How Can Anyone Defend the "Shit Hole" Comments?
Jan 13, 2018 19:44:33 #
lindajoy wrote:
Isnât it amazing how lying gets you prominent recognition of the left, but telling the truth gets you crucified..
Not appropriate in how he spoke the truth, agreed.. But I donât disagree with what he said..
Not appropriate in how he spoke the truth, agreed.. But I donât disagree with what he said..
Trump was in a private meeting, of course but you can bet the rats will come out with lies every chance they get.
Now one of them is coming up with a lie about Trump and the crap today in Hawaii . Everyone know that the white house goes with the president
and he is never out of touch.
Just thank God Obama wasen't there he would have immediately surrendered to N K O.
Jan 13, 2018 19:45:58 #
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Check out this excerpt from Liberty News, a double standard if I ever saw one;
Officials at the United Nations, Democratic congressman, and liberal pundits have called President Donald Trumpâs âshitholeâ remarks racist, yet they seem to have forgotten that President Barack Obama made nearly identical comments in 2016.
In an interview with U.S. Magazine, Obama referred to Libya as a âshit showâ and blamed British Prime Minister David Cameron for its deterioration, the Independent reported.
At the time, the comments embarrassed Cameron, but they did not bring negative press toward Obama.
If anything, the Independent praised him for his candid comments about the situation in Libya.
And Obamaâs âshit showâ comment about Libya was not the only time during his tenure that he was caught using bad language.
In 2012, Obama called Mitt Romney a âbullshitter.â
Not only did the liberal media not criticize him; they came to his defense, CNSNews reported.
Rolling Stone Magazine approved of his language: âItâs a dirty job, leading the free world. Sometimes it takes a few dirty words.â
Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, called Trumpâs language âhate-filled, vile, and racist.â
A spokesman for the UN said the language referring to African countries was âracist,â the Independent reported.
Libya is in northern Africa, but most of its inhabitants bear a lighter brown complexion than that of Obamaâs darker brown ancestors on the southern part of the continent.
Yet no one is on the record noted that Obamaâs âshit showâ comment seemed âracist.
When Obama used rough language to discuss African countries or Republican candidates, itâs brave and necessary. When Trump is accused of improper language, itâs racist and hateful.
Trumpâs alleged comments about âshitholeâ countries was meant to reflect his belief that America should attract successful and accomplished immigrants â a view even many Democrats share â and that the United States should move toward a merit-based immigration system.
Most of us didn't know about Obamer's cursing, uttering vile heinous hate filled racist remarks (same as Trump I believe) because liberal media outlets thought that Obamer could do no wrong and Trump can do no right. So, to be fair, lets all condemn Obama or shut the crap up about Trump.
THAT....is how I defend Trump's commits.
Officials at the United Nations, Democratic congressman, and liberal pundits have called President Donald Trumpâs âshitholeâ remarks racist, yet they seem to have forgotten that President Barack Obama made nearly identical comments in 2016.
In an interview with U.S. Magazine, Obama referred to Libya as a âshit showâ and blamed British Prime Minister David Cameron for its deterioration, the Independent reported.
At the time, the comments embarrassed Cameron, but they did not bring negative press toward Obama.
If anything, the Independent praised him for his candid comments about the situation in Libya.
And Obamaâs âshit showâ comment about Libya was not the only time during his tenure that he was caught using bad language.
In 2012, Obama called Mitt Romney a âbullshitter.â
Not only did the liberal media not criticize him; they came to his defense, CNSNews reported.
Rolling Stone Magazine approved of his language: âItâs a dirty job, leading the free world. Sometimes it takes a few dirty words.â
Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, called Trumpâs language âhate-filled, vile, and racist.â
A spokesman for the UN said the language referring to African countries was âracist,â the Independent reported.
Libya is in northern Africa, but most of its inhabitants bear a lighter brown complexion than that of Obamaâs darker brown ancestors on the southern part of the continent.
Yet no one is on the record noted that Obamaâs âshit showâ comment seemed âracist.
When Obama used rough language to discuss African countries or Republican candidates, itâs brave and necessary. When Trump is accused of improper language, itâs racist and hateful.
