Trump Restates His Immigration policy

[Lomax]

I don't think we should automatically assume the lowest motives of the Badger. If he wishes to credit Coulter for having brought a point to his attention then why should he not? The fact that Trump said what he did in private stands regardless of whether it's Coulter that points it out. One need not regard Coulter as the source from which the evidence was obtained - after all, she isn't. And still, without denying that Trump said "shitholes" away from the camera, nobody makes any effort to address the point.

To paraphrase (and thereby credit) Eric Blair: some things are true even if Ann Coulter says they are true.

[SciameriKen]

I don't think we should automatically assume the lowest motives of the Badger. If he wishes to credit Coulter for having brought a point to his attention then why should he not? The fact that Trump said what he did in private stands regardless of whether it's Coulter that points it out. One need not regard Coulter as the source from which the evidence was obtained - after all, she isn't. And still, without denying that Trump said "shitholes" away from the camera, nobody makes any effort to address the point.

To paraphrase (and thereby credit) Eric Blair: some things are true even if Ann Coulter says they are true.

I agree with that and I bet my devil side agrees with it as well. The "badger" should be focused on his/her goals. If debating this point is the goal then he/she should be aware that evoking the source of the question to be raised, if not immediately pertinent to the question, may result in unintended consequences as to the direction of the debate.

Regarding the question now raised - at this stage it would one's opinion to another. I for one am of the opinion that what you say in private is probably a better reflection of your character than what is said publically. If its the leader of your nation then I think its irrelevant whether its a public or private statement and should be used in the judgement of your leader. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if Coulter was quick to raise the discrepancies between Hillary Clinton's public statements and those in exposed emails back then.

[Lomax]

I would only revise your post to say "unintended and unnecessary" (were it my place to do so) because it is - how shall I say? - mischievous of you to blame him for your own resort to ad hominem. Otherwise, I assent.

[SciameriKen]

I would only revise your post to say "unintended and unnecessary" (were it my place to do so) because it is - how shall I say? - mischievous of you to blame him for your own resort to ad hominem. Otherwise, I assent.

True, sadly the result is the same - a thread about Ann Coulter :(

[TheVat]

See my previous post.

Stop citing infotainment provocateurs (or provocateuses? Francophones can weigh in.) as sources, and all will proceed smoothly and this little turbulence can be forgotten. Broken clocks are correct twice a day, but we don't depend on them as chronometers.

[BadgerJelly]

Sci -

I am surprised I need to point out what it is I was trying to get across again.

Toucan made a crass comment about "Aryans," and Zeq joined in with the remarks. I then made my point (which was ignored/missed.) Then when there was some vague understanding I posted the Coulter clip just to see if my point had hit home. It appears it didn't.

It is wrong to call someone racist for non-racist comments. It is clear people are out to get him and that his words were leaked. In the Coulter clip it is also blatantly obvious the Good Morning program were playing the heart strings of the viewers. There are also radical feminists conflating rape with groping.

Next you say this:

Me -

You seem like a sensible type. Being someone who is an admirer of Jung I know well enough that everyone has some form of cloaked prejudice. We've all said and done things we're ashamed of, and even hold opinions and views that distrub us.

I think it's better to confront them, talk about them, and come to understand how to cope with our "shadow." The consequences of not doing so often lead to the greatest human horrors. The outrage we feel about people's words and actions is really the simple horror of understanding that we, ourselves, are just as capable of holding such opinions and following them through - understandably many people don't want to accept this; sadly not accepting this means you're most likely to become that you refuse to face.

You -

Are you saying I can't prejudge Trumpers?

There is no connection between your question and what I wrote. I was most certainly not saying anything of the sort.

and then:

Its an appeal to authority - Badger is in effect saying - trust my argument more because Ann Coulter says it.

So you've gone from asking a question, to telling other people what I was saying, when I wasn't saying any such thing.

[SciameriKen]

Me -

You seem like a sensible type. Being someone who is an admirer of Jung I know well enough that everyone has some form of cloaked prejudice. We've all said and done things we're ashamed of, and even hold opinions and views that disturb us.

SCI: Are you saying I can't prejudge Trumpers?

There is no connection between your question and what I wrote. I was most certainly not saying anything of the sort.

