Trump

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't think so. I hope he does, personally. The two sides can at least agree on something then. 

I wish Trump would get a nutritionist after this health check-up and tweet the healthy meals he eats. Promote healthy living so that Americans will be healthier. At least show that online communication can be used for good too, instead of controversy all the time.

Dietary science is FAKE NEWS.

[Various]

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

- The President of the United States on Haiti, El Salvador specifically and African countries in general.

[Various]

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

[gaggedLouise]

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

"Don't heed the FAKE NEWS MOUTHPIECES!!"   

-Trump's likely reaction

[Shores]

With regards to immigration, I think Trump's stance is valid but a bit misguided. Especially the way he phrases things.

If a country accepts any and all form of immigrants freely, without vetting, then it will cause unrest and crime in the population. Because the country will be accepting criminals on top of law-abiding citizens. There are, of course, varying severity of crimes, but in this scenario, we are imagining a country accepting all applications, including murderers, terrorists, war criminals, etc.

If a country accepts immigrants with vetting, to permanently stay there, then only the best and brightest will enter into that country. This is good for the country accepting immigrants, but what this means for the country the immigrants have left is that it now has a higher population of immigrants who could not enter either due to being too poor or because of past criminal history. It becomes very hard for that country to improve it's current situation, which leads to even more immigrants, legal or non-legal.

If a country accepts immigrants with vetting, educates and shelters them for a few years, then sends them back to their country to improve the situation there, people will say that the country is inhumane, and that the immigrants should be allowed to build a new life in the new country, especially for immigrants who come from war-torn countries.

It's like a lose-lose-lose situation.

[persephone325]

One thing that irritated me when he was campaigning, was one of his speeches when he was talking about Mexico. He said "They're bringing crime, they're bringing drugs, they're bringing rapists..."

I looked at my TV and went "Motherfucker! America has always had crime, always had drugs, and always had rapists! These things will be here regardless of you keeping the Mexicans out!!"

If anything, I think we Americans are more violent. I mean, look at how our "president" behaves. *sigh*

[RedEve]

Migrating is part of human nature, otherwise our species would not have spread all across the world.

[Shores]

True, but I also think we've been naturally selected to settle down and form a community when we've found a good place. Hence, agriculture and laying claim to territories. People are always going to want to go to a place which is better than their current situation though, even if it means risking their lives, since they have children to think about. It's easier than trying to improve a whole country at once, especially when no tools are available.

[Sara Nilsson]

https://kotaku.com/donald-trump-announces-successful-delivery-of-fictional-1821993977

Trump said we will ship F-52s and F-35 fighter jets to Norway.

Problem is, there is no F-52s. Sure probably a slip of the tongue, but he is a genius so...

I know.. Sara. stop being petty. Nope.

[gaggedLouise]

Apparently he moved his announced Fake News Awards ahead to the middle of next week. If he had announced them Monday, as planned, they would have been buried under 1) all the talk about the Wolff/Trump book and 2) the Golden Globes. :)

[Cassandra LeMay]

If a country accepts any and all form of immigrants freely, without vetting, then it will cause unrest and crime in the population. Because the country will be accepting criminals on top of law-abiding citizens. There are, of course, varying severity of crimes, but in this scenario, we are imagining a country accepting all applications, including murderers, terrorists, war criminals, etc.

I'd say this is premised on two things:
One, that you look at crime in absolute terms, but not on a per-capita basis. If the population in general increases and the proportion of criminals in the new influx of population is the same as it already is in the country people enter, the per-capita crime rate will stay the same.
Two, it presumes that people who have been criminal in their country of origin will continue their behaviour in their new country - which they might not because they fear they will be deported, unless you grant them full citizenship the moment they enter the country. That is not a given, as many discussions about imigration center on "a path to citizenship", meaning you can always allow for a grace period, attach certain preconditions of good behaviour to a full citizen status, dangling the sword of deportation over someone's head, to force them to behave.

If a country accepts immigrants with vetting, to permanently stay there, then only the best and brightest will enter into that country.

I don't see that as a given. It all depends on your vetting criteria. Sure, usually there is some talk about "merrits based" criteria for immigration, but that doesn't have to be set in stone, or could be structured to allow people into the country that are willing to do jobs the citizens don't want to do, even if they are not high-brow jobs.

Yes, Trump may look at it as a zero-sum game, but it doesn't have to be that way. There can be multiple paths to citizenship, multiple criteria for different groups, compromises and middle grounds. In so far I tend to doubt that Trump's opinions on immigration are really all that valid, no matter how he words them.

[Regina Minx]

With regards to immigration, I think Trump's stance is valid but a bit misguided. Especially the way he phrases things.

If a country accepts any and all form of immigrants freely, without vetting, then it will cause unrest and crime in the population. Because the country will be accepting criminals on top of law-abiding citizens. There are, of course, varying severity of crimes, but in this scenario, we are imagining a country accepting all applications, including murderers, terrorists, war criminals, etc.

If a country accepts immigrants with vetting, to permanently stay there, then only the best and brightest will enter into that country. This is good for the country accepting immigrants, but what this means for the country the immigrants have left is that it now has a higher population of immigrants who could not enter either due to being too poor or because of past criminal history. It becomes very hard for that country to improve it's current situation, which leads to even more immigrants, legal or non-legal.