Trumpâs alleged comments about âshitholeâ countries was meant to reflect his belief that America should attract successful and accomplished immigrants â a view even many Democrats share â and that the United States should move toward a merit-based immigration system.
Most of us didn't know about Obamer's cursing, uttering vile heinous hate filled racist remarks (same as Trump I believe) because liberal media outlets thought that Obamer could do no wrong and Trump can do no right. So, to be fair, lets all condemn Obama or shut the crap up about Trump.
THAT....is how I defend Trump's commits.
Jan 13, 2018 20:26:37 #
Apparently you don't read very well or don't comprehend what you have read. Go back and re-read what I said and then get back to me. At this point it's alleged any way. Mike
emarine wrote:
Mike my tea bagging buddy.. you're 129,000.00 shy on trumps payout... but 1k was close for you...
Check out topic: Biden Administration Abandons Israel, Empowers Enemies
Jan 13, 2018 20:50:26 #
teabag09 wrote:
Apparently you don't read very well or don't comprehend what you have read. Go back and re-read what I said and then get back to me. At this point it's alleged any way. Mike
You wrote...Now they are marching out a porn star that the President's lawyer supposedly paid over 1k to keep quiet. They will never quit stooping to bring up crap on him. Mike ... alleged or not you're still off by 129,000. baggie...
http://nypost.com/2018/01/12/trump-team-paid-porn-star-130k-to-keep-quiet-about-extramarital-affair/
Jan 13, 2018 21:31:19 #
Craig AZ wrote:
From what I hear TX, NM, NV and most of AZ aren't ... (show quote)
You are exactly right Craig. And most of their strongholds are on water. Which means they can hold out for a heck.of a long time.
Jan 13, 2018 22:59:56 #
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
I looked for quite a while but I couldn't find your post to which I replied. Anyway, it WAS NOT aimed at you but seemed like a good place to post my comment. I'm a newbie here and don't know a lot of...heck, I don't know anybody here. My point was to get the truth out that Obama said almost exactly the same thing only a year ago and the condemners of Trump stuck up for him. That is a real true double standard. Heads I win, tails you lose. A catch 22. Trump even denies that he said it. Republicans there don't recall it. The democrat who told it is already guilty of making up a story. So many proven to be lies told on Trump, and yet the left welcomes ANY derogatory story no matter how ridiculous it sounds.
So like I said, my comment was not aimed at you, but I DID use your post to get my message out. David
So like I said, my comment was not aimed at you, but I DID use your post to get my message out. David
Jan 13, 2018 23:53:58 #
Simple answer.... No.
There *is* no defending it. I've noticed the comments on this thread in which posters rush to the defend the "honor" of their own version of Kim Jong un are all based on the assertion that what he said wasn't inaccurate. But whether or not the statement is accurate, there is still no excuse for being a shithead about it. The Constitution puts the congressmen in charge of making laws and it puts judges in charge of making judgments based on those laws, the president is "supposed" to be in charge of diplomacy. Calling the countries that are fighting to emerge from third world, "shit holes" is anything but diplomatic. But then again we all know that Trump has no idea how to be a president.
For many of us, it's enough to recognize the diplomatic error. But I know there are others (some of them on this site) that put less value on diplomacy. So let me explain a few things.
First of all, like it or not, American hegemony is in decline. It's been in decline for several decades now due to forces that Trump has no power over. He keeps talking about "MAGA" through the negotiation of "better deals" but what he doesn't appear to understand is that along with our loss of hegemony, comes a loss of leverage for making such deals. For those who think we still have a "Big Stick" (and Trump certainly tries to foster that illusion) the lesson is that we don't. Gunboat diplomacy is a card that just isn't in our hand anymore and we are seeing an increasing number of players calling our bluff. The Chinese are constantly referring to us with frightening accuracy, as a "paper tiger", which essentially means "all bark and no bite". This is actually the inverse of Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" ideology, where confidence in unquestionable military advantage (over Latin America at least) allowed us to "speak softly, but carry a big stick."