Badgerjelly - this is good ol' American sarcasm. In other words I accept what you are saying, its just that - prejudging Trump supporters is the cloaked prejudice that I hold and enjoy - and if I were to follow your tenets then I would have to abandon the pleasure that is Trumper bashing. Hence, before I take such a leap I am just making sure that is point of your post.

and then:

Its an appeal to authority - Badger is in effect saying - trust my argument more because Ann Coulter says it.

So you've gone from asking a question, to telling other people what I was saying, when I wasn't saying any such thing.

This quoted text is in response to Lomax comparing the difference between posing a discussion point as, "What about X? and, "Ann Coulter got me thinking, 'what about X?'".

It is wrong to call someone racist for non-racist comments. It is clear people are out to get him and that his words were leaked. In the Coulter clip it is also blatantly obvious the Good Morning program were playing the heart strings of the viewers. There are also radical feminists conflating rape with groping.

Now I'll address the questions you are raising now. Your first statement is unsupported opinion as Trump's comments being racist or not is open for interpretation (I may be wrongly assuming your statement refers to this situation and you are not just generally speaking). The countries identified by Trump as "Shithole" countries have as a majority of their citizens, what are considered minority racial populations in the United States. He offers as an alternative, Norway, a country whose majority of citizens are the same race as the majority of US citizens and his own race. Given Trump's history and noted actions against certain racial and ethnic groups there is a real possibility that his comments were in fact racist. My opinion is that he was not racist in this instance, but someone who feels differently I think is justified to accuse him of racism.

Your next sentence is true, he is being targeted, but I disagree with your notion that leaked information invalidates the content of what is leaked. I understand in some circumstances leaked parts of private conversation might have been taken out of context. That is not the case with Trump and his description of these countries.

Incidentally, you are also doing what Toucan is doing - you are disregarding the arguments being made by the Good Morning Program as it all being an emotional plea to their viewers. Nothing wrong with that in my book if you are willing to accept Toucan's sweeping up of Coulter's argument as an emotional plea to Coulter's fan base.

[Lomax]

This quoted text is in response to Lomax comparing the difference between posing a discussion point as, "What about X? and, "Ann Coulter got me thinking, 'what about X?'"

Well phrased. BiV, "Ann Coulter got me thinking" does not constitute citing her as a source.

Badger/Sci, I think it's important to distinguish in these situations between the statement and the speaker's intent. Lest we be semantically challenged on the one hand or naive on the other. "These countries are shitholes" is not in itself a racist comment - its truth-conditions (or the prescriptive equivalent) do not necessarily depend on judgements about the perceived races of people who live there. That said, we have plenty of evidence that Trump is racist - much of it provided here already by BiV - so it's reasonable to suspect that racism may have motivated his utterance.

[BadgerJelly]

Sci -

Now I'll address the questions you are raising now. Your first statement is unsupported opinion as Trump's comments being racist or not is open for interpretation (I may be wrongly assuming your statement refers to this situation and you are not just generally speaking).

It is contextual. The words are not racist, and people are saying they are racist. They are not racist, it has nothing to do with opinion - are they offensive? Yes. Maybe people from those countries were offended and maybe they weren't.

The countries identified by Trump as "Shithole" countries have as a majority of their citizens, what are considered minority racial populations in the United States.

And that is surprising why? Are you thinking about what you're writing or just writing the first thing that comes into your head?

He offers as an alternative, Norway, a country whose majority of citizens are the same race as the majority of US citizens and his own race.

So now you're convinced it is about race so it must be about race? That seems a little convenient if that is the card you wish to play. I would say it might equally be that he's looked at a chart of the worlds countries and seen Norway at the top and the "shithole" countries and the bottom then asked "Why are we taking in people from these places in the same proportion as other countries? That is not to say I agree with such a position, but I find it superficially innocent, if someone callous.

Given Trump's history and noted actions against certain racial and ethnic groups there is a real possibility that his comments were in fact racist.

THIS is the real meat of the issue for me. They were NOT racist words. You cannot say they were not racist words and then say they were racist words. If he is racist it doesn't make his every utterance a racist utterance, and trying to attach any racial connotation to his comments merely makes people who are not racist and talking about "shithole" countries look racist.

