Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

hill16bhoy

Lest we forget that Trump actually compared immigrants to snakes.

And yet people still complain about the Nazi comparisons.

And people still deny that his words do not incite white terrorism.

I wonder why.

BonnieSituation

Back to the Dow, because I know the Trumpeteers love the DJIA.

Currently at 18:20 Irish time:

25,789.45 −695.56 (2.63%)

Any Trump supporters care to defend it given when it goes up it's because of Trump?

ancapailldorcha

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I didn't remotely twist anything. I correctly called out what you said, which is that people should stop calling out white supremacism and Nazism because it "radicalises" people even further than they've already been radicalised.

Perhaps you're speaking from personal experience?

At least own your pro-fascist and pro-Nazi bigotry.

There's a reason I don't call myself "peddlelies", whereas you do.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Lest we forget that Trump actually compared immigrants to snakes.

And yet people still complain about the Nazi comparisons.

And people still deny that his words do not incite white terrorism.

I wonder why.

Attack the post, not the poster please. Banned.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

He did not use anti immigrant rhetoric while he did it. He did not compare them to an invading horse or dehumanise them.

He did dehumanize them when he said they were "pouring" in and he even referred to immigrants as "gangbangers".

Awful, stuff:

https://twitter.com/KelemenCari/status/951877644051800064


What's that hear you say?

"Pete, he clearly wasn't talking about ALL undocumented immigrants! :mad: "

Well, you see this is just it, isn't it. Trump wasn't talking about all Mexicans neither when he cited rapists and animals but it didn't stop all you lot from suggesting it over and over again now did it and that's where liberals show what they are really about. Nuance abound when it's commenting on what Obama has said but when it's Trump all that goes out the window and is it's 'Let's take everything he said out of context so we can make him look as racist as possible!'.

There has been a total white wash of what those either seeking asylum or who were captured at the border had to endure under the Obama regime. Hundreds and and hundreds of children were made sleep on crates on the floors of warehouses regularly and they often had no access to showers for near weeks and all while they complained about the insane heat but the mainstream liberal media helped cover up a lot of what was going on during those eight years.

Here's a selection of articles from his time in office with regards to border issues:

Thousands of Kids Lost From Parents In U.S. Deportation System
U.S. Deports 46K Parents With Citizen Kids in Just Six Months
Border Patrol warns more kids will die in desert
Migrant Children Accuse Border Patrol Agents of Physical and Sexual Assault
Divided by Detention: Asylum-Seeking Families’ Experiences of Separation
Families Report Abuse in Border Patrol Detention Facilities, Despite Court Ruling
Federal Judge: The Obama Administration Aids and Abets Human Trafficking
Obama Administration Handed Child Migrants Over to Human Traffickers

If they above articles were written today they would be splashed across CNN and liberals would be up in arms on Twitter, Facebook saying it was yet more proof that Trump is a heartless racist who needs to go. The one common denominator with all the above articles of course is that none of them are what could be considered mainstream media. That's because the media were not about to have the narrative about Obama tarnished in anyway.

Here's a democrat saying as much:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyhZhkp056M

What's been happening to Trump since his inauguration is scandalous. Sure, some of the things he has done deserve criticism, but this 24-7 Trump watch feeding frenzy and the subsequent gross exaggeration of everything he does and says is insane. It's simply not rational. I'm pretty sure if normality had ensued I would be slagging Trump off in much the same way I used to slag off Bush (given that most of my political views are either liberal or centrist ones) but you don't get the chance to do that today as the Orange Man Bad hysteria is ever present (particularly in the US media but not exclusively) and the only logical thing for a rational person to be doing in the midst of all this (imo) is to point out the hypocrisy, the overreacting and the outright lies and so I guess I will continue to do just that.

BonnieSituation

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He did dehumanize them when he said they were "pouring" in and he even referred to immigrants as "gangbangers".

Awful, stuff:

...

...

What's been happening to Trump since his inauguration is scandalous. Sure, some of the things he has done deserve criticism, but this 24-7 Trump watch feeding frenzy and the subsequent gross exaggeration of everything he does and says is insane. It's simply not rational. I'm pretty sure if normality had ensued I would be slagging Trump off in much the same way I used to slag off Bush (given that most of my political views are either liberal or centrist ones) but you don't get the chance to do that today as the Orange Man Bad hysteria is ever present (particularly in the US media but not exclusively) and the only logical thing for a rational person to be doing in the midst of all this (imo) is to point out the hypocrisy, the overreacting and the outright lies and so I guess I will continue to do just that.

But despite this whataboutery, ORANGE MAN IS BAD.

Any comments on the Dow?