http://img.allw.mn/content/2013/12/02064106_2027.jpg
That first hegemony over the Western Hemisphere was protected through a "no trespassing" policy which played on the fact that the much stronger European empires saw greater value in trading with the U.S. than they did in colonizing Latin America. That policy is referred to as the Monroe Doctrine.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qg-8eJe1am4/UTkQDzK0GfI/AAAAAAAAFO0/pmJ5pg_Z_7E/s640/Monroe-580-1.jpg
I'm pretty sure at least one of the reasons why they found more value in trade is that the U.S. was already a haven for capitalism and the rising capitalists in Europe saw that. Sure enough, about half way through that century there was a major shift in global power. Many will say that was the point when the U.S. truly became a superpower, but the root assessment is that after several centuries the power of capital finally reached critical mass and effectively took control of the world. The fundamental thing to realize here, is that empires were no longer defined by ownership of land (the basis of aristocracy) but through ownership of capital. So imperialism traded in it's flags and forts for logos and trade deals.
...This is the world in which the U.S. (or more specifically, the capitalists supported by U.S, foreign policy) stepped up to world domination.
...It's the world in which old Europe willfully granted their colonies independence but used their capital influence to retain control of the resources thereby creating a "Third World".
...It's the world in which the greatest conflict was between the capitalist system itself and it's antithesis, communism.
...Most of all, it's the world in which diplomacy became the primary determinant. The military became the back up plan for when diplomacy fails (to commit disadvantaged countries to bad deals).
And so we had this "cold war", which is essentially a war of saber rattling and deterrents ...for setting the conditions of diplomacy, of course, but I think it's also a reason why the superpowers seem to be loosing their martial superiority over their empires and why they avoid facing each other. . Whatever the cause, you may have noticed that since WW2, the deterrent value of the military has successfully put direct war between empires on hold. I think it's also become clear that neither superpowers are as effective at securing advantages with their military as they are with their diplomacy.
Indeed, throughout the Cold War and ever since, capitalists have gained increasing control over world resources through the use of liberal institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the consortium of governments with jurisdiction over the largest markets, including the U.S. Government that Trump works for. But the difference between the U.S. Government that FDR worked for when he was planning the U.N. and the U.S. Government that Trump works for today, is that the former had the advantage of commanding respect. America had the only industrial centers untouched by the war running at a mesmerizing capacity, the military was clearly defeating Japan and U.S. power was still young enough to appear idealistic.
A lot has happened since then, including numerous military failures, a gradual loss of economic advantage (that comes as a natural result of roughly 50 years of global capitalists liberating the markets from national interests imposed by governments) and of course enough time to show the world what we really are... a nation that shares a government with an evil empire of global investors. So what all this means is that the cards Trump is holding in 2018 just isn't a winning hand. In the world of politics that means he can either bluff (though no one is falling for it) or he can learn to value diplomacy which has ALWAYS been the key to "MAG". Since he's basically speaking harshly while holding a wet noodle, the paper tiger is as good as a looser.
Of course, if Trump's gig is just to get attention, then none of this will matter to him. But for us, this "shithole" comment should be the cue to get rid of the pig.
There *is* no defending it. I've noticed the comments on this thread in which posters rush to the defend the "honor" of their own version of Kim Jong un are all based on the assertion that what he said wasn't inaccurate. But whether or not the statement is accurate, there is still no excuse for being a shithead about it. The Constitution puts the congressmen in charge of making laws and it puts judges in charge of making judgments based on those laws, the president is "supposed" to be in charge of diplomacy. Calling the countries that are fighting to emerge from third world, "shit holes" is anything but diplomatic. But then again we all know that Trump has no idea how to be a president.
For many of us, it's enough to recognize the diplomatic error. But I know there are others (some of them on this site) that put less value on diplomacy. So let me explain a few things.