To exaggerate the situation if I were to call a woman feminine may I fear being called sexist. Or if I were to say women are shorter than men, Africa is a messed up continent with corruption rife in almost every country top to bottom, and that western civilization is something to be proud of, does this make me racist and sexist. Of course not. Even if I was to go out into the streets tomorrow and kill a black woman and then announced that I killed her because she was a woman and because she was black it still would make the previous comments either sexist or racist, it would make me sexist and racist - there is a difference.

Yet you say:

but someone who feels differently I think is justified to accuse him of racism.

No, no and no. They are not justified in saying such a thing based purely by association. They are free to suggest such a thing and then I can say to them, you, like I am doing now how ridiculous, irrational and plain dangerous it is to pander to such knee-jerk reactions.

If someone is evil there is no need to exaggerate or conflate their every utterance. It is my opinion (and this is an opinion) that it does more harm than good, and only allows those you wish to express your distresses to to ignore you on the basis of one possible interpretation.

Your next sentence is true, he is being targeted, but I disagree with your notion that leaked information invalidates the content of what is leaked.

What? That also makes no sense. Is this more "sarcasm"? Understand, it is hard for me to see what you say as being sarcastic or not when you repeatedly insinuate what I am saying.

Incidentally, you are also doing what Toucan is doing

No, I'm not.

you are disregarding the arguments being made by the Good Morning Program as it all being an emotional plea to their viewers

I was talking about the video running in the background of the presenter cradling a crying child.

Anyway, this all bothers me because I don't really want Trump to remain in office for another 4 years. I don't see anything that is going to make it otherwise at the moment. As for polls I kind of like Bill Burr's comic take on it. Any sensible person avoids someone with a clipboard, so those taking polls are getting their numbers from a very particular section of the public - and I seem to remember someone saying that Trump's number were the lowest of any president ... I think they are about as low as they were just before the election, and look who won?

Who is going to challenge Trump. Is there anyone viable yet.

[zetreque]

Did this thread wonder so far that it conveniently forgot the posts about putting the President's statements into context? There is a history and trend there when it comes to the topic of race. Of course people also appear to give more credit to his intelligence than is deserved and also conveniently forget many other parts of history that lead to where he is and where we are now.

[TheVat]

It is contextual. The words are not racist, and people are saying they are racist. They are not racist, it has nothing to do with opinion - are they offensive? Yes. Maybe people from those countries were offended and maybe they weren't.

- Gelee

They were. Because they understand how meaning depends on context and speaker. See my earlier set of lists that provide context. I think everyone takes your point that the words themselves are not racist. Rather it is the selection of nations for shithole status and remarks made a few weeks before about "all the people there have AIDS and will give it to us."

Good question about who will challenge #45. Bernie Sanders has just announced, but I am not donating for humane reasons. All the krill oil and resveratrol in the world cannot prep an 80 year old body for the office of POTUS. Bernie will turn 80 in the year he would take office, 2021. I admire his dedication to public service, but the Oval Office is "no country for old men."

There are several younger Democrats in the Senate, like Kristen Gillibrand and Cory Booker, who IMHO have the right stuff and are not too far to the Left as to alienate Independents and moderates. I am not supporting an Oprah run, however, though she seems like a nice person. I've seen what a POTUS with zero political experience is like - it hasn't been pretty.

[SciameriKen]

The countries identified by Trump as "Shithole" countries have as a majority of their citizens, what are considered minority racial populations in the United States.

And that is surprising why? Are you thinking about what you're writing or just writing the first thing that comes into your head?

He offers as an alternative, Norway, a country whose majority of citizens are the same race as the majority of US citizens and his own race.

So now you're convinced it is about race so it must be about race?

I thank BIV for responding appropriately - but I will address just this part of your post. Your tone seems a bit combative here. To me it is interesting that the way that you read is a metaphor for how you judge specific Trump events. You are ripping individual sentences out to attack the merits - however, taken together what I am attempting to do is justify the alternative interpretation that Trump was being racist. That being:

1) Trump calls minority nations "Shitholes"
2) Trump desires a white majority nation
3) Trump has a track record of racism

Evaluating the text in the context of the man might lead one to take the words as racist. You boldly proclaim that I'm convinced it is about race - but you ignored what I wrote:
"My opinion is that he was not racist in this instance, but someone who feels differently I think is justified to accuse him of racism."

All taken together I surmise you are writing angry.