Billy Mays

While ignoring the hypocrisy, overreacting and 11,000+ lies of the President

Gotcha

Outlaw Pete

Midlife wrote: »

At this point, I'm not going to continue to give your comments any respect.

lol. What a cop out :P

It's dissappointing that someone could spend so long using their intelligence to debate others but not use it take a step back and think about their own position on things.

Nah, it's disappointing that someone could post an untruth like the following:

Midlife wrote: »

... it's the job of the american political establishment to discourage and denounce extremists, not call them 'fine people'...

...and then when shown that Trump didn't say what you suggested he did you then say you are not going to engage with me? You couldn't make it up.

You'll take any shread of evidence and use it to back up a pre-defined position on things.

"Shred of evidence" ??? I am quoting what the man actually said for heaven sake.

I'm sick to the back teeth of this wishy washy liberal nonsense. Do you think because you and others feel he was referring to neo-nazis, that it should be reason enough to claim that he was? Well it isn't.

You're an example of why critical thinking should be taught in schools IMO.

Oh, an ad hominem suggesting I haven't been well educated. Shock horror.

I was taught that above all else truth is what is important and it's not "critical thinking" to claim someone called white supremacists "fine people" when they did not. That's not thinking at all and accepting the mainstream narrative without checking the facts for yourself. There's a lot of it about. I see your post got 20 thanks though and so there's always a plus to these things I guess.

Igotadose

So, in other Trump-related news, China's starting to ratchet up the economic pressure in response to the Trade War started by Trump.
They're devaluing the Yuan. And, Trump's making noises like maybe he'll do the same. Are there sane-enough people around him to block this? Kudlow might be sane enough, but not sure he's bright enough.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/business/usd-yuan-currency-war/index.html

So, if you read the economic tea-leaves, the tax cut has not increased investment, it's increased consumer spending (that and the endless yammering about how great the economy is doing, spurring those that probably shouldn't spend more, to save even less and spend more), and now Trump might inflate the dollar. Brilliant.

Oh and of course, the Trade War subsidy Trump implemented is going to big US farms, no surprise there, more wealth transfer by the GOP (from the poorer to the wealthy if that's not clear): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-trade-war-china-farm-subsidies-iowa-ewg-soybeans-a9037416.html

Midlife

There you go again with your shred of evidence.

That's exactly what I mean. Go back and take a look.

I was talking about Trump emboldening white supremacists and you have latched on to one part of my comment which you can attack while ignoring the overall tone.

You're more interested in winning your argument against the liberals then examining what the hell you're actually saying.

What you are basically saying is that the most right-wing anti-immigrant leader of a western country in modern times is somehow NOT having an impact on right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. I mean that's a nuts line to take. Absolutely nuts. It's like saying MLK didn't promote civil rights nationally.

You're only taking it because to do otherwise may be critical of your side.

So , yeah tell me why i should treat your comments with respect.

oh, and....

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I was taught that above all else truth is what is important.

Wow, and you spend your time batting for Trump.

Really?

Outlaw Pete

FrostyJack wrote: »

Do you seriously think if there less immigrants, cleaners and fruit pickers etc, the jobs Americans won't do, will see a bump in their wage. Fantasy land stuff.

Nonsense and it has been debunked multiple times. It's just something liberals say to excuse their endorsement of illegal immigration.

There Are No Jobs Americans Won’t Do

If immigrants "do jobs that Americans won't do", we should be able to identify occupations in which the workers are nearly all foreign-born. However, among the 474 separate occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, we find only a handful of majority-immigrant occupations, and none completely dominated by immigrants (legal or illegal). Furthermore, in none of the 474 occupations do illegal immigrants constitute a majority of workers.

Notable findings:

• Of the 474 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers in these occupations.
• There are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
• Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. However, the majority of workers even in these areas are either native-born or legal immigrants.
• Only 4 percent of illegal immigrants and 2 percent of all immigrants do farm work. Immigrants (legal and illegal) do make up a large share of agricultural workers — accounting for half or more of some types of farm laborers — but all agricultural workers together constitute less than 1 percent of the American work force.
• Many occupations often thought to be worked overwhelmingly by immigrants (legal and illegal) are in fact majority native-born:
• Maids and housekeepers: 51 percent native-born
• Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 54 percent native-born
• Butchers and meat processors: 64 percent native-born
• Grounds maintenance workers: 66 percent native-born
• Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
• Janitors: 73 percent native-born
• There are 65 occupations in which 25 percent or more of the workers are immigrants (legal and illegal). In these high-immigrant occupations, there are still 16.5 million natives — accounting for one out of eight natives in the labor force.
• High-immigrant occupations (25 percent or more immigrant) are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.
• In high-immigrant occupations, 54 percent of the natives in those occupations have no education beyond high school, compared to 30 percent of the rest of the labor force.
• Natives tend to have high unemployment in high-immigrant occupations, averaging 9.8 percent during the 2012-2016 period, compared to 5.6 percent in the rest of the labor force. There were a total of 1.8 million unemployed native-born Americans in high-immigrant occupations.
• The stereotype that native-born workers in high-immigrant occupations are mostly older, with few young natives willing to do such work, is largely inaccurate. In fact, 34 percent of natives in high-immigrant occupations are age 30 or younger, compared to 29 percent of natives in the rest of labor force.
• Not all high-immigrant occupations are lower-skilled. For example, 38 percent of software engineers are immigrants, as are 28 percent of physicians.

