:
So far, I've personally seen just one case, with the CNN reporter who was aggresively trying to butt in while it wasn't his turn to ask.
|
https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%22f...c=typd&lang=en
This is just when he’s explicitly used the term, by the way.
:
Of course not. Although, I don't think Trump tells literally everyone in the office what to say each day. I don't even think it's possible (time constraints), and saying the inauguration crowds were big or not seems like such a trivial matter, that I honestly doubt he would bother.
|
Apparently it bothered him enough that
he called the National Park Service director to complain, and he
spent most of his first address to CIA staff boasting about it.
But let’s be real here – of course Trump isn’t going to dictate every single thing to his staff, even if he is
known as a micromanager. But that doesn’t excuse his staff propagandizing on his behalf, either – he is responsible for selecting those staff, after all.
:
It's been literally a little more than a week since he's in power.
|
And he’s been campaigning to get elected since June 2015. If this was an issue he genuinely cared about, he could have changed his own business practices a long time ago.
:
>not a ban
>literally forced the refugee process to halt
|
This isn’t 4chan, don’t greentext.
:
If it wasn’t a ban, then the Obama Administration wouldn’t have had the State Department stop processing Iraqi refugees, yes?
I could say that Trump isn’t really banning people from the 7 Middle Eastern countries, he’s just told CBP to stop processing people with nationalities pertaining to those countries.
Either way, the setup to both is the same. The ban (temporary halt, if you will) in 2011 was due to a bomb threat, while the temporary halt (ban, if you will) this past weekend was sparked by events such as the Orlando shooting and Ohio State car-knife attack.
|
It was not a ban, it was a delay in processing due to the high workload of reevaluating applications:
:
Former Obama administration official Jon Finer denied that any ban in Iraqi refugee admissions was put in place under Obama. “While the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here,†he wrote in Foreign Policy. “In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.â€
|
This differs significantly from Trump’s executive order, which is a definite ban.
The Orlando shooting took place in June 2016 and was an act of
domestic terrorism, motivated by homophobia and the attacker was radicalized through the internet. Immigration had nothing to do with the attack, and tougher immigration law wouldn’t have prevented it. The Ohio State attacker is not believed to have had any contact with terror organizations, and was a lone-wolf attacker. Neither of these are convincing grounds for the ban being put in place now, as neither case has shown a flaw in the immigration system which was the case when Obama’s administration reevaluated Iraq refugee applications in 2011.
:
Trump's a man of action, not the kind of person who is willing to wait while his cabinet gets filled out. Besides, voters expect results, and, again, Trump is a man of action, i.e. results.
|
This is a rather aggrandizing manner of saying that Trump’s decisions are led by his ego. Look at his approach to interviews – he constantly talks himself up as popular, and constantly denigrates his critics. He alleges voter fraud because he lost the popular vote; he becomes enraged because his inauguration was poorly attended; he accuses opinion polls of being rigged because they show he is unpopular; he insults the massive protests dwarfing his own crowds.
Trump is a ‘man of action’ because he is seeking quick-fix, populist results to serve his own ego. He is nakedly self-serving, but the job of one of the most powerful political leaders in the world demands that he serve
all of the people of the United States.
:
I don’t think the refugee crisis was in 1975, do you? The Gulf War wasn’t even until the 1980’s. The Middle East was a lot more stable back then.
|
We’re not just talking about 1975, we’re talking about the entire 41 years in that time period. And I’m sorry, but the Middle East has been
far from stable for that time period, and
for a long time beforehand.
:
You seem to misinterpret the point of a tariff.
Tariffs make it more expensive for foreign bodies to sell goods in our markets. If they want to stay profitable, then they are forced to raise their prices, giving less expensive local goods a competitive edge. Consumers, obviously, will buy the local goods.
This means the foreign bodies lose money.
Trump hasn’t even implemented his tariff on China yet. The tariff he set on Mexico (in retaliation for President Nieto refusing to negotiate the wall) is at 20%. This kind of looks like a practice round.
|
It’s you who is misinterpreting – any tariff will simply be responded to by Mexico raising prices, and buyers will raise prices to pass on that cost to the consumer. So Mexico still profits on its goods, while American consumers pay higher prices as a result of increased taxation. Americans pay for the wall.
And of course, if Mexican imports are reduced, then even less money will be made on those tariffs. Mexico might be making less money, but they still ain’t paying for that wall – all Trump will have done is sabotage the international trade market.
But I guess this shows that you
never read the article, which sets this out:
:
Please do note that this is nothing, here at least, to do with whether a wall is desirable, or not so, nor even whether trade protection is a good idea and all that. This is just a very, very, simple economic point and one that is simply true. The people who pay tariffs are the people who buy the goods which tariffs are imposed upon. Putting a tariff upon goods moving from Mexico to the United States means that it is the people in the U.S., who are paying the tariff.
