs from their countries with Americans, as well as adapting to the American way of life.

We should encourage preferential immigration for individuals who have the ability to achieve success in both the professional sense and in enriching this country by incorporating their customs and traditions into the American way of life, regardless of country from which they originate. We should also extend preferential treatment from those refuges fleeing oppression or violence in their home countries. Overall, we should seek both to increase legal immigration and decrease or end illegal immigration.

(01-30-2018 12:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 11:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What part of bigotry, xenophobia, or racism were his extensive efforts to fight the establishment to desegregate Mar-a-Lago? What parts of bigotry, xenophobia or racism was his proposal to offer citizenship to "dreamers," an offer that I would not have made, by the way? I give those things more weight than I give stray comments, like Obama's "57 states," for another example.
Could you give me the verbatim quotes where he said precisely those things?

According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting...

according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there...

recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office..

So I asked for verbatim quotes and you gave me accounts which I believe had been disputed. Gotcha. I'm not saying he did or did not say those things, I don't know and neither do you. If I had to guess, I'd say he probably said some things at least similar. But I'm asking for direct verbatim quotes, and those aren't.

And how do you respond to the questions I asked (repeated and bolded)? Do you want to stand on the hill of attacking those things as racist, bigoted, and/or xenophobic?

Desegrating Mar-A-Lago? I hope you're not confusing Trump suing Palm Beach because they wanted to put restrictions on the number of club members (not based on race) and claiming they were discriminating against Mar-A-Lago because, as Trump said, they were open to Jews and African Americans. How did Mar-A-Lago go from segregated to desegregated? Oh right, it didn't. Mar-A-Lago was never segregated. He fought the establishment to turn it into a private club, and the only evidence that suggest the fight was because of racial issues is the same type of evidence you just tried to shoot down.

In this regard, good for Trump for having an open club - but I don't see that as evidence against bigotry and xenophobia since that directly makes Trump money. In fact, it's been said that Trump only wants short guys in yarmulkes counting his money...

But you do get at a bigger point that I think is important, and perhaps why there is debate on this topic. Being bigoted or xenophobic does not mean that every single action taken is grounded in those realities. But perhaps if you view the term that way, then I would acquiesce that Trump is not bigoted or xenophobic, and instead offer that Trump regularly acts bigoted or xenophobic or uses language to express bigoted or xenophobic views.

I would expect that if someone were truly bigoted or Xenophobic or racist, then there would be a consistent, repeated pattern of such behavior, not isolated instances interspersed among other behaviors suggesting otherwise. I’m simply not going to overreact to isolated (and at least some disputed) off the cuff comments interspersed among a generic pattern of behavior inconsistent with that characterization. I don’t defend the statements, and I’m certainly not willing to die on that hill in your terminology. But it’s goingbto take more than that to convince me.

I mean if you can see Hillary as a champion of women because you overlook her support of Bills indiscretions or her response to having a sexual abuser in a key position on her staff, then how can you require someone to defend every statement of Trump’s?

(01-30-2018 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One, there is a difference between giving preference to people of one nation and putting up barriers to people of another nation.

If there is a hard cap on the total number, doesn't a preference to country A constitute a barrier to Country B?

If we give preference to Nigerians to the point that they get 90% of the slots, isn't that a barrier to Haitians?

I guess my bottom line is that I weigh actions more heavily than words, and I don’t see a consistent pattern of racist/bigoted/xenophobic actions on his part.

(01-30-2018 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One, there is a difference between giving preference to people of one nation and putting up barriers to people of another nation.

If there is a hard cap on the total number, doesn't a preference to country A constitute a barrier to Country B?
If we give preference to Nigerians to the point that they get 90% of the slots, isn't that a barrier to Haitians?

Exactly. As long as there is a cap, preference to one automatically means barriers to everyone else. I would prefer no cap with a scoring system weighted toward factors that matter, race and national origin not being among them.

(01-30-2018 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 11:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One, there is a difference between giving preference to people of one nation and putting up barriers to people of another nation.

If there is a hard cap on the total number, doesn't a preference to country A constitute a barrier to Country B?

If we give preference to Nigerians to the point that they get 90% of the slots, isn't that a barrier to Haitians?

If there are only two countries, then yes it would. If there are more, then it would constitute a barrier to the rest as well. Did I say something that suggested otherwise?

Not sure, but it seems like you're trying to debate something with me since you used two countries I have referenced.

(01-30-2018 01:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would expect that if someone were truly bigoted or Xenophobic or racist, then there would be a consistent, repeated pattern of such behavior, not isolated instances interspersed among other behaviors suggesting otherwise. I’m simply not going to overreact to isolated (and at least some disputed) off the cuff comments interspersed among a generic pattern of behavior inconsistent with that characterization. I don’t defend the statements, and I’m certainly not willing to die on that hill in your terminology. But it’s goingbto take more than that to convince me.

I mean if you can see Hillary as a champion of women because you overlook her support of Bills indiscretions or her response to having a sexual abuser in a key position on her staff, then how can you require someone to defend every statement of Trump’s?

http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-full-list...ers-779061

(01-30-2018 01:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess my bottom line is that I weigh actions more heavily than words, and I don’t see a consistent pattern of racist/bigoted/xenophobic actions on his part.

I agree that actions carry more weight than words, but at this point, his words and tweets carry a lot of weight.

I think one of the worst, which I barely touched on, was his retweeting of a far right group in England. One of the videos he tweeted was said to show a Muslim beating up a Dutch boy on crutches. As it turns out, that there was no evidence, whatsoever, that either boy was Muslim.

And I completely forgot about the comments he made before he was president about thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering as the WTC crumbled!

The reason his words carry weight, is because they are starting to infect his admin and society. I mean, to keep things Dutch, just look at the imbecile that is now the Ambassador to the Netherlands. He was skewered by the Dutch press because of similarly bigoted comments about the "No Go Zones" and burning reporters he made. If we had a POTUS who didn't spout off similar conspiracy theories that are often rooted in xenophobia and bigotry, perhaps we wouldn't have public officials he appointed doing similar things. Or one would hope so.