First of all, like it or not, American hegemony is in decline. It's been in decline for several decades now due to forces that Trump has no power over. He keeps talking about "MAGA" through the negotiation of "better deals" but what he doesn't appear to understand is that along with our loss of hegemony, comes a loss of leverage for making such deals. For those who think we still have a "Big Stick" (and Trump certainly tries to foster that illusion) the lesson is that we don't. Gunboat diplomacy is a card that just isn't in our hand anymore and we are seeing an increasing number of players calling our bluff. The Chinese are constantly referring to us with frightening accuracy, as a "paper tiger", which essentially means "all bark and no bite". This is actually the inverse of Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" ideology, where confidence in unquestionable military advantage (over Latin America at least) allowed us to "speak softly, but carry a big stick."
http://img.allw.mn/content/2013/12/02064106_2027.jpg
That first hegemony over the Western Hemisphere was protected through a "no trespassing" policy which played on the fact that the much stronger European empires saw greater value in trading with the U.S. than they did in colonizing Latin America. That policy is referred to as the Monroe Doctrine.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qg-8eJe1am4/UTkQDzK0GfI/AAAAAAAAFO0/pmJ5pg_Z_7E/s640/Monroe-580-1.jpg
I'm pretty sure at least one of the reasons why they found more value in trade is that the U.S. was already a haven for capitalism and the rising capitalists in Europe saw that. Sure enough, about half way through that century there was a major shift in global power. Many will say that was the point when the U.S. truly became a superpower, but the root assessment is that after several centuries the power of capital finally reached critical mass and effectively took control of the world. The fundamental thing to realize here, is that empires were no longer defined by ownership of land (the basis of aristocracy) but through ownership of capital. So imperialism traded in it's flags and forts for logos and trade deals.
...This is the world in which the U.S. (or more specifically, the capitalists supported by U.S, foreign policy) stepped up to world domination.
...It's the world in which old Europe willfully granted their colonies independence but used their capital influence to retain control of the resources thereby creating a "Third World".
...It's the world in which the greatest conflict was between the capitalist system itself and it's antithesis, communism.
...Most of all, it's the world in which diplomacy became the primary determinant. The military became the back up plan for when diplomacy fails (to commit disadvantaged countries to bad deals).
And so we had this "cold war", which is essentially a war of saber rattling and deterrents ...for setting the conditions of diplomacy, of course, but I think it's also a reason why the superpowers seem to be loosing their martial superiority over their empires and why they avoid facing each other. . Whatever the cause, you may have noticed that since WW2, the deterrent value of the military has successfully put direct war between empires on hold. I think it's also become clear that neither superpowers are as effective at securing advantages with their military as they are with their diplomacy.
Indeed, throughout the Cold War and ever since, capitalists have gained increasing control over world resources through the use of liberal institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the consortium of governments with jurisdiction over the largest markets, including the U.S. Government that Trump works for. But the difference between the U.S. Government that FDR worked for when he was planning the U.N. and the U.S. Government that Trump works for today, is that the former had the advantage of commanding respect. America had the only industrial centers untouched by the war running at a mesmerizing capacity, the military was clearly defeating Japan and U.S. power was still young enough to appear idealistic.
A lot has happened since then, including numerous military failures, a gradual loss of economic advantage (that comes as a natural result of roughly 50 years of global capitalists liberating the markets from national interests imposed by governments) and of course enough time to show the world what we really are... a nation that shares a government with an evil empire of global investors. So what all this means is that the cards Trump is holding in 2018 just isn't a winning hand. In the world of politics that means he can either bluff (though no one is falling for it) or he can learn to value diplomacy which has ALWAYS been the key to "MAG". Since he's basically speaking harshly while holding a wet noodle, the paper tiger is as good as a looser.
Of course, if Trump's gig is just to get attention, then none of this will matter to him. But for us, this "shithole" comment should be the cue to get rid of the pig.
Jan 14, 2018 00:03:09 #
Craig AZ
Loc: Superior, AZ
kankune wrote:
You are exactly right Craig. And most of their strongholds are on water. Which means they can hold out for a heck.of a long time.
And cut off most all of everyone's supply lines for the rest of the nation.
Jan 14, 2018 00:22:52 #
Craig AZ wrote:
And cut off most all of everyone's supply lines for the rest of the nation.
Exactly. They cut off the ships, the barges, the waterways and we're in deep trouble. Michigan...the Great Lakes, MN....land of a thousand lakes....Texas....Gulf of Mexico....and so on. This is a.strategic move...theres nothing coincidental about this.
