Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

We dont have to assume he is motivated by racism, his actions clearly point to that.

From the incessant 'birther' lie to calling out Mexicans, siding with white supremacists and now an massive difference between his approach to disasters on mainland USA and PR.

To him PR is nothing but an island way off in a really big ocean.

This has nothing to do with winning vites, or shouldn't have.PR was devastated by a hurricane and Trump feels it is better to use his time castigating citizens for peaceful protest and blaming PR for their own problems rather than actually doing something to help.

If not racism, what else can explain it?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Trump-haters will keep on making the same mistake because they assume that the President is motivated by racism...

Not quite. We know he's a racist, but we also know that he's primarily motivated by insanity.

"Trump-haters" is a nice glib little phrase, by the way. It's a clever attempt to normalise him, and to dismiss those who oppose him as "haters".

History will not be kind to those who attempt to pretend that Trump is anything other than an absolute disgrace to the office of President on pretty much every conceivable level. Assuming he manages not to start a world war, his presidency will mostly be remembered as a farce.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

We know he's a racist, but we also know that he's primarily motivated by insanity.

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.
Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YXLWNGGxo

BabyCheeses

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.
Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YXLWNGGxo

There was a point we stopped considering him as a clown? It is possible for a man to be racist without yelling racial slurs at every black person they meet.

spoonerhead

I found it disturbing what he said about princess Diana, even though it was only leaked today. Listening to him abuse her after she stuck up for aids victims in the 90s. Extremely distasteful! Whenever I see clips of these mainly homophobic driven men, talking about aids my stomach is sickened. That’s the underbelly that we are really seeing the last few weeks. Bigoted, Racist and homophobic. Have your political views and stuff about his policies all you want. He’s vile

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.

Nobody said otherwise. He can be a racist that is primarily motivated by money and power. Is it your assertion that he can't be racist as it isn't his primary driver?

recedite wrote: »

Remember that time back in his candidacy when you all thought he was just some clown and not a serious contender for the presidency?

He is a clown. Nothing he has done as POTUS could possibly point to anything other than that. The only alternatives are that he is grossly incompetent or he actually believes that Nambia is a country, or that his crowd was bigger, or that he has the best performing POTUS ever, or that hiring and then firing people within days is a show of competence. In a functioning and truth driven democracy he wouldn't have stood a chance. He got lucky in terms of the opponent and the GOP itself.

recedite wrote: »

Here in this clip he is the only contender to show some decency and solidarity to Carson the black guy after the the announcer messed up the guests sequence coming onto the stage.
Is that the action of a racist?

Do you think racists go around all day heckling other races? In the vast majority of cases racist will keep their opinions to themselves except when they feel threatened.

If it is not racist, which you are of the opinion that it is not, then how can you explain the widely varying efforts by POTUS in dealing with the natural disasters of Texas/Florida and PR?

For T/F is was all over it. He said he would get FEMA on the ground, have the funds available, he visited them within days. For PR is blamed hem for the mess they find themselves in and complained that it is harder since its an island in a big ocean!

VinLieger

recedite wrote: »

How do you "know" he is a racist?
I'd say he is primarily motivated by money and power, the same as most politicians.

What motivation does he have to still insist the central park 5 are guilty after being found without any shadow of a doubt completely innocent of all charges..........

Nody

Nody wrote: »

On a separate note there's a battle of ideology going down in Alabama among the Republicans. On the one side there's the Republican party and Trump backed candidate Luther Strange; on the other there's Sarah Palin, Tea Movement and Bannon supported candidate (and general nutcase by the looks of it) Roy Mooreto help drain the swamp. Roy is a judge who told his colleagues to ignore a Supreme court decision on same sex marriage, that State should use its powers to punish "homosexual behavior" in a custody battle over a lesbian asking for custody of her child due to the husband being abusive and violent, and to put a plaque of the 10 commandments in his court and held before session group prayers in the court house. He's clearly a man who don't care about minor things such as the constitution which is a complaint the republicans like to leverage on moderate judges; however if you still had some doubts if he was really that bad simply know that Nigel Farage is campaigning for him as well as that should clarify any outstanding concerns you may have.

As a follow up to the above the Trump backed candidate lost which does give some dark shadows for the Republican party in general as the Tea party alt Republican groupings are likely to feel empowered by this. That risks splitting votes in the upcoming elections accordingly between the Tea Party candidate and the Republican party candidate instead of a unified front; it also shows that Trump support is not as powerful as the Republican party though it would be undermining his position further. And of course further infighting in the Republican party in general will further paralyse them from doing, well, anything as seen in multiple key votes to date.

So Trump being Trump will he now go full support being the Tea Party instead since the Republican party has "failed him"?

Leroy42

Its an odd one. On one hand to hear that the candidate that Trump backed and got behind lost is a blow to him, and calls into question the power that he has to deliver on behalf of the GOP.

On the other, the guy that won the nomination seems like a total right wing tea party advocate. So, at least in Alabama, US is turning ever more right wing.

Samaris

Amazing how sarky some of the answers got. Taking a step back from it a moment, it is rather remarkable to think that a US president can open his gob and comment that this destroyed territory "owes a lot of money to Wall Street and the banks and that, unfortunately, must be dealt with", y'know, while they're still desperately low on water, fuel for the surviving generators, oh, and there's a large dam that could fail catastrophically at any moment.