[BadgerJelly]

Sci -

Angry? I think you're talking complete rubbish and doing a good job of ducking and diving, but no I'm not angry. Fascinated.

To me it is interesting that the way that you read is a metaphor for how you judge specific Trump events.

Well, here is another example then ;)

You were not offering an "alternative", I was. It was a clever turn of words you used, but I am not blind to "someone who feels differently I think is justified ...", either they are justified or they are not. If by your estimation they are justified then you're saying it is justifiable? Or did you mean they are justified in an unjustifiable way? Or is your mere "thinking" a way of not committing with any real force to the discussion?

[SciameriKen]

Sci -

Angry? I think you're talking complete rubbish and doing a good job of ducking and diving, but no I'm not angry. Fascinated.

To me it is interesting that the way that you read is a metaphor for how you judge specific Trump events.

Well, here is another example then ;)

You were not offering an "alternative", I was. It was a clever turn of words you used, but I am not blind to "someone who feels differently I think is justified ...", either they are justified or they are not. If by your estimation they are justified then you're saying it is justifiable? Or did you mean they are justified in an unjustifiable way? Or is your mere "thinking" a way of not committing with any real force to the discussion?

I simply choose not to live in a black or white world. There is only one person who knows if Trump was being racist or not and that is Trump. And if its a subconscious thing he may not even know. That means for the rest of us we must consider all the possibilities of interpretation. There could be many possibilities, the two most probable being that he was 1) being racist or 2) arguing that we should take immigrants with immediate value for the country.

I feel the second is more probable based on the wording he used and he has since reiterated that sentiment. However, this doesn't mean I'm right. There is a good possibility that (1) is right based on his prior actions and comments. And then we should also consider the possibility that both (1) and (2) are right, that racial composition is one of the factors that he takes into account when saying Norway is a better pool of immigrants than "Shithole" countries.

[BadgerJelly]

Here is something interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfLUoApVC-k

I like the analogy of "sugar and salt" to social media.

All of this really, really fascinates me.

[toucana]

BJ
Did you watch that video as far as the bit where Roger McNamee (an early investor in Facebook) says - 5:52

The Russians did not hack Facebook, they used it exactly as it was intended to be used…

They were promoting these highly corrosive topics, things that would cause more anger in the country and divide the country for three or four years, and Trump comes along with all the same issues. He’s focused on immigration, he’s focused on guns, he’s focused on white supremacy.

Those are the very things they had been promoting. He inherited all that investment and got himself nominated, and once he got nominated they did more stuff, and then obviously chaos took place..

I'm not quite sure how this supports your thesis that Trump and his supporters are not racist ?

[BadgerJelly]

Toucan -

I'm not quite sure how this supports your thesis that Trump and his supporters are not racist ?

I have not said he was or wasn't "racist." I have said he is not Hitler.

[toucana]

To the best of my recollection, no-one has yet suggested that Donald Trump *is* Hitler in this thread. Quite apart from the obvious historical alibi (Hitler died in 1945), president Trump doesn't even look much like Adolf Hitler. The latter certainly didn't have flaming orange hair, or play golf all the time.

The point being made was that president Trump's vulgar rejection of immigrants from African or Caribbean countries in favour of those from Norway is in close harmony with the known views of WW2 Nazi racial theorists such as Alfred Rosenberg, or Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS. Views that were adopted and remain held to this very day by neo-nazis and white supremacists within USA.

These Nazi ideologues idolised all Scandinavian people as proto-warriors and farmers. According to chapter 11 of Mein Kampf (Nation and Race), Hitler regarded the Nordic peoples as the purest descendants of the Aryan 'master race'. The German population was deemed to be a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population by Nazi theorists.

If you are familiar with the history of Norway between 1940-45 when it was invaded and occupied by Germany, or happen to know about the history of the Nasjonal Samling movement and the career of political leader Vidkun Quisling during this period, then you will know quite how seriously this racist philosophy was taken by both German and Norwegian nazis.

Ask yourself again, why was Norway the very first country that came to mind when Donald Trump wanted to cite an exemplary nation to accept immigrants from ?

[TheVat]

Trump was visited by the Norwegian PM he same day, Jan. 11, as his Oval Office meeting in which the shithole comments were made. Norway was fresh in his mind.

