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

[Anonymous]

FWIW, DHS Sec. did not deny Trump said what he is reported to have said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused about how people claim we can't help refugees in this country because we have enough poor people here.

First off, when the US was accepting refugees from war torn Europe, the US wasn't exactly doing well economically then either.
Secondly, Trumpsters keep saying our economy is great thanks to Trump - low unemployment, rising stock market, etc... but still we are not rich enough to help refugees.
Third, if we wait till we are "rich" enough, and there are no poor Americans, then we would *never* accept any refugees because we are not a socialist country, and therefore, we will *always* have poor people. And then we wouldn't have people like one of the founders of Google (who came here as a refugee) and other great people in the US who came as refugees.

I'm willing to bet that some of these same people who criticize these *sh1tholes* are descendants of people who came here as refugees from other sh1thole countries.

Most of them within the last three generations, yes.

That's the part I get the least. Is it that the desperate are too practical for empathy? If all you've experienced has been the stick, do you try to keep all of the carrots in a bag for yourself?

You know what middle America needs? Manifest destiny: it needs people to move back into these dying towns and be doctors and teachers and bus drivers and shopkeepers. It needs goods and services and consumers. Hellhole, WV and Yellow Cake, OH aren't going to magically improve if we kick immigrants out. They might, if people seeking the American dream moved there because they could afford to buy a house and sink roots into the community.

Bring in people from Eastern Europe and nobody in WV and Ohio will complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a little confused about how people claim we can't help refugees in this country because we have enough poor people here.

First off, when the US was accepting refugees from war torn Europe, the US wasn't exactly doing well economically then either.
Secondly, Trumpsters keep saying our economy is great thanks to Trump - low unemployment, rising stock market, etc... but still we are not rich enough to help refugees.
Third, if we wait till we are "rich" enough, and there are no poor Americans, then we would *never* accept any refugees because we are not a socialist country, and therefore, we will *always* have poor people. And then we wouldn't have people like one of the founders of Google (who came here as a refugee) and other great people in the US who came as refugees.

I'm willing to bet that some of these same people who criticize these *sh1tholes* are descendants of people who came here as refugees from other sh1thole countries.

Most of them within the last three generations, yes.

That's the part I get the least. Is it that the desperate are too practical for empathy? If all you've experienced has been the stick, do you try to keep all of the carrots in a bag for yourself?

You know what middle America needs? Manifest destiny: it needs people to move back into these dying towns and be doctors and teachers and bus drivers and shopkeepers. It needs goods and services and consumers. Hellhole, WV and Yellow Cake, OH aren't going to magically improve if we kick immigrants out. They might, if people seeking the American dream moved there because they could afford to buy a house and sink roots into the community.

Bring in people from Eastern Europe and nobody in WV and Ohio will complain.

And that is the crux of it... poor white = ok... poor black/brown = not ok. That is what people are complaining about, not that those countries aren't sh1tholes, well at least that's my position.

Some of the rural communities would die out if not for poor immigrants and refugees from sh1thole countries.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/shrinking-small-towns-see-hope-refugees

https://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/516016940/a-thriving-rural-towns-winning-formula-faces-new-threats-under-trump-administrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
'' Anonymous wrote:
....we don't want poor brown/black people.. we want white people. That's essentially what he's saying. It's racist to say the least, and you just can't admit it.''



''What exactly is wrong with wanting white people?''


The silence of liberals is deafening

? What do you want liberals to say? That they don't want white people? They would never say that because that's not what they are saying. But Trump is saying that he wants white people more than poor black/brown people.

Oh, yes, sure. Trying to bash white Slovenia so hard and embracing black African immigrants speaks for itself. Liberals hate white people.

so when conservatives bash poor black/brown countries then it's just keeping it real and not about keeping those people out, but when liberals bash a poor white country, then it's "liberals don't want white people"?

Given the choice, would you prefer all your neighbors to be from Haiti or Norway?

If you say Norwegians you are a racist. If you say Haitians you are a liar. Which is it?

Haitians have far better cuisine and music. Definitely not lying about that. And they'd do anything to help you. So I don't understand your question.

NP. Let's change this up a bit.

You can have Haitian immigrants only if each one is sponsored by a liberal - meaning they become your personal dependents until they are self-sufficient. You personally house them, clothe them, feed them, educate them, etc. Willing to adopt a Haitian/family?

+1
I would personally love to see this happen. Wouldn't it be interesting to see liberals actually put their money where their mouths are - literally.

I am a conservative and we have funded a series of people from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Haiti, Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and now Syria. It is a serious financial commitment and we are far from wealthy. Other friends and family help those in the US with drug addiction, literacy, and life training. We decided to help refugees, but urge everyone to help as you can

This is great PP. Our church is sponsoring a family this year and we are looking into how we can help. I’m actually surprised how anti-refugee some conservatives have become because so many churches have been on the forefront of helping refugees. It’s the Christian thing to do.

Your church? Size of congregation? One famiily?

[Anonymous]

The Church will be helpful in planning funeral arrangements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it's OK to call those countries "shitholes" because their leadership is corrupt?

Well then it seems we have a problem, because OUR leadership, with Donald Trump is corrupt.

Dow is at another all time high. I assume liberals will not take the gains - dirty money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's OK to call those countries "shitholes" because their leadership is corrupt?

Well then it seems we have a problem, because OUR leadership, with Donald Trump is corrupt.

Our country is starting the be regarded as a shithole.

