Trump - “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can pretend that Slovenia is a self sufficient country, but the reality is that without the EU pouring millions into that country, it would indeed still be a sh1tshow. Without the EU, Slovenia would've still been a sh1tshow with Russia as its master. And since Slovenia receives more money from the EU than it contributes, I'd say Slovenians are the freeloaders of the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/SI/index_en.cfm

You can pretend all you want that countries addressed by Trump as shitholes did not receive billions of dollars and help from thousands of humanitarian workers, and still remain what they are today.
And Slovenians don't eat people, don't chop off limbs and heads, don't allow child marriages, and don't have MS13 type deep rooted shadow governments.
Stop bashing Slovenia, it's not working.

Right on. Time to close the borders to th shitholes. No room for them here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can pretend that Slovenia is a self sufficient country, but the reality is that without the EU pouring millions into that country, it would indeed still be a sh1tshow. Without the EU, Slovenia would've still been a sh1tshow with Russia as its master. And since Slovenia receives more money from the EU than it contributes, I'd say Slovenians are the freeloaders of the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/SI/index_en.cfm

You can pretend all you want that countries addressed by Trump as shitholes did not receive billions of dollars and help from thousands of humanitarian workers, and still remain what they are today.
And Slovenians don't eat people, don't chop off limbs and heads, don't allow child marriages, and don't have MS13 type deep rooted shadow governments.
Stop bashing Slovenia, it's not working.

Hurt your feelings that a white European country would be a sh1thole if not for the millions (actually I think it's a billion) money given to them to help them out.. that they couldn't hack it on their own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can pretend that Slovenia is a self sufficient country, but the reality is that without the EU pouring millions into that country, it would indeed still be a sh1tshow. Without the EU, Slovenia would've still been a sh1tshow with Russia as its master. And since Slovenia receives more money from the EU than it contributes, I'd say Slovenians are the freeloaders of the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/SI/index_en.cfm

You can pretend all you want that countries addressed by Trump as shitholes did not receive billions of dollars and help from thousands of humanitarian workers, and still remain what they are today.
And Slovenians don't eat people, don't chop off limbs and heads, don't allow child marriages, and don't have MS13 type deep rooted shadow governments.
Stop bashing Slovenia, it's not working.

Right on. Time to close the borders to th shitholes. No room for them here.

That should've applied to Scotland back when Trump's mother immigrated here.

[Anonymous]

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many Africans and Haitians are posting extensive defenses of their countries on Facebook. When asked why they left they'd countries, they answer a variant of what the US offers them. I find it interesting that they left countries but now jump to their defense.

Oh stop being disingenuous.

The president didn't say "there are serious problems in Hait and some African countries." If he had no one would have disagreed with that. Instead, he dismissed them with a vulgarity, and implied their inhabitants are not the sort of people we want in the US. Here's a hint: that's an insult.

How many Americans go ape-shit if people say anything negative about this country. How many times do you hear "leave this country if you don't like it" or "love it or leave it" or "my country right or wrong" -- just because someone dares to critique something about the US that can be improved?

Except that Trump, of course, can imply America's not great rignt now (MAGA) and these same people go wild with applause.

Ethiopia is a shithole. In fact the late Emperor Haile Selassie's head was stuff in a toilet full of shit when the opposition killed him. The Haitians and Africans posting on Facebook are defending the shithole countries they fled. Not disingenuous, simply reality. No one is leaving Norway because it's not a shithole. Few people immigrate from the US because it's not a shithold. Many people leave South Sunda, because it is a shithole Many people leave Equitorial Guinea because it is a shithole. If these places were so great, why would people leave them? No one can or will answer this question.

Spot-on. You're my new favorite poster.
We have friends who travel extensively throughout Europe. They were appalled by Trump's "shithole" comment, so we asked if they had ever considered traveling to Haiti or any African countries. Of course, their answer was no. "But why?" we asked. Crickets.

The only Americans I met in Haiti outside of Port au Prince were conservative Christian aid workers. In several African countries the Chinese are rebuilding the infrastructure to establish factories and shipping centers because Africans work for less than the Chinese. If they can continue the economic colonization in sub-Saharan Africa, fewer people may leave. Rwanda was a prime shitholeb following the genocide, now the Chinese have cleaned it up

I have wondered when that was going to happen. China's eventually going to run out of cheap labor as their standards of living grows so they are expanding to the last place where you can still find cheap labor and people willing to work for pennies.

This is exactly what happened in Taiwan and S. Korea. Remember a few decades ago when everything cheap was made in Taiwan or S. Korea? Labor costs there have sky rocketed and now they outsource their manufacturing to cheaper places like Cambodia and Vietnam.

the only way those manufacturing jobs will come back to the US is if our standard of living and labor costs are that of the 3rd world, ie, we become a sh1thole.

That's right and remember that Africa will have nearly half of the working age people by mid-Century.

Indeed, Trump's own clothing line is made in a sh1thole country - Bangladesh, and he thinks they are the best.