It does go to show the changes in public discourse, in honourable action. Once it was just assumed that the central government would help regions that fall victim to natural disastors rather than imply that the point of devastation is the point to rook them for the cash back.

It's even more egregious when one considers that the island might not be in such a position without the helpful influence of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the "Jones Act" from which they seek the waiver. It started as a protection against U-boats but there's been very few of those around the last, oh, seventy years or so, so now it's more protectionism that contributes to a far higher cost of living on the island than there is on the mainland - either foriegn ships pay very high tariffs for making port there or they sail to the mainland, unload everything onto an American vessel and then send that out - the costs above and beyond the mean are passed onto the locals who are, after all, a bit of a captive audience. I wonder would their debt be so high if the cost of living due to this law wasn't elevated beyond the norm.*

This was immediately lifted for the two states, who are, after all, connected to the rest of the US by roads and surely it could be argued that all their aid could come in from the land. (Not the quickest or most sensible method, but exactly what's happening on PR without the road network.

FEMA are working on their third national disaster within the space of a month or so. (Trump's contribution to FEMA was proposing to cut their budget, but anyway.) Of course they're there and doing heroic work. Some of them have probably seen nothing but hurricane damage for a month now.

If you don't see why Trump's insinuation that the money needed to be paid back to "Wall Street and the banks" while looking at the devastation was at the least inappropriate (such a mild term), boy, Jed, I don't know. If, by some Christmas miracle, he was saying as a businessman that it would be very hard to borrow money on behalf of PR to rebuild without something being done there which the government could help out with, that's another thing. It would be rather unlike him to think of such a thing though. Especially for non-voters.


*Cost of goods - can be anything up to twice as much on the mainland
Cost of living - 13% higher than than in 325 urban areas elsewhere in the United States
Mean income - $18,000, half that of Mississippi, the poorest of the 50 States
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/hurricane-puerto-rico-jones-act.html

Billy86

It really says a lot that Trump's best attempt at a comic book villain (the lads name was even Luther Strange for feck's sake!) failed to win against an end times loony toon who thinks "God's Law" invalidates/overrides federal law if the two don't agree on something. And I'd bet Alabama is one of the loudest screeching states about 'Sharia Law!!' out there, the ignorance, irony and outright stupidity of it all is now officially beyond the point of being 'beyond the point of satire'.

This is a literal reason given by someone who voted for him - “The world, I don’t think it’s going to be here too much longer. Everything that the Bible said is going to happen, it is happening.”

Meanwhile the Democrat opponent has a long history of competence, doesn't appear to have much of any scandal around them, and is the guy who successfully brought the Alabama church bombers to justice - which should be enough for him to win a lot of Christian votes alone. Oh wait no, he doesn't have an (R) beside his name - and we all know the letter (R) is the real religion tens of millions of Americans subscribe to as fundamentalists.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Snowflake In Chief has apparently done the predictably childish and cowardly thing and deleted his Tweets endorsing Luther Strange. :pac:

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Amazing how sarky some of the answers got. Taking a step back from it a moment, it is rather remarkable to think that a US president can open his gob and comment that this destroyed territory "owes a lot of money to Wall Street and the banks and that, unfortunately, must be dealt with", y'know, while they're still desperately low on water, fuel for the surviving generators, oh, and there's a large dam that could fail catastrophically at any moment.

It does go to show the changes in public discourse, in honourable action. Once it was just assumed that the central government would help regions that fall victim to natural disastors rather than imply that the point of devastation is the point to rook them for the cash back.

It's even more egregious when one considers that the island might not be in such a position without the helpful influence of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the "Jones Act" from which they seek the waiver. It started as a protection against U-boats but there's been very few of those around the last, oh, seventy years or so, so now it's more protectionism that contributes to a far higher cost of living on the island than there is on the mainland - either foriegn ships pay very high tariffs for making port there or they sail to the mainland, unload everything onto an American vessel and then send that out - the costs above and beyond the mean are passed onto the locals who are, after all, a bit of a captive audience. I wonder would their debt be so high if the cost of living due to this law wasn't elevated beyond the norm.

This was immediately lifted for the two states, who are, after all, connected to the rest of the US by roads and surely it could be argued that all their aid could come in from the land. (Not the quickest or most sensible method, but exactly what's happening on PR without the road network.

FEMA are working on their third national disaster within the space of a month or so. (Trump's contribution to FEMA was proposing to cut their budget, but anyway.) Of course they're there and doing heroic work. Some of them have probably seen nothing but hurricane damage for a month now.

If you don't see why Trump's insinuation that the money needed to be paid back to "Wall Street and the banks" while looking at the devastation was at the least inappropriate (such a mild term), boy, Jed, I don't know. If, by some Christmas miracle, he was saying as a businessman that it would be very hard to borrow money on behalf of PR to rebuild without something being done there which the government could help out with, that's another thing. It would be rather unlike him to think of such a thing though. Especially for non-voters.

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Samaris

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Leroy42

This is the first electorial set back for Trump. He, according to some reports, required persuasion to get behind Strange in the first place, but he did get behind him and called on the people of Alabama to get out and vote for Strange.