Because the American economy is so dynamic, with many factors impacting employment and wages, it would be a mistake to believe that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. It would also be a mistake, however, to assume that dramatically increasing the number of available workers in high-immigrant occupations has no impact on the employment prospects or wages of natives. As our results indicate, at the most detailed level of analysis possible, there are very few occupations that are majority immigrant — just six out of 474 — and 46 percent of workers even in these high-immigrant occupations are native-born. Moreover, high-immigrant occupations employ less than 1 percent of all native workers and 3 percent of all immigrant workers. Therefore, speaking of "jobs Americans won't do" gives the false impression that the labor market is strictly segmented between immigrant and native jobs.

There is also a huge homeless problem in America also. People sleeping in tents in almost every major city. Legal immigration is the only way forward. The old way hasn't worked and Trump should be given support by congress to implement any changes he wants. Obama was elected on the promise that illegal immigration is something he would solve. Trump shouldn't be demonised for wanting to achieve the same goals. How liberal politicians have behaved is disgraceful and they endanger lives with their hateful rhetoric.

Stop moaning ffs

I think anyone denying the fact that Trump blatantly and demonstrably encourages racism and white supremacy is either deluded or aware of it and happy about it. Making white power signs during his speeches, attacking black leaders on his twitter, calling African countries ‘****holes’, describing the predominantly black city of Baltimore as rat infested and on and on.
How much more evidence do you need?

This is a wonderful and alarming piece of art in that it is so accurate.

https://twitter.com/jim_sheridan/status/1158155158125273088?s=21

isohon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nonsense and it has been debunked multiple times. It's just something liberals say to excuse their endorsement of illegal immigration.



There is also a huge homeless problem in America also. People sleeping in tents in almost every major city. Legal immigration is the only way forward. The old way hasn't worked and Trump should be given support by congress to implement any changes he wants. Obama was elected on the promise that illegal immigration is something he would solve. Trump shouldn't be demonised for wanting to achieve the same goals. How liberal politicians have behaved is disgraceful and they endanger lives with their hateful rhetoric.

Don't you talk about my Daddy like that! Your Daddy is a big meanie.

Eventually during Daddy Don's 'totally democratic and bigly popular' third or fourth term, his supporters may abandon their default 'but Obama', 'but her emails' shtick. It won't be because they have evolved to a position that recognizes that he has been in power now, along with his party, for several years but because half of them won't remember and the other half will have been killed in Walmarts/churches/schools etc.

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nonsense and it has been debunked multiple times. It's just something liberals say to excuse their endorsement of illegal immigration.

It's CIS.org that's being debunked, but no surprise there. Their analysis is pretty flawed: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/8/18/768940/-CIS-Misses-the-Mark-on-Immigration-and-the-Economy

There is also a huge homeless problem in America also. People sleeping in tents in almost every major city. Legal immigration is the only way forward. The old way hasn't worked and Trump should be given support by congress to implement any changes he wants. Obama was elected on the promise that illegal immigration is something he would solve. Trump shouldn't be demonised for wanting to achieve the same goals. How liberal politicians have behaved is disgraceful and they endanger lives with their hateful rhetoric.

Huh? Immigration causes homelessness now? And, where was Obama elected on the promise to end illegal immigration? He certainly reduced it quite a lot.

Kermit.de.frog

Mayor of Dayton says President Trump might be going to Toledo.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1158447257114546177


I get the impression they couldn't care if he visited or not.

Outlaw Pete

FrostyJack wrote: »

...the vast vast majority of terror attacks in the US in the last 2 years have been Right wing extremists.

Depends on your definition of a terror attack and why are you trying to limit the discussion to 2 years anyway?

If any of them were Islamic attacks there would be screaming bloody murder from conservatives and action would be taken.

What are you on about? What kind of action do you think would be taken?