If a country accepts immigrants with vetting, educates and shelters them for a few years, then sends them back to their country to improve the situation there, people will say that the country is inhumane, and that the immigrants should be allowed to build a new life in the new country, especially for immigrants who come from war-torn countries.

It's like a lose-lose-lose situation.

You’ve convinced me.

Time to leave the North American continent, non-Indiginous people.

[Various]

https://kotaku.com/donald-trump-announces-successful-delivery-of-fictional-1821993977

Trump said we will ship F-52s and F-35 fighter jets to Norway.

Problem is, there is no F-52s. Sure probably a slip of the tongue, but he is a genius so...

I know.. Sara. stop being petty. Nope.

There ARE F-52s . . . in the video game Call of Duty. So, that gives us a clue. If someone yells a bunch of racist/homophobic slurs at you after you head shot them, it's either a 13-year-old boy or the POTUS.

[Various]

And of course, that was meant ENTIRELY in the context of a video game. I just realized how that could have been taken.

[Mithlomwen]

- The President of the United States on Haiti, El Salvador specifically and African countries in general.

He's now denying he said those exact words.

[Regina Minx]

He's now denying he said those exact words.

I have six problems with this denial.

1. He is a serial liar.
2. He didn't deny it when the story broke.
3. The White House didn’t deny it yesterday
4. None of the lawmakers who attended the meeting denied it yesterday.
5. He has a history of racist statements and actions.
6. See item 1.

[Mithlomwen]

I have six problems with this denial.

1. He is a serial liar.
2. He didn't deny it when the story broke.
3. The White House didn’t deny it yesterday
4. None of the lawmakers who attended the meeting denied it yesterday.
5. He has a history of racist statements and actions.
6. See item 1.

Pretty much. 

On the news this morning, White House reporters are saying that there's a rather 'blase' response from people there.....while everyone else is completely outraged. 

I just really have no words. 

[Mithlomwen]

Double post....sorry. 

I forgot to add, I'm really interested to see how Sara Huckabee Sanders will boldface lie to reporters when questioned about Trump's statements. 

[Orval Wintermute]

His Orangeness is at it again with his tweets

Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!

The tweet conveniently ignores that sale\move was agreed to by a certain G.W. Bush well before Obama entered the White House but since when did Trump ever worry about facts? What I love is that Trump is so scared of a bunch of metropolitan elitist, left-leaning, Guardian reading, white middle class placard wavers that he won't set foot in London. Maybe this could a growth export market for the UK for the next 3 years; Trump 'threatens' to visit a country, that country hires Londoners to protest Trump, Trump pulls out of visit. It'd wipe out the UK national debt in months.

[WindFish]

At this point, I don't know how anyone can deny that Trump isn't a serial liar and a racist. He makes it pretty obvious nearly every single day.

[TheGlyphstone]

[ :quote author=Regina Minx link=topic=262535.msg13829693#msg13829693 date=1515761828]
You’ve convinced me.

Time to leave the North American continent, non-Indiginous people.
[/quote]

Leaving the Native Americans all alone with Trump is a curel thing to do to them.

[gaggedLouise]

[ :quote author=Regina Minx link=topic=262535.msg13829693#msg13829693 date=1515761828]
You’ve convinced me.

Time to leave the North American continent, non-Indiginous people.


Leaving the Native Americans all alone with Trump is a curel thing to do to them.

A cruel and unusual punishment! :)

Ship Trump to the isle of Clipperton instead.

[Oniya]

A cruel and unusual punishment! :)

Ship Trump to the isle of Clipperton instead.

Why would the French take him?

[gaggedLouise]

Why would the French take him?

The US took the remote island in a top secret operation towards the end of WW2 (for God knows what reason). Now the French could get a bit of payback. :)

[Valerian]

Some highlights of 45's interview with the Wall Street Journal:

WSJ: You think North Korea is trying to drive a wedge between the two countries, between you and President Moon?

TRUMP: I’ll let you know in—within the next 12 months, OK, Mike?

WSJ: Sure.

TRUMP: I will let you know. But if I were them I would try. But the difference is I’m president; other people aren’t. And I know more about wedges than any human being that’s ever lived, but I’ll let you know.

TRUMP: So – I – I think we have a very good chance of making a deal on DACA, I would like to be able to do it; I think that the people that are Trump supporters agree with me on it. I would never do it without a wall, the wall is the wall and it’s the same wall that we’re always talking about. It’s – you know, wherever we need, we don’t need it where you have mountains; you don’t need it where you have rivers and – you know, vicious rivers.

TRUMP: Would you say that’s a correct statement, Gary, we have to have people.

GARY COHN: Yeah.

WSJ: Do you think they’re close to ending the [Russia] probe?

TRUMP: I hope so. Hey, look, I got elected president. I won easily, 306 or 304, depending on your definition, to 223. I won a race that should never be won by a Republican because it’s so stacked in the Democrats’ favor. I mean, if you figure California, New York, and Illinois, you start off with losing that – you have to run the entire East Coast and every – and the entire Midwest. I won an election that should never be won, because the Electoral College is far harder to win than the popular vote. The popular vote, for me, would have been much easier.

I feel rather sorry for the interviewers.  Even allowing for the fact that a transcript of an off-the-cuff reply is never going to be as smooth as something scripted, he's wandering all over in his answers, repeats himself constantly, and keeps going back to the same topics over and over.  It isn't exactly reassuring.  :/