Will this erode one of the last pillars of Trumps power, in that regardless of what he did/didn't do his base seem to hold and the GOP had continued to win the seat run-offs.

From a GOP perspective, they will still be pretty confident to hold the seat (it was previously held by Sessions) but whilst this of course will be downplayed by WH and Trump supporters, does it highlight that Trump is not as useful in terms of votes for GOP as previously thought?

So far Trump has failed to deliver on his election promises but at least held the card that to go against him was to face voter anger. Does this result (55%-45% so not even close) indicate that that isn't true?

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Not that I can recall off the top of my head, but -and I'm not joking here- in contrast to PR being "too poor" for aid, my guess is they were trying to claim that NY as being "too rich" for aid. The real reason we all know is "Obama is going to look so, so bad if thousands die under his watch!!", which is also why there is a strong chance many simply refused to give any reason at all - let's not forget this is the same Republican party who have held as good as no town hall meetings in months.

Cowards and scumbags really sums the guts of that party up quite well, makes it easy to understand the type of voter they attract.

Samaris

I think I'll need to see a few more of Trump's people fail before I consider it a positive sign. Strange was behind to begin with, afair, and Trump's help is a bit of a wild card anyway. Arizona's flipped blue before (albeit not since Clinton) and Trump didn't win there by a huge margin, Arizonans were rather torn on him (support's at 42%, disapproval at 55%).

It's a datapoint, but I'll be cautious about hoping for a trend yet.

Edit: Regarding Sandy, as disgraceful as it was, their protesting was to do with certain programs (such as Head Start and apparently fishing industry) getting money to rebuild. I get they don't like social programs but I'm a bit bemused at why the fishing industry caused upset.

spacecoyote

Samaris wrote: »

I think I'll need to see a few more of Trump's people fail before I consider it a positive sign. Strange was behind to begin with, afair, and Trump's help is a bit of a wild card anyway. Arizona's flipped blue before (albeit not since Clinton) and Trump didn't win there by a huge margin, Arizonans were rather torn on him (support's at 42%, disapproval at 55%).

It's a datapoint, but I'll be cautious about hoping for a trend yet.

Edit: Regarding Sandy, as disgraceful as it was, their protesting was to do with certain programs (such as Head Start and apparently fishing industry) getting money to rebuild. I get they don't like social programs but I'm a bit bemused at why the fishing industry caused upset.

Strange was running in Alabama, as opposed to Arizona. Its one of the reddest states as far as I know (think Trump won by something like +28 points), so they'll probably still hold it.

To be honest I don't think Trump will be too upset over the loss. The guy who won seems to be a complete nut job & would likely vote with Trump the majority of the time, should he get in, probably moreso than Strange would have

Samaris

Bugger, Alabama. Okay, that makes their crazy Republican choices a bit more understandable. I stand corrected! Don't know where I got Arizona from.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's not forget that after Hurricane Sandy, 67 House Republicans and several senators (couldn't get the exact number, but Ted Cruz and John Cornyn both of Texas and both still sitting) voted against giving New York relief aid too. If you're not a potential vote to them you're literally as good off dead as far as they're concerned, no two ways about it.

Samaris wrote: »

Ugh, true, there was that. I knew about it, but had forgotten it. Guess it's not such a new thing after all, but it's still bloody hard to swallow when seeing it against a backdrop of devastated homes and land.

Did they give any reasons?

Billy86 wrote: »

Not that I can recall off the top of my head, but -and I'm not joking here- in contrast to PR being "too poor" for aid, my guess is they were trying to claim that NY as being "too rich" for aid. The real reason we all know is "Obama is going to look so, so bad if thousands die under his watch!!", which is also why there is a strong chance many simply refused to give any reason at all - let's not forget this is the same Republican party who have held as good as no town hall meetings in months.

Cowards and scumbags really sums the guts of that party up quite well, makes it easy to understand the type of voter they attract.

It has been publicly stated that he reason was because the bill was full of "Pork". Once again a disingenuous portrayal of the facts and what actually happened.

Cruz Press Release

Hurricane Sandy inflicted devastating damage on the East Coast, and Congress appropriately responded with hurricane relief. Unfortunately, cynical politicians in Washington could not resist loading up this relief bill with billions in new spending utterly unrelated to Sandy.

Emergency relief for the families who are suffering from this natural disaster should not be used as a Christmas tree for billions in unrelated spending, including projects such as Smithsonian repairs, upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes, and more funding for Head Start.

Two thirds of this spending is not remotely “emergency”; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 30% of the authorized funds would be spent in the next 20 months, and over a billion dollars will be spent as late as 2021.

This bill is symptomatic of a larger problem in Washington – an addiction to spending money we do not have. The United States Senate should not be in the business of exploiting victims of natural disasters to fund pork projects that further expand our debt.

16,000,000,000 dollars for Community Development Block Grants (11 billion higher than HUD was requesting at the time)
600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA
348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service
100,000,000 for Head Start
50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS
45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft
22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment
50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services
24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund
10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief
4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service
3,000,000 for oil spill research
2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s famously leaky roofs.
1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA.
1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporattion

Samaris

Because none of those were in any way affected by a natural disaster, ofc. Everyone knows that say, the Smithsonian and the premises of Head Start can levitate above weather systems when they happen.