In 2016 Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people and wounded 53 in Orlando. He phoned 911 during the shooting and identified himself as an Islamic Soldier seeking revenge for a US airstrike on Iraq six weeks previous.



CNN spoke about his "demons" and pondered if he struggled with his sexuality maybe. Much different reaction by the left when the shooter's a Muslim to when he's a white male, that's for sure.

Tell you what though, I don't recall the NRA having a different perspective on guns as you're laughably suggesting they would have if El Paso had been an Islamic attack.

Insane Trump supporter with a gun it is okay because he was incited by people looking for tolerance and inclusion.

He wasn't a Trump supporter. He condemned the republican party.

He was a racist (a genuine one, not a makey uppy one now) who didn't believe races should mix with one another and wanted America segregated off so each race could live alone. Calling him a Trump fan would be like calling the two black guys who murdered 8 white cops and wounded another (just because they were white) 'Obama fans'.

Now I'm sure you wouldn't think that was fair on Obama to label those killers in that way would you? And so maybe the labelling this nutcase a 'Trump fan' isn't either. Just a thought.

Stop moaning ffs

All the winning

Stocks have plunged today following media reports that Chinese firms have stopped buying U.S. agriculture products and that China is considering new tariffs on U.S. agricultural products that it has purchased after August 3. China also allowed its currency to devalue, an effort to boost exports amid a trade war driven by Pres. Trump, who announced another round of tariffs on China last week.

Sean.3516

The way incitement works is that you are not responsible for violence committed by someone else unless you called for them to commit the violence.

Trump is not responsible for what happened in El Paso any more than those on the left wing are responsible for what happened in Dayton.

Stop moaning ffs

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The way incitement works is that you are not responsible for violence committed by someone else unless you called for them to commit the violence.

Trump is not responsible for what happened in El Paso any more than those on the left wing are responsible for what happened in Dayton.

One of the shooters had ‘TRUMP’ spelled out using loads of hand guns, as his Facebook cover photo.

But of course it’s nothing to do with trump?

Stallingrad

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

One of the shooters had ‘TRUMP’ spelled out using loads of hand guns, as his Facebook cover photo.

But of course it’s nothing to do with trump?

Not true. According to Snopes he simply liked that image, which was posted on another Twitter account. Still pretty damming though.

Billy Mays

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The way incitement works is that you are not responsible for violence committed by someone else unless you called for them to commit the violence.

Trump is not responsible for what happened in El Paso any more than those on the left wing are responsible for what happened in Dayton.

Nah

Ian Paisley never called for protestants to commit violence against catholics in the north. Yet plenty of former loyalist paramilitaries have said Paisley's words and rhetoric were a major influence on them joining paramilitary groups

Sean.3516

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

One of the shooters had ‘TRUMP’ spelled out using loads of hand guns, as his Facebook cover photo.

But of course it’s nothing to do with trump?

I’m as loathe to reference his manifesto as I would be to mention his name, however I’m getting this from a report that quoted specific parts of it for the purposes of correcting common myths about this particular shooting.

He concludes the manifesto by stating categorically that his actions have nothing to do with the president and are not influenced by him.

Also,
Even if he were to invoke the president, that would not make the president responsible unless he specifically called for violence.

This is the legal standard for incitement to violence and it happens to be the correct one and the only one that is practicable unless you wish to introduce major curtailments to freedom of speech.

Note that the shooter in Dayton invoked socialism as his motivation for the attack. This does not make Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or any far left individual responsible for his actions because none of these people called for him to do this.

Billy Mays

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Note that the shooter in Dayton invoked socialism as his motivation for the attack. This does not make Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or any far left individual responsible for his actions because none of these people called for him to do this.

Did he? I've read this elsewhere but haven't seen any evidence for it.

I've read in another thread that Antifa inspired him to commit the attack. No one's been able to back that up with evidence either

Sean.3516

Billy Mays wrote: »

Nah

Ian Paisley never called for protestants to commit violence against catholics in the north. Yet plenty of former loyalist paramilitaries have said Paisley's words and rhetoric were a major influence on them joining paramilitary groups

There was an instance in which Paisley called for NICRA marchers to be “harrassed and harried” on their way to Derry which resulted in the Burntollet Bridge incident. This means that Paisley was responsible for this specific instance in which other humans committed violence that he called for. This was before the troubles properly started.

I can’t recall any instance in which Paisley endorsed actual Loyalist Paramilitary violence. Just because loyalist paramilitary members may have agreed with things Paisley was saying, doesn’t make him responsible for violence they commit that has not endorsed or called for. I agree Paisley’s rhetoric may have contributed to the raising of the temperature to the point where violence occurs but he isn’t responsible for the actions of another human unless he calls for those actions.