There is indeed a secondary effect, which is that less will be sold and that this will impact profits and wages in Mexico. Not that I think that's a good idea either of course. But that still leaves it to be true that any money actually raised by a tariff will be paid by Americans, not Mexicans.
|
:
How was I saying they were the same issue, when I explicitly stated that it’s not just illegal immigration and refugees that are the problem?
|
Because you responded to a point criticizing Trump’s stance on immigration by immediately segueing into talking about outsourcing, without addressing the issues raised?
:
That article makes it sound like only illegal immigrants raise wages. We can reap the rewards of letting in people legally, while enforcing our immigration laws to keep out people who don’t care to follow the rules. Heck, Trump wants to streamline the immigration process.
|
Here’s
another article that discusses legal immigration as well. So between the two articles, we’ve established that both legal and illegal immigration has a positive effect on wages. So your previous claim — that immigration is responsible damages jobs because corporations pay foreign workers less — is incorrect. If Trump wants to ‘streamline’ the immigration process he is welcome to – but shutting down borders, turning away immigrants and refugees and causing chaos with poorly-planned executive orders is not ‘streamlining’ anything.
I don’t think an article title “Ford Scraps Plans For Mexico Plant, But Says It’s Not Because Of Trump†is a very convincing evidence for what you’re arguing, do you?
:
While on the campaign trail last year, President-elect Donald Trump attacked Ford’s plans to move production of its Focus vehicle line to Mexico. He later falsely claimed he’d convinced the company to keep a plant open in Kentucky. In fact, Ford had never planned to close the plant.
The company said that Trump was likewise not responsible for its latest decision.
“We didn’t cut a deal with Trump. We did it for our business,†Ford CEO Mark Fields told CNN on Tuesday.
|
Of course, as CEO for one of the largest automanufacturing companies, he is going to like policies of tax and regulatory cuts – which is what he is describing in your link, not the proposed tariffs.
He is not a fan of the proposed tariff at all.
:
Estimated wall cost: Around 25$ billion
>be Obama
>propose $70 billion budget to carry out regulations
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susandud.../#cc4e1b1c7e4b
vs.
>be Trump
>for every new regulation, 2 regulations will be diced
>want to build $25 billion wall
>25 isn’t even half of 70
|
The problem with this comparison is of course that federal regulations cover the entire United States and must be enforced across the entire economical and social landscape of the country. It is a necessary function of the government to ensure safety and stability for its people, and that’s why the US government has regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and National Labor Relations Board, among others. These agencies exist to protect people, and without proper regulation there would be significant health, safety, ethical and economic risks.
Now considering that in 2016,
the total US Federal Budget was $3.54 trillion, regulatory spending would have been around … 1.98% of the total budget. This is a justifiable proportion of the budget to allocate to protecting people.
Contrast that with Trump's wall, whose high cost does not justify its own existence. Mexican immigration is not a problem that justifies such a high cost, and a competent president would recognize that those funds would be much more effectively spent elsewhere. But Trump is not a competent president, he is self-serving and is promising the ultimate vanity project fuelled by racist rhetoric.
:
Is it really Hungary's problem how the refugees feel, since they're the very refugees that Hungary wants to keep out? Maybe the people of Hungary know something we don't? Isn't that grounds for negotiation?
That goes for other countries. Bringing in people from war-torn countries with a very different perception of human rights… What could go wrong?
http://68.media.tumblr.com/41b123b49...wfq9o1_500.jpg
I don’t know what European Union you’re talking about, but they seem to have the right idea. Japan saw trouble a mile (well, many miles) away, and only took in a few refugees. Guess what two of them (Turkish) wound up doing?
Evidently, the statistics you brought up didn’t work for Japan. Maybe they haven't worked out for America, either? Maybe that's why Trump won the election?
|
“Is it really Hungary’s problem how the refugees feel†is an incredibly callous way to refer to one of the largest humanitarian crises of our times. Let’s remember: the refugees entering Europe are abandoning their homes and lives to flee from war, terrorism and persecution. They’re
travelling thousands of miles and risking their lives for safety that they no longer have in their home countries.
Arguing that this is simply “not their problem†is nothing more than sticking one’s head in the sand. This is a global humanitarian crisis affecting millions of lives – you don’t get to turn your back on people in danger and claim any sort of moral high ground.
And let’s not forget that Muslim countries have taken in the vast bulk of refugees, and
those reaching Europe are a fraction of those being received in countries in the Middle East.