There probably was pork in there, Celticfire, there always is. People make demands to be able to pass the basic structure. But to ascribe anything not immediately identifiable as pork is a bit much.

Celticfire

Samaris wrote: »

Because none of those were in any way affected by a natural disaster, ofc. Everyone knows that say, the Smithsonian and the premises of Head Start can levitate above weather systems when they happen.

There probably was pork in there, Celticfire, there always is. People make demands to be able to pass the basic structure. But to ascribe anything not immediately identifiable as pork is a bit much.

I'm giving you the reason why it was voted against.You had no idea so I'm enlightening you. I'm not going to debate whether $16bn ($11BN more than was asked for) for HUD is " Pork" padding, or any other of the myriad of spending asked for.
To try to pass it off as "NY is too rich" is a load of cobblers.

Billy86

Small problem there, the Cruz press release isn't discussing that same bill but is instead related to a larger aid bill that was proposed later on. The bill 67 House Republicans and multiple Senators (including Cruz and Cornyn) voted against that was being referred to was only for $9bn and not $16bn to that, so the pork excuse doesn't fly (nor does it appear to have been used) on that one.

In fact, 36 of 45 Republican Senators voted against that $9bn bill - https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00004 .

recedite

VinLieger wrote: »

What motivation does he have to still insist the central park 5 are guilty after being found without any shadow of a doubt completely innocent of all charges..........

Trump was loud at the time in calling for the death penalty, so it is difficult for him to believe now that they were innocent. That is how most people tend to think, unfortunately. Its basic human psychology. Once you have "skin in the game" you have a bias.
However, as the guy who was later proven to be the rapist was also black, I don't see this as being a racist issue. If the proven rapist had been white, and Trump was still saying "the black guys did it" that might be construed as racist. Trump apparently believes that all 6 were involved, but that is not, in itself, a racist belief. Its just Trump being reluctant to backtrack on his original belief.

So is that all you got?

VinLieger

recedite wrote: »

Trump was loud at the time in calling for the death penalty, so it is difficult for him to believe now that they were innocent. That is how most people tend to think, unfortunately. Its basic human psychology. Once you have "skin in the game" you have a bias.
However, as the guy who was later proven to be the rapist was also black, I don't see this as being a racist issue. If the proven rapist had been white, and Trump was still saying "the black guys did it" that might be construed as racist. Trump apparently believes that all 6 were involved, but that is not, in itself, a racist belief. Its just Trump being reluctant to backtrack on his original belief.

So is that all you got?

Just cus the guy who actually committed the crime was black doesn't make this suddenly not racist when trump refuses to admit the other black men are innocent.

Compare that refusal to his speed to remark that there were some good white supremacists in charlotte.....

Are you trying to argue his motivation is he's a thick headed moron who cant admit when he was wrong?

recedite

VinLieger wrote: »

Just cus the guy who actually committed the crime was black doesn't make this suddenly not racist when trump refuses to admit the other black men are innocent.

The others should be considered innocent unless proven guilty, but Trump still thinks they were involved. He could be right, or he could be wrong, but there as there is no proof against them, he should keep his mouth shut on the issue.
If shooting off your mouth was a crime, then Trump would be a serial criminal. Doesn't show him to be a racist though.

VinLieger wrote: »

Compare that refusal to his speed to remark that there were some good white supremacists in charlotte.....

I don't remember him saying that. I remember him saying there were some good people there who just wanted the Robert E Lee statue to be preserved. And I remember him condemning the white supremacists.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Trump was loud at the time in calling for the death penalty, so it is difficult for him to believe now that they were innocent. That is how most people tend to think, unfortunately. Its basic human psychology. Once you have "skin in the game" you have a bias.
However, as the guy who was later proven to be the rapist was also black, I don't see this as being a racist issue. If the proven rapist had been white, and Trump was still saying "the black guys did it" that might be construed as racist. Trump apparently believes that all 6 were involved, but that is not, in itself, a racist belief. Its just Trump being reluctant to backtrack on his original belief.

So is that all you got?

Well, if nothing else, it's somewhat clearer why you personally have trouble perceiving Trump's racism.

Samaris

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm giving you the reason why it was voted against.You had no idea so I'm enlightening you. I'm not going to debate whether $16bn ($11BN more than was asked for) for HUD is " Pork" padding, or any other of the myriad of spending asked for.
To try to pass it off as "NY is too rich" is a load of cobblers.

Ah, I see - thanks

alchemist33

The Bombardier news today may be an unfortunate sign of things to come under Trump - slapping huge tariffs on Bombardier at the behest of Boeing, and seriously jeopardizing at least 4000 jobs in NI. It fits exactly with Donald's protectionist views and if the British government are serious about contracts with Boeing being in jeopardy, it's bad news for everyone.

I can't remember what the government's stance was on a Donald visit, but he's sure no friend of Ireland.

MadYaker

I hope he never comes here.

recedite

alchemist33 wrote: »

slapping huge tariffs on Bombardier at the behest of Boeing, and seriously jeopardizing at least 4000 jobs in NI. ... he's sure no friend of Ireland.

Presumably that will be 4000 extra jobs for the USA then?
Or maybe more, because most of the Bombardier plane is made in Canada?