Sean.3516

Billy Mays wrote: »

Did he? I've read this elsewhere but haven't seen any evidence for it.

I've read in another thread that Antifa inspired him to commit the attack. No one's been able to back that up with evidence either

Yes, he was a radical leftist. He was talking about how “we need socialism now”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dayton-shooter-reportedly-supported-gun-control-elizabeth-warren-and-socialism

Billy Mays

They breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin - Paisley talking about Catholics at a loyalist rally in 1969.

Not specifically calling for violence but there's no doubt rhetoric like this did lead to violence against catholics from the more extreme elements of Paisley's support

It's not much different to the type of language Trump has used against certain demographics. It's certainly not the language any political leader should be using, let alone the President of the USA

MarquisDeSad

Midlife wrote: »

There you go again with your shred of evidence.

That's exactly what I mean. Go back and take a look.

I was talking about Trump emboldening white supremacists and you have latched on to one part of my comment which you can attack while ignoring the overall tone.

You're more interested in winning your argument against the liberals then examining what the hell you're actually saying.

What you are basically saying is that the most right-wing anti-immigrant leader of a western country in modern times is somehow NOT having an impact on right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. I mean that's a nuts line to take. Absolutely nuts. It's like saying MLK didn't promote civil rights nationally.

You're only taking it because to do otherwise may be critical of your side.

So , yeah tell me why i should treat your comments with respect.

oh, and....

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I was taught that above all else truth is what is important.

Wow, and you spend your time batting for Trump.

Really?

This is what happens when a person has such narrow scope of media they consume. This media tells them that all the faults in the world(USA in this case) are the 'otherside'. Eventually they will become entirely vested into that narrow viewpoint to the point of worship.

I could do nothing but laugh out loud when he writes 'truth is what is most important'. What else can you do.

Billy Mays

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Billy Mays wrote: »

Did he? I've read this elsewhere but haven't seen any evidence for it.

I've read in another thread that Antifa inspired him to commit the attack. No one's been able to back that up with evidence either

Yes, he was a radical leftist. He was talking about how “we need socialism now”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dayton-shooter-reportedly-supported-gun-control-elizabeth-warren-and-socialism

That's not evidence that his political beliefs were motivation for the attacks

6 black people and his sister were among the 9 killed. These don't seem like the type of people an avowed far leftist would be killing in the name of his political beliefs. If he'd shot up a meeting of Reublicans or a similar group I would agree with you 100% on his motives

Gbear

Billy Mays wrote: »

They breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin - Paisley talking about Catholics at a loyalist rally in 1969.

Not specifically calling for violence but there's no doubt rhetoric like this did lead to violence against catholics from the more extreme elements of Paisley's support

It's not much different to the type of language Trump has used against certain demographics. It's certainly not the language any political leader should be using, let alone the President of the USA

It's never about a single sentence. It's about the creation of an atmosphere.

And I don't think it's necessarily intentional, at least not all the time.

There's a certain degree of riding the tiger here for the Republicans. They're happy to wind up the base with the racist rhetoric, and it probably comes even more easily to them if they are actually a racist like Trump, but I don't think most of them do actually want to incite violence.

It's nearly as bad though, that even if they're not actively stoking up racial hatred to instigate violence, that they keep doing it because it works to get the racists to turn out for them and they don't care about the collateral damage.

relax carry on

Water John wrote: »

It's quite simple, Trump owns what has happened and no fudging or walking back will deny that. When you spew hatred and divisivness, you own the consequences.

But Trump has never taken responsibility for any of his actions in his life. I genuinely feel he doesn't understand how the rest of us work considering his narcissistic personality. Everyone else is wrong and Trump is right

aloyisious

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

All the winning

Stocks have plunged today following media reports that Chinese firms have stopped buying U.S. agriculture products and that China is considering new tariffs on U.S. agricultural products that it has purchased after August 3. China also allowed its currency to devalue, an effort to boost exports amid a trade war driven by Pres. Trump, who announced another round of tariffs on China last week.

So the devaluation should theoretically suit foreign business's buying & importing Chinese goods into their home countries for sale probably in their ow chain-stores at the pre-devaluation sale prices posted in-store, as against goods produced in the US.

How does Don get around this and still stay ahead in the row he's directly involved in with China and indirectly with other countries around the world with his threats to act against them if they buy/import goods from China, without him damaging US businesses any more than he already has?

I am supposing that the other countries and businesses wont be tempted to take advantage at the Yuan devaluation for more reason than the bargains.