He's fine with using their cheap labor apparently, but not fine with with helping them deal with refugees. They are a poor country but are willing to help refugees out, unlike Trump.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-bangladesh-trump-exc/exclusive-bangladesh-pm-says-expects-no-help-from-trump-on-refugees-fleeing-myanmar-idUSKCN1BU07C

Oh, and look... a poor Muslim country has a female PM.

lol, Letterman looks like he's checking out some turds

Bangladesh is one of the world's poorest countries and for the last few years thousands of its citizens have emigrated to the US and other second and first world countries. Yet, Bangladesh has been forced to accept thousands of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. What delicious irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can pretend that Slovenia is a self sufficient country, but the reality is that without the EU pouring millions into that country, it would indeed still be a sh1tshow. Without the EU, Slovenia would've still been a sh1tshow with Russia as its master. And since Slovenia receives more money from the EU than it contributes, I'd say Slovenians are the freeloaders of the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/SI/index_en.cfm

You can pretend all you want that countries addressed by Trump as shitholes did not receive billions of dollars and help from thousands of humanitarian workers, and still remain what they are today.
And Slovenians don't eat people, don't chop off limbs and heads, don't allow child marriages, and don't have MS13 type deep rooted shadow governments.
Stop bashing Slovenia, it's not working.

If you think that butchery and savagery is limited to poor brown/black countries you are sorely mistaken. Not that long ago, a bunch of white people from a poor country savaged, butchered, starved, burned, experimented on human beings -- six million of them. The Japanese military, too, were just as savage, and their country wasn't even poor at the time. I saw a documentary on some of the things they did to people - human experiments and what not. No one ethnicity or race has the market on being savages. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

So because he was/is Nigerian (aka one of Trump's shitholes), this gentleman would be unworthy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennet_Omalu

Because if you agree with Trump's comment, that is what you are saying. Feel free to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

Things were different then. The poor didn't come here and get all sorts of taxpayer support.

And stop with the Nigerian crap. Your implication is that the decision is racist (because to libs everything is racist), when I just explained it is economic. Self-sufficient Nigerians with an education or a well-paying skill are welcomed. MERIT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

So because he was/is Nigerian (aka one of Trump's shitholes), this gentleman would be unworthy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennet_Omalu

Because if you agree with Trump's comment, that is what you are saying. Feel free to disagree.

I don't know who you're talking to, but as I just said, Nigerians with an education or a skill that would keep them from becoming a burden on American taxpayers are welcome. His ethnicity is irrelevant. His ability to support himself (and family, if he has one) is the deciding issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

Things were different then. The poor didn't come here and get all sorts of taxpayer support.

And stop with the Nigerian crap. Your implication is that the decision is racist (because to libs everything is racist), when I just explained it is economic. Self-sufficient Nigerians with an education or a well-paying skill are welcomed. MERIT.

So yes or no, do you think that Trump's comment regarding people coming here from shithole countries was appropriate? Because if you agree with his comment, then you believe ANY Nigerian, regardless of merit, is unworthy to come here. Do you believe that, or not? Simple question, and please don't go off on the "liberals make everything racist" bent again. Read his words and tell me if I am interpreting HIS words incorrectly. I'm happy to have the merit-based discussion also but want to clarify your position on Trump's statement. His words matter whether you want them to or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can pretend that Slovenia is a self sufficient country, but the reality is that without the EU pouring millions into that country, it would indeed still be a sh1tshow. Without the EU, Slovenia would've still been a sh1tshow with Russia as its master. And since Slovenia receives more money from the EU than it contributes, I'd say Slovenians are the freeloaders of the EU.

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/SI/index_en.cfm

You can pretend all you want that countries addressed by Trump as shitholes did not receive billions of dollars and help from thousands of humanitarian workers, and still remain what they are today.
And Slovenians don't eat people, don't chop off limbs and heads, don't allow child marriages, and don't have MS13 type deep rooted shadow governments.
Stop bashing Slovenia, it's not working.

Hurt your feelings that a white European country would be a sh1thole if not for the millions (actually I think it's a billion) money given to them to help them out.. that they couldn't hack it on their own?

No, not at all. A lot of countries are disadvantaged for various reasons and require foreign assistance. The difference is - some countries manage beautifully and some remain shitholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If he had said "of course people from shitholes want to come here to improve their lives, and we should welcome them because that is what America does," no one would have blinked.

What he said was "why do we let people who come from shitholes into our country," WHICH IMPLIES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES UNWORTHY.

You can't spin that in any way that is believable.

I never post here (just enjoy lurking) but feel compelled to chime in.

I cannot believe how many people got wrapped around the phrase, and not the meaning of the whole statement.

Of course Trump was implying that the people themselves were unworthy. I challenge anyone to claim otherwise.

Welcome lurker. Countries don't immigrate. People immigrate. Of course, Trump was saying that the people themselves were unworthy. And they are unworthy.

And this is what the entire argument is about. Not everyone is worthy of immigrating here. Sorry.

The liberals are focused on allowing in everyone, with the implicit message being that everyone should get a chance. I hear the word "fair" tossed around a lot. And that might work IF we had a system where no immigrant ever gets welfare or taxpayer support at the expense (obviously) of American taxpayers.

But we don't have that. Just over half (half!) of immigrant families are on some form of welfare, and that rises to more than 70% if there are children in the family. Sure, it's best for the immigrants if we support them. But the focus needs to be in what is best, or at least not harmful, to America.

Thus, we need to go to a merit-based system in which individuals are judged on their likelihood to contribute to society, and advance America, rather than be a cost to it. Other countries do it, and we need to. We simply cannot throw open the doors to anyone who wants to immigrate here UNLESS liberals are willing to say that they will never get taxpayer-funded government assistance.

Why was Trump's poor immigrant mother any more worthy than a Nigerian today?

Things were different then. The poor didn't come here and get all sorts of taxpayer support.

And stop with the Nigerian crap. Your implication is that the decision is racist (because to libs everything is racist), when I just explained it is economic. Self-sufficient Nigerians with an education or a well-paying skill are welcomed. MERIT.

What about people with potential that just didnt have the advantages of a good education in Nigeria? Or do you really just want the wealthy, not necessarily the brightest?