Boeing claims various government subsidies have enabled Bombardier to sell its C-Series aircraft in the US below the cost of production. If that is true then The Donald would be expected to act in some way to even the playing field. So either he gives free money to Boeing as Trudeau did with Bombardier, or he slaps a tariff on Bombardier.

Anyway, if you are going to be indignant about it, shouldn't you be rooting for Airbus? That's the EU firm, and we were in the EU last time I looked.
The UK and Canada will probably be looking to work much closer together in future, but they won't be looking out for the interests of people in RoI.
The Donald on the other hand, has invested a lot of his own money in his hotel in Doonbeg.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

Trump was loud at the time in calling for the death penalty, so it is difficult for him to believe now that they were innocent. That is how most people tend to think, unfortunately. Its basic human psychology. Once you have "skin in the game" you have a bias.
However, as the guy who was later proven to be the rapist was also black, I don't see this as being a racist issue. If the proven rapist had been white, and Trump was still saying "the black guys did it" that might be construed as racist. Trump apparently believes that all 6 were involved, but that is not, in itself, a racist belief. Its just Trump being reluctant to backtrack on his original belief.

So is that all you got?

Sorry, but you are not seriously suggesting that you don;t think that Trump is racist are you?

What do you define as a racist? I take the dictionary definition

a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Now clearly Trump believes that US people are better than anyone else but that can be put down to simple nationalistic fervour.

But to condemn a whole group of people (Mexicans) based on nothing more than where they live?
Whilst not racism in the strictest terms, he clearly has an issue with Muslims.

He is the very definition of a racist, in that he groups people based on the colour of their skin or their nationality.

What we hadn't seen, to a large scale, was any sign that he was aggressively racist in his past. However, that could just as easily be because his wealth effectively protected him from dealing with them in any meaning full way.
Has he lived beside minorities? Wealth has is great leveler when it comes to racism.

Although he did deny african americans from getting access to live in his apartments blocks. But since he became POTUS he has shown more than a glimpse of racism. He continues to try to ram through a Muslim ban. He clearly feels that white supremacists have a point and that they have every right to protest, whilst at the same time decrying black sports stars from peaceful protest.

Did he call for any of those marchers in Charlottesville to lose their jobs? Did he call them SOB's for waving the confederate rather than the US flag (remembering that the confederate flag is a symbol of treason against the US).

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, but you are not seriously suggesting that you don;t think that Trump is racist are you?

What do you define as a racist? I take the dictionary definition

Now clearly Trump believes that US people are better than anyone else but that can be put down to simple nationalistic fervour.

But the US people are made up of every ethnicity and background imaginable including Mexican Americans. Not just ole whitey.

But to condemn a whole group of people (Mexicans) based on nothing more than where they live?

When and where did he condemn the whole of Mexico and all it's people? Illegals and criminals, yes.

Whilst not racism in the strictest terms, he clearly has an issue with Muslims.

Islam is a religion not a race.

The U.S. notified all countries in July of “baseline” standards they would need to meet to avoid travel restrictions, said Miles Taylor, a counselor to Duke at DHS. Several countries didn’t respond to the U.S. requests for more information, he said.

“Some countries didn’t even have the courtesy to say ‘fly a kite’,” Taylor said. “We’re talking about countries that were willfully non-compliant and refused to engage with the United States.”

Perhaps if they engaged with the US they wouldn't be banned. Sudan has been removed from the travel ban . Also I note no mention or comment on North Korea and Venezuela being added to the list. I guess it doesn't have the same outrage causing factor as a "Muslim ban"

He is the very definition of a racist, in that he groups people based on the colour of their skin or their nationality.

What we hadn't seen, to a large scale, was any sign that he was aggressively racist in his past. However, that could just as easily be because his wealth effectively protected him from dealing with them in any meaning full way.
Has he lived beside minorities? Wealth has is great leveler when it comes to racism.

Although he did deny african americans from getting access to live in his apartments blocks. But since he became POTUS he has shown more than a glimpse of racism. He continues to try to ram through a Muslim ban. He clearly feels that white supremacists have a point and that they have every right to protest, whilst at the same time decrying black sports stars from peaceful protest.

Did he call for any of those marchers in Charlottesville to lose their jobs? Did he call them SOB's for waving the confederate rather than the US flag (remembering that the confederate flag is a symbol of treason against the US).

'Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,' the president said in a statement to reporters at the White House on Monday.

'We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence,' he said.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

But the US people are made up of every ethnicity and background imaginable including Mexican Americans. Not just ole whitey.

And a lot of Trump fans would tell you they're not "real Americans". Still trying to figure out that

When and where did he condemn the whole of Mexico and all it's people? Illegals and criminals, yes.

Nope, Mexican immigrants in general. And in the US, 'Mexican' means 'hispanic' generally speaking - particularly among Trump's base.

Perhaps if they engaged with the US they wouldn't be banned. Sudan has been removed from the travel ban . Also I note no mention or comment on North Korea and Venezuela being added to the list. I guess it doesn't have the same outrage causing factor as a "Muslim ban"

You seem to forget "Muslim ban" is what Trump referred to it as. Repeatedly. Seems he's given up on that though since he relies on a lot of Muslim countries for his own personal income. And when it comes to the country Trump is president over vs his own bank account, bank account wins every time.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

And a lot of Trump fans would tell you they're not "real Americans". Still trying to figure out that

A lot? Your statement is borne of your personal bias. What percentage of the 62,979,636 american that voted for him are you trying to imply don't consider each other "real Americans"?