Jan 14, 2018 00:44:32 #
Craig AZ
Loc: Superior, AZ
maximus wrote:
I looked for quite a while but I couldn't find you... (show quote)
Hell max Obama said a lot of things, but I found he was a lot like my third wife, to her if she couldn't remember what she did the night before then it never happened.
I'm a regular here I guess, I haven't been here all that long but I do enjoy it, there are a lot of liberals on here and I know to much for them to really enjoy a debate, for I'm their worst nightmare a history buff that has lived through 14 presidents, 3 wars, the VA Hospitals, Social Security Disability and the Obama admin. I know I wouldn't have made it through the Clinton admin, but with Trump I just might have a chance to make it to see another election anyhow. Yes Barry had a double standard and the Dems think that they still do, only Trump has broken so many records as to being a president and no one gives them him the respect for knowing his business.
If there is some thing special you want to know about either one of these I've known several and followed the rest as the came up in political prominence. I came back from Vietnam with McCain in 73, watched Hillary slither her way up the ladder back as far as when she was doing her {Lewinski}and shortly after that the Whitegate scandal, where she was fired for lying and ethics. Her embarrassing act as a lawyer, again showing no ethics as she tormented a 12 year old girl about the two men that grabbed her, dragged her into the woods, beat, raped and left her for dead. Hillary was able to get her guy off, because of her treatment of this girl and then to show that she had no tact, she was out on the court house steps and laughed about her bashing of the girl.
I was a Dem too, that is until I got the chance to meet a few of them.
Let me know what your interested in~!
Jan 14, 2018 01:29:19 #
Craig AZ
Loc: Superior, AZ
kankune wrote:
Exactly. They cut off the ships, the barges, the waterways and we're in deep trouble. Michigan...the Great Lakes, MN....land of a thousand lakes....Texas....Gulf of Mexico....and so on. This is a.strategic move...theres nothing coincidental about this.
No afraid not, Obama placed his No-Go Zones all in strategically placed areas, which was a real problem for me when they wouldn't allow a naturalized Americans have these compounds, remember Waco or the Freemen of MT or Idaho. They have many of these camps all over the country, mostly in out of the way areas, but still close enough to a town where they can get into and start to take over. Obama had it going in Dearborn where the Muslims would make it rough of a shop owner, until they just had to leave and then Obama would make sure so two families could pick up the business and run it, while at the same time the women and children would collect welfare and food stamps and everything would be filtered through the business, taking the government for hundreds of thousands apiece. <pst pf Dearborn have been taken over this way and take a tip from some one that knows don't eat in a Muslim restaurant, they aren't exactly kosher what they do to a nonbeliever's food.
As for others there are large encampments of men that have come across the border and now sit and camp out in the deserts and hills as if they are waiting for something and this is a unnerving thing wondering just when. You could go through there and doubt you could find a green card, drivers license or visa among the lot and I'm talking thousands of them, not just a camp fire for girl scouts. Of course how can you keep them out or even expect them to stay out when you couldn't even keep a cow in with some of the borders down here.
Jan 14, 2018 01:33:51 #
straightUp wrote:
Really? Who's "we all"? A hasty generalization is a logical fallacy. But coming from a lib prog, such a thing doesn't surprise me. But then again we all know that Trump has no idea how to be a president.
Jan 14, 2018 01:41:28 #
kankune wrote:
So where in hell are all of these muzzies going to come from? Assholes can't get their act together fighting each other in the ME, what makes anyone think enough of them could get into America and start some shit without facing a wall of lead from millions of Americans with guns? I know one thing about the area in which I live, a mob of Muzzie trouble makers will have a life expectancy of less than five minutes.You are exactly right Craig. And most of their strongholds are on water. Which means they can hold out for a heck.of a long time.
Jan 14, 2018 01:51:01 #
Craig AZ
Loc: Superior, AZ
Blade_Runner wrote:
Really? Who's "we all"? A hasty generalization is a logical fallacy. But coming from a lib prog, such a thing doesn't surprise me.
Jan 14, 2018 03:37:29 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Really? Who's "we all"? A hasty generalization is a logical fallacy. But coming from a lib prog, such a thing