Your example of Sweden is completely misrepresented, of course:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle30019623/
:
The marked increase in rape cases during the 2000s is almost entirely a reflection of Sweden’s deep public interest in sexual equality and the rights of women, not of attacks by newcomers.
But aren’t refugees and immigrants responsible for a greater share of Sweden’s sexual assaults?
In a sense. Statistics show that the foreign-born in Sweden, as in most European countries, do have a higher rate of criminal charges than the native-born, in everything from shoplifting to murder (though not enough to affect the crime rate by more than a tiny margin). The opposite is true in North America, where immigrants have lower-than-average crime rates.
Why the difference? Because people who go to Sweden are poorer, and crime rates are mostly a product not of ethnicity but of class. In a 2013 analysis of 63,000 Swedish residents, Prof. Sarnecki and his colleagues found that 75 per cent of the difference in foreign-born crime is accounted for by income and neighbourhood, both indicators of poverty. Among the Swedish-born children of immigrants, the crime rate falls in half (and is almost entirely concentrated in lesser property crimes) and is 100-per-cent attributable to class – they are no more likely to commit crimes, including rape, than ethnic Swedes of the same family income.
What also stands out is that almost all the victims of these crimes – especially sex crimes – are also foreign-born. But for a handful of headline-grabbing atrocities, it isn’t a case of swarthy men preying on white women, but of Sweden’s system turning refugees into victims of crime.
|
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ish-women.html
:
Indeed, according to official statistics on file with The Swedish Crime Survey, the sexual violence rate in Sweden has remained about the same between 2005 and 2014. In fact, it actually decreased by .3 percent between 2013 and 2014. That said, the country has the highest rate of rape in Europe, a statistic that has been partially attributed to both Swedish law, wherein rape is given a wider definition than in other countries, as well as a higher tendency among women to report the crimes to the police.
|
Gonna need a source on that chart there, and a source on your comments about Japan (although considering how xenophobic Japan usually is it doesn’t surprise me).
:
The barrier worked, didn't it? That's what we're talking about here.
Also... "Trump's Racist Wall"
"Mexican" is not a race. While we're at it, neither is "Muslim."
|
I’ve been over this exact same discussion before on these forums, so rather than rehash I’m just gonna quote myself:
:
:
Immigrant is not a race, nor are the Mexicans.
|
“Immigrant†is shorthand for “someone who came from a foreign countryâ€, AKA a “foreignerâ€. Foreigners are a very common target for discrimination based on their different ethnic background – AKA, racism.
Mexicans are people from Mexico, and are typically of Mestizo or Amerindian ethnicity. And just as with other foreigners, they are a target for discrimination based on their different ethnic background.
|
:
:
Now what kind of a messed up definition of racism is that?
Racism is based on race. It's a belief that one race is superior to other. Don't rewrite the definitions just so you can call non-racist people racist.
|
Fun fact: racism is very difficult to define because the concept of race is very poorly defined and has mostly been abandoned in scientific discussions. Thus, the definition of racism is unclear, and can be used quite broadly. I think when xenophobia is directed towards foreigners, particularly foreigners who come from non-white and non-European countries (as Trump has done when demonizing Mexicans and Muslims), it is acceptable to define that as racism.
|
:
:
You're making this more confusing that it needs to be. There are "white" (caucasian) people, there are "black people". There are asian people. There are others, and mixes. Those are races. Mexican is a nationality.
Also, there's a term called "ethnocentrism". What about that one?
So if you’d prefer to split hairs over the word we’re applying to the situation, OK, we’ll examine that.
|
First of all, the “races†you are referring to are not as clear-cut as you believe – race as a scientific model of categorization is largely discredited and no longer in common use, as it is difficult to clearly define; it has largely been replaced with other terms such as “ethnic groupsâ€. The definition of racism is therefore not clear-cut, but has previously been defined by the UN as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic originâ€. So by this definition, it is appropriate to describe the vilification of people of other nationalities and/or ethnic origins as racist.
Second, you’re wilfully ignoring that the groups of people Trump has targeted in his campaigns — including Mexicans — are generally of non-white demographics. And as I have already stated, Mexican people — the group you highlighted — are typically of Mestizo or Amerindian ethnicity. So even if we use your narrow definition of racism, we can still find reasons to consider that Trump may be racist for focusing on them.
Finally, “ethnocentrism†refers to the judging of other cultures based on the values of one’s own culture. It is more significant when discussing language, religion and customs, rather than physical attributes that would be described as “raceâ€, or ethnic or national backgrounds.
So: Trump could certainly be considered to have an ethnocentric world view. But he is absolutely still a racist. These are not mutually exclusive.
|
:
Polls have shown themselves to be… Unreliable at best.
|
Polls are generally reliable in gauging the political mood; that doesn’t mean they are always correct, but they are more useful than anything else since we can’t hold a full election every time we want to know the political climate. It is unwise to ignore polling data.