Nope, Mexican immigrants in general. And in the US, 'Mexican' means 'hispanic' generally speaking - particularly among Trump's base.

More BS. Different geographical areas might think of a certain nationality if you use the word "hispanic", but only because of the larger groupings of certain Latino nationalities in those areas. I'm sure that in Miami the first nationality to spring to mind would be Cubans.

You seem to forget "Muslim ban" is what Trump referred to it as. Repeatedly. Seems he's given up on that though since he relies on a lot of Muslim countries for his own personal income. And when it comes to the country Trump is president over vs his own bank account, bank account wins every time.

Can you show me where Trump called the Travel ban that was implemented restricting entry from seven country's a "Muslim ban"?

Nothing about the fact that Sudan is now off the list? Did they all become Christians ?

Manic Moran

He's very definitely a nationalist. That can exist without being racist.

New tax code proposals came out today. Some believe that the drop in corporate tax is a bit too much (from 38% to 20%. International average is about 22.5%). Initial impressions on whether or not a typical individual person will have a higher or lower tax bill will depend on where they are, because one of the exemptions being dropped is state and local tax, and that's a very large exemption. Citizens in high-taxation States will find that their increased tax bills will be greater than the increased deductible, whereas the opposite will take place in citizens with low-taxation States. Fortunately, deductions on mortgage interest and charitable contributions will remain. A lot of other itemisable deductions will be lost, doubtless to the annoyance of the tax preparation industry, and the number of tax brackets to be reduced. Child credits to be increased, personal deductions removed.

Overall, analysts on the radio on the way in are giving it a fair reception. Not exactly ecstatic, but they do think it's got some good grounding to work with, pending in-depth analysis.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

A lot? Your statement is borne of your personal bias. What percentage of the 62,979,636 american that voted for him are you trying to imply don't consider each other "real Americans"?

A lot of them, that's how much. Are you trying to claim that there are not a lot of Trump fans who dislike hispanic people?

More BS. Different geographical areas might think of a certain nationality if you use the word "hispanic", but only because of the larger groupings of certain Latino nationalities in those areas. I'm sure that in Miami the first nationality to spring to mind would be Cubans.

No, it's pretty standard across America - including in Port St. Lucie where I have family.

Can you show me where Trump called the Travel ban that was implemented restricting entry from seven country's a "Muslim ban"?

Nothing about the fact that Sudan is now off the list? Did they all become Christians ?

Sure, here you go before going into any of the others, and the likes of Guliani discussing how Trump came to him looking to legally enact a ban of Muslims. This took all of 30 seconds to find given it was his main campaign promise (along with the wall that also never happened, again due to Trump's incompetence and uncanny ability to shovel his entire foot into his mouth repeatedly).

alchemist33

recedite wrote: »

Presumably that will be 4000 extra jobs for the USA then?
Or maybe more, because most of the Bombardier plane is made in Canada?

Boeing claims various government subsidies have enabled Bombardier to sell its C-Series aircraft in the US below the cost of production. If that is true then The Donald would be expected to act in some way to even the playing field. So either he gives free money to Boeing as Trudeau did with Bombardier, or he slaps a tariff on Bombardier.

Anyway, if you are going to be indignant about it, shouldn't you be rooting for Airbus? That's the EU firm, and we were in the EU last time I looked.
The UK and Canada will probably be looking to work much closer together in future, but they won't be looking out for the interests of people in RoI.
The Donald on the other hand, has invested a lot of his own money in his hotel in Doonbeg.

There's plenty of evidence Boeing have received government money too, under different guises. Whatever this decision is about it isn't fairness.

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

He's very definitely a nationalist. That can exist without being racist.

Of course it can. But it's also in no way whatsoever incompatible with racism.

Anyone who genuinely believes he's not a racist probably also believes that he has the utmost respect for women, that Mexico is going to pay for the wall, and that repealing and replacing Obamacare is easy.

Billy86

alchemist33 wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

Presumably that will be 4000 extra jobs for the USA then?
Or maybe more, because most of the Bombardier plane is made in Canada?

Boeing claims various government subsidies have enabled Bombardier to sell its C-Series aircraft in the US below the cost of production. If that is true then The Donald would be expected to act in some way to even the playing field. So either he gives free money to Boeing as Trudeau did with Bombardier, or he slaps a tariff on Bombardier.

Anyway, if you are going to be indignant about it, shouldn't you be rooting for Airbus? That's the EU firm, and we were in the EU last time I looked.
The UK and Canada will probably be looking to work much closer together in future, but they won't be looking out for the interests of people in RoI.
The Donald on the other hand, has invested a lot of his own money in his hotel in Doonbeg.

There's plenty of evidence Boeing have received government money too, under different guises. Whatever this decision is about it isn't fairness.

You mean like Carrier where Trump organised to give them millions of dollars to not move. Then they took the money and moved?

Colsin91

There was an online petition that accumulated quite a significant number of signatures, imploring Enda not to go over to the WH for Paddy's Day. Fat lot of good that did. It would be the same story if he wanted to visit

MadYaker wrote: »

I hope he never comes here.