[Lomax]

I've read Mein Kampf, and it contains much talk of the plight of the homeless. Hopefully my shared sensitivity towards rough sleepers does not make me a National Socialist. Somebody was once, upon finding out I was vegetarian, low enough to compare me to Hitler, who was also vegetarian. Richard Spencer shares my position on abortion, and (probably) all of yours on the Iraq War. Anybody can be dismissed in this way - you are no exception. This is what I am talking about. And perhaps somebody had told Trump about that World Happiness Report.

However: Badgerjelly, if you can get hold of s03e04 or s04e03 of Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle I recommend them. He makes some very good points about the context of language (and they're worth watching anyway).

To me the point seem moot. We already know Trump is racist. So does it matter whether his rhetorical Shitholes vs Norway question was motivated by racism? Perhaps it will have some mens rea bearing on the legality of his immigration policies, I don't know enough to know.

[BadgerJelly]

Lomax -

You'll have to remind me which episodes they are. I've watched them all twice.

Having just read Toucan's comment I think I am more than justified it pointing out what I did and why it worries me.

[toucana]

How many people would recognise the following quotation ?

That the American Union feels itself to be a Nordic-German state and by no means an international porridge of peoples is also revealed by the apportionment of immigration quotas among the European peoples. Scandinavians, that is to say, Swedes Norwegians, furthermore Danes, then Englishmen and finally Germans have been accorded the largest contingent.”

This was Adolf Hitler writing in 1928 in his unpublished Zweites Buch (‘Second Book’) the intended sequel to Mein Kampf.

Hitler was writing about contemporary American immigration policy to express his approval of the draconian Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. So what did Hitler so strongly admire in it ?

The Johnson-Reed Act (also known as the Immigration Act of 1924, and the Asian Exclusion Act) limited the number of immigrants that could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census.

It limited the influx of Italians, Slavs and Eastern European Jews. It severely restricted the immigration of Africans, and banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians altogether.

It was this restrictive law that served as the legal basis for not accepting Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in the years before the Holocaust.

James Q. Whitman who is Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School, and the author of Hitler’s American Model:The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law recently had this to say:

America’s history of democratically enacted racism is too sordid for people to be complacent about Trump’s recent comments and toxic immigration policies. Americans who love their country should feel sorrow when reading what Hitler said about it in 1928. And they should be dismayed to hear their president openly yearning for an immigration policy that would put Nordic people at the front of the line once again.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-racist-immigration-policies-by-james-q-whitman-2018-01

[studdyman]

Our citizenship is blind folded from the government policies. I have always not expected anything from this president. Pffff

[BadgerJelly]

Lomax -

Do you think there is a difference between comically comparing you to Hitler (you who likely do not have a governmental position) and the president of the United States? I would say the first has little to no impact on anyone whilst the latter would rile up those siding with Trump (for whatever justification they claim to have in voting for him.)

See above and Toucan's remarks. All that kind of talk does is widen the divide and gives Trump precisely what he wants. He'll win a second if people keep falling for the bait; and they do because they're conditioned to do so by the media.

I think he'll play almost any role in order to win. He is a businessman in a country which puts such people on a pedestal, in a country where profit and winning is put before anything else.

[toucana]

This is the State of The Union speech given before Congress by president Richard Nixon in January 1974.

Scroll forward to 38:50 elapsed where Nixon decides to add a personal footnote on the subject of Watergate and says:

I believe the time has come to bring that investigation, and the other investigations of this matter to an end. One year of Watergate is enough"

As Mark Twain once reputedly observed - "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes".

[toucana]

Looks like Betsy Devos was in charge of spell-checking the invites this time.

[BadgerJelly]

Toucan -

I do watch the media in the US. I've commented previously about how unbelievably polarized and strange the "news" channels are. I think I remember commenting, with surprise, about how the "news presenter" was openly advertising his own book between news topics.

Compare and contrast to items on Channel 4; I am thinking of the interviews with Tarantino and, shortly after, Ayoade sometime last year.

[zetreque]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... uit-413458

"Plaintiffs offer undisputed evidence that the President of the United States has openly and often expressed his desire to ban those of Islamic faith from entering the United States. The Proclamation is thus not only a likely Establishment Clause violation, but also strikes at the basic notion that the government may not act based on religious animosity,"