+1 Many countries have issued a travel warning for people travelling to the US.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/08/11/travel-warnings-united-states/88458238/b

The United Arab Emirates, Bahamas, France, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Germany are among those urging caution to U.S.-bound travelers. The concerns include mass shootings, police violence, anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT attitudes and the Zika virus.

While it is too soon to determine if the warnings are hurting U.S. tourism, the warnings tarnish the image the U.S. promotes abroad of a country that prides itself on being a welcoming society and bastion of democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that some loser in a private meeting ran to the press because someone said a bad word.

And now we have to listen to these eimps on CNN talk about this non news for the next week!

Is that your takeaway from the president’s unhelpful comments? Blame the messenger?

It's unhelpful to call something what it is? Some of the reason these countries are sh*tholes to begin with is due to corrupt, ineffective leadership. Otherwise, there would be no reason to bring in the refugees liberals want.

I'm sure all the Jews who perished in the Holocaust would agree with you.

Thanks to liberalism and socialism, Jews died. Thanks to a liberal President who turned away the boat. We are giving these countries financial aid. Why are they still crapholes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
'' Anonymous wrote:
....we don't want poor brown/black people.. we want white people. That's essentially what he's saying. It's racist to say the least, and you just can't admit it.''



''What exactly is wrong with wanting white people?''


The silence of liberals is deafening

? What do you want liberals to say? That they don't want white people? They would never say that because that's not what they are saying. But Trump is saying that he wants white people more than poor black/brown people.

Oh, yes, sure. Trying to bash white Slovenia so hard and embracing black African immigrants speaks for itself. Liberals hate white people.

so when conservatives bash poor black/brown countries then it's just keeping it real and not about keeping those people out, but when liberals bash a poor white country, then it's "liberals don't want white people"?

Given the choice, would you prefer all your neighbors to be from Haiti or Norway?

If you say Norwegians you are a racist. If you say Haitians you are a liar. Which is it?

Haitians have far better cuisine and music. Definitely not lying about that. And they'd do anything to help you. So I don't understand your question.

NP. Let's change this up a bit.

You can have Haitian immigrants only if each one is sponsored by a liberal - meaning they become your personal dependents until they are self-sufficient. You personally house them, clothe them, feed them, educate them, etc. Willing to adopt a Haitian/family?

+1
I would personally love to see this happen. Wouldn't it be interesting to see liberals actually put their money where their mouths are - literally.

Yes it would, considering they all are complaining about the extra taxes they now have to pay, and are looking for ways to squirm out of it.

I see posts all the time saying people don't mind paying higher taxes if it goes to helping the social safety network or infrastructure. It's when it goes to helping millionaires become even richer they get upset.

Talk is cheap. Pay up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that some loser in a private meeting ran to the press because someone said a bad word.

And now we have to listen to these eimps on CNN talk about this non news for the next week!

Is that your takeaway from the president’s unhelpful comments? Blame the messenger?

It's unhelpful to call something what it is? Some of the reason these countries are sh*tholes to begin with is due to corrupt, ineffective leadership. Otherwise, there would be no reason to bring in the refugees liberals want.

I'm sure all the Jews who perished in the Holocaust would agree with you.

Thanks to liberalism and socialism, Jews died. Thanks to a liberal President who turned away the boat. We are giving these countries financial aid. Why are they still crapholes?

Pretty much all the people in the late 30s pressing to let more Jews in were Dems. Republicans and conservatives were against letting refugees in. FDR gave in to pressure from the right. Not a shining moment in his career, but if you think this makes American conservatives look good, you really do not know the history of the era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, DHS Sec. did not deny Trump said what he is reported to have said.

he just did. oops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's OK to call those countries "shitholes" because their leadership is corrupt?

Well then it seems we have a problem, because OUR leadership, with Donald Trump is corrupt.

Dow is at another all time high. I assume liberals will not take the gains - dirty money

Neither will poor whites in rural America. You know why? Because they own no stocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's OK to call those countries "shitholes" because their leadership is corrupt?

Well then it seems we have a problem, because OUR leadership, with Donald Trump is corrupt.

Dow is at another all time high. I assume liberals will not take the gains - dirty money

Neither will poor whites in rural America. You know why? Because they own no stocks.

+1 And so if the US is doing so well, then why can't we be generous, including to our own people? Why cut off ACA subsidies and medicaid to the working poor, CHIP and SNAP to poor children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, DHS Sec. did not deny Trump said what he is reported to have said.

Please, pp. Be honest in your comments.
She clearly said she did not hear it. She was then asked if he COULD have said it. She said anything is possible.
Your take on her comments is disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more concerned about the fact that some loser in a private meeting ran to the press because someone said a bad word.

And now we have to listen to these eimps on CNN talk about this non news for the next week!

Is that your takeaway from the president’s unhelpful comments? Blame the messenger?

It's unhelpful to call something what it is? Some of the reason these countries are sh*tholes to begin with is due to corrupt, ineffective leadership. Otherwise, there would be no reason to bring in the refugees liberals want.

I'm sure all the Jews who perished in the Holocaust would agree with you.

Thanks to liberalism and socialism, Jews died. Thanks to a liberal President who turned away the boat. We are giving these countries financial aid. Why are they still crapholes?

Sweetie, I know it's hard for your meager little mind to grasp that a word used in different settings -- Socialism! National Socialism! -- does not mean they are one and the same thing. Just like pro-life actually can mean anti-life [of the mother/child already born].

Why is it that Hitler hated the communists in Germany so much?? If they're all socialists, surely he would have loved them and not sent them to camps! And just why did all those Republicans pressure FDR to keep out more Jewish refugees and send Japanese American citizens to a camp?