Billy86

Colsin91 wrote: »

There was an online petition that accumulated quite a significant number of signatures, imploring Enda not to go over to the WH for Paddy's Day. Fat lot of good that did. It would be the same story if he wanted to visit

Online petitions are one of the most consistent wastes of time out there, no only because they're easy to ignore but also because they're so open to exploitation.

Mind you, Enda did very well over there and even mocked Trump to his face who seemed to not even cop it. Said it at the time that the guy is about as charismatic as a wet newspaper, but he did himself well there.

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

A lot of them, that's how much. Are you trying to claim that there are not a lot of Trump fans who dislike hispanic people?

You made the claim that a lot of Trump supporters don't consider people of various ethnic backgrounds "real Americans" I asked for a percentage. You made the claim Now back it up.

No, it's pretty standard across America - including in Port St. Lucie where I have family.

I lived there for almost 10 years and in that time I never heard the word Mexican used as a catchall for Hispanics. Why would a New Yorker call a Puerto Rican a Mexican????? Does your family in Port St Lucie call Cubans Mexicans? That's exceeding ignorant of them if they do.

Sure, here you go before going into any of the others, and the likes of Guliani discussing how Trump came to him looking to legally enact a ban of Muslims. This took all of 30 seconds to find given it was his main campaign promise (along with the wall that also never happened, again due to Trump's incompetence and uncanny ability to shovel his entire foot into his mouth repeatedly).

I didn't ask you for an electioneering quote. I asked to you show Trump saying that the travel ban on seven country was a Muslim ban. Show me where as President he said that it was a Muslim ban. Nothing to say about all the new Christians in Sudan?

VinLieger

Colsin91 wrote: »

There was an online petition that accumulated quite a significant number of signatures, imploring Enda not to go over to the WH for Paddy's Day. Fat lot of good that did. It would be the same story if he wanted to visit

Incorrect weve seen from his stalling of his UK visit he wont go anywhere where theres a hint of people possibly protesting him.

In my opinion hes actually quite scared of any large protest being within his view because for several years now hes never had to face a group of people that weren't lauding praise on him and cheering his every word, the UN speech might be the first time in a long while that he wasnt guranteed a standing ovation when making a speech to a large group and look how that went down.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

You made the claim that a lot of Trump supporters don't consider people of various ethnic backgrounds "real Americans" I asked for a percentage. You made the claim Now back it up.

So you are denying that there are a lot of Trump supporters who don't consider non-whites as not being American? You're trying to claim people born and raised in America are not being shouted at to "go home"?

I lived there for almost 10 years and in that time I never heard the word Mexican used as a catchall for Hispanics. Why would a New Yorker call a Puerto Rican a Mexican????? Does your family in Port St Lucie call Cubans Mexicans? That's exceeding ignorant of them if they do.

You never heard someone refer to a hispanic person as Mexican? In 10 years living there? Never? That's really odd coming from the guy calling BS, given that I've a cousin in Maspeth who works in a Manhattan pub, and the hispanic staff are constantly referred to as Mexican, even though only one of them is from Mexico. Been out with them for drinks a few times and their opinion was they didn't really care being called Mexican too much because it happens so often they're just used to it.

I see you haven't refuted by the way that Trump was referring Mexican immigrants in general (and not just illegals) when he condemned them.

I didn't ask you for an electioneering quote. I asked to you show Trump saying that the travel ban on seven country was a Muslim ban. Show me where as President he said that it was a Muslim ban. Nothing to say about all the new Christians in Sudan?

Right there I've shown you Trump calling it a Muslim ban, and Guliani confirming Trump was looking for legal help on how to enact it. The fact that he called it a muslim ban so often that is became a slogan of the campaign does not take away from the fact that it was a Muslim ban he wanted - in fact, it adds to it. Fortunately, Trump isn't competent enough to make it happen so he had to change to something else - going for a few countries in the region that don't line his family's pockets well enough.

As Leroy said, Trump clearly has an issue with Muslims - do you disagree with this?

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

So you are denying that there are a lot of Trump supporters who don't consider non-whites as not being American? You're trying to claim people born and raised in America are not being shouted at to "go home"?

I'm not denying anything. I asked how many of 62M this "lot" is. A general percentage will do.

You never heard someone refer to a hispanic person as Mexican? In 10 years living there? Never? That's really odd coming from the guy calling BS, given that I've a cousin in Maspeth who works in a Manhattan pub, and the hispanic staff are constantly referred to as Mexican, even though only one of them is from Mexico. Been out with them for drinks a few times and their opinion was they didn't really care being called Mexican too much because it happens so often they're just used to it.

So your cousin and co-workers do it everyone does it?I worked with Puerto Ricans , Dominicans and Brazilians and never herd them being called Mexicans. I still stand by my statement that Mexican is not a catchall for hispanics. If anything hispanic is the catchall for Latinos.

Right there I've shown you Trump calling it a Muslim ban, and Guliani confirming Trump was looking for legal help on how to enact it. The fact that he called it a muslim ban so often that is became a slogan of the campaign does not take away from the fact that it was a Muslim ban he wanted - in fact, it adds to it. Fortunately, Trump isn't competent enough to make it happen so he had to change to something else - going for a few countries in the region that don't line his family's pockets well enough.