:
So, beyond ideological dilemmas, walls work just fine?
Also… The United States has never been a saintly country. We were among the last of the world’s countries to abandon slavery, and even that took a long and brutal war to actually accomplish. We’ve been treating the Middle East like a chew toy for the past few decades.
Do you know why? Because we act in our own interests. If you look at my Sweden example above, that’s what happens when a country values foreigners over its own people. That’s what happens when a government fails to prioritize the well-being of its own people.
We don’t want to have our government make that mistake. That’s why we elected Trump.
|
So your argument here is that because America has never been a saintly country, that justifies not becoming a better country? OK.
:
Personally, I think these allegations are overblown, and this is all a waste of time. Obviously, the OGE thinks differently, and that’s their prerogative. Which is good, because we need people who will scrutinize our politicians. But I don’t agree with what they’re treating like a smoking gun.
Besides, you do realize what happens next if the OGE actually gets Trump indicted, right?
|
Well I’m glad you think that the most powerful politician in the world having ethical conflicts around privately profiting from his position is “a waste of timeâ€. It’s certainly not
grounds for impeachment after all – and it’s not as if the man campaigned to “drain the swamp†and criticized corruption in politics or anything, right?
:
Do you know who popularized “fake news†in the first place? The mainstream media, which can’t handle American citizens deciding for themselves who they will and will not trust as sources of information. The same mainstream media that lied to the American people, that Trump would never run for president, that Trump would never win the Republican nomination, that Trump would never win the election. Yet they have the audacity to call their more honest competition “fake news.â€
Needless to say, Trump trolling the mainstream media like this was beautiful to witness.
|
I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the mainstream media to be concerned over false news being published free of facts or accuracy – it must be rather unfair for them to see less scrupulous folk getting away with publishing propaganda. Let’s be clear: fake news is not “honest competition†for the established media, it’s
people abusing social media to get lies heard.
Of course, when all the available evidence says that Trump won’t be elected, it’s fake news to report on that – those goshdarn journalists not being able to see the future, amiright?
:
Is there reason for concern? Yes. But, personally, I could care less.
|
So when Trump campaigns on the issue, it’s a big enough deal that you dedicated two entire paragraphs of your post explaining it; but when Trump himself is shown not to practice what he preaches, you could care less. Gotcha.
:
You’re right, we need to add them to the pre-made list made by Obama that Congress already approved.
|
So here’s my question to you: Trump’s executive order is flawed because it includes countries where no significant terror threat has come from while leaving out considerably more concerning countries. Trump’s administration claims the list came from Obama administration – the same administration Trump said wasn’t tough enough on immigration. So, is it right for them to now use the same flawed list that their political opponents created when they were previously critical of their strategies? Surely if Trump wishes to tackle terrorist threats more effectively he should have created a new list?
:
If illegal immigration from Mexico is no longer an issue, then why do illegals who get deported multiple times keep finding their way back?
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/0...ultiple-times/
And why would the wall be a waste if Mexico itself had to build a barrier of its own at the Guatemalan border?
http://static.snopes.com/wordpress/w.../08/fence2.jpg
And what’s this about so many people from Haiti and Africa going to Mexico? Why would they want to go there?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/25/in...tarian-crisis/
The fact of the matter is, illegals we deport aren’t staying out, and even Mexico is having to deal with illegal immigrants whom, for all we know, want to join the USA border hopping extravaganza.
Even if Mexico isn’t the source of illegals any more, it is undeniable that a wall will be an effective barrier in the long term.
|
My friend.
My friend, that isn’t a picture of the Mexican border wall. It’s a picture of the fence on the Israel–Egypt border.
It says so in the Snopes article you directly linked it from.
There is no border fence between Mexico and Guatemala.
Fuckin’ fake news, right? Gets everywhere.
:
We’re a republic. Our votes represent our will. When a candidate wins, that means we approved of what they’re going to do, and any amount of us changing our minds will only matter come the next election cycle.
Besides, if a president was REALLY obligated to act on the people’s will, then we get a thing called “tyranny of the majority,†which our founding fathers specifically set up the Electoral College to counter.
|
If the votes represent the will,
then Clinton should be President. It’s rather disconcerting that in one breath you claim this, then in the next you talk up the electoral college, which specifically functions to unbalance the value of votes
and dramatically over- and under-represents many states.
Tyranny of the majority is always a danger in political systems – but that must be balanced with the need for fair representation of people. Trump was not elected by the majority, yet now he is abusing his power and causing significant damage to the country and the minorities that do not have the power to oppose him.