As Leroy said, Trump clearly has an issue with Muslims - do you disagree with this?

But the supreme court disagrees with you that it's a Muslim ban as was evident when they allowed it to be implemented.. So no matter how many times you wish to repeat it it's not a Muslim ban as is evident by Sudan having the travel ban lifted and many other Muslim majority countries never being on it.

The U.S. notified all countries in July of “baseline” standards they would need to meet to avoid travel restrictions, said Miles Taylor, a counselor to Duke at DHS. Several countries didn’t respond to the U.S. requests for more information, he said.

“Some countries didn’t even have the courtesy to say ‘fly a kite’,” Taylor said. “We’re talking about countries that were willfully non-compliant and refused to engage with the United States.”

Manic Moran

Celticfire wrote: »

So your cousin and co-workers do it everyone does it?I worked with Puerto Ricans , Dominicans and Brazilians and never herd them being called Mexicans. I still stand by my statement that Mexican is not a catchall for hispanics. If anything hispanic is the catchall for Latinos.

Agreed. I hear Hispanic and Latino all the time here in California. "Mexican" is only ever used when specifically referring to the people from that country, for whatever reason.

Itssoeasy

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm not denying anything. I asked how many of 62M this "lot" is. A general percentage will do.



So your cousin and co-workers do it everyone does it?I worked with Puerto Ricans , Dominicans and Brazilians and never herd them being called Mexicans. I still stand by my statement that Mexican is not a catchall for hispanics. If anything hispanic is the catchall for Latinos.




But the supreme court disagrees with you that it's a Muslim ban as was evident when they allowed it to be implemented.. So no matter how many times you wish to repeat it it's not a Muslim ban as is evident by Sudan having the travel ban lifted and many other Muslim majority countries never being on it.

They let it be implemented for 6 months and only parts of it.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm not denying anything. I asked how many of 62M this "lot" is. A general percentage will do.

We can start with the majority of "birthers" - we know there are a whole tonne of them. As to what percentage they make up it's anyone's guess, but they run well into the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Show them your birth cert and they'll still think you're a Kenyan.

So your cousin and co-workers do it everyone does it?I worked with Puerto Ricans , Dominicans and Brazilians and never herd them being called Mexicans. I still stand by my statement that Mexican is not a catchall for hispanics. If anything hispanic is the catchall for Latinos.

That's not what the lads claimed, when they said it happens so often they meant in work, out of work, and in life in general.

But the supreme court disagrees with you that it's a Muslim ban as was evident when they allowed it to be implemented.. So no matter how many times you wish to repeat it it's not a Muslim ban as is evident by Sudan having the travel ban lifted and many other Muslim majority countries never being on it.

That's because in office Trump came to realise that he couldn't outright ban Muslims (it's impossible to prove very often), and the reality that trying to ban Muslim countries that fattened his wallet would mean less money for him personally. So he sold his voters out and went for a cheap trick instead (it's come to be expected of him). But none of that does anything to change the fact that he quite clearly has issues with Muslims as Leroy said, and was bleating on about Muslim bans almost a full year before the election.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

I see you haven't refuted by the way that Trump was referring Mexican immigrants in general (and not just illegals) when he condemned them.

Are we back to real Mexicans now, or is this your expanded definition which includes every latino/hispanic person?
Trumps infamous quote was referring to uncontrolled and unvetted immigration. He actually said he liked Mexico. If people are crossing the border illegally in the middle of the night, then it stands to reason that they are more likely to be a drugs smuggler than a brain surgeon.

"I love Mexico," he said. "I love the Mexican people. I do business with the Mexican people, but you have people coming through the border that are from all over. And they're bad. They're really bad.
"You have people coming in, and I'm not just saying Mexicans - I'm talking about people that are from all over that are killers and rapists, and they're coming into this country."

Billy86 wrote: »

As Leroy said, Trump clearly has an issue with Muslims.

The USA has a lot of Korean immigrants. They settle in well and don't tend to get involved in terrorism. The record for people from Islamic countries is not as good. Why is that? Is it because the Koreans are inherently a more peaceful race of people? No, the less racist answer to that question is that Islam is not a race, and not even just a religion, it is an ideology. Adherents from certain islamic countries have usually been raised and educated in this ideology which makes them less compatible with western values. They may have been raised as homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant of other religions, that sharia law is better than civil law, that a country run according to sharia is better than a democracy, and that the ultimate honour is to be martyred in the name of Islam.

And then there are some other mainly muslim countries such as Malaysia which are more tolerant. And some such as Saudi which are intolerant, but are so rich that they would not want to give up their own citizenship anyway. Restrictions on immigration from these would make less sense.

The USA has always had a problem with welcoming immigrants from ideologies that it regards as incompatible with its own. A standard question on arrival is "Are you or have you ever been a member of the nazi party or the communist party". If you answered Yes to such ideologies then you are probably going to be rejected.

Nody

Looks like the turbulence around Trump's WH will continue; Tom Price (Healthcare minister) is under heavy criticism for using the state yet for private travel for over 300k USD. Trump's response if he would be fired was "We'll see" which is Trumpism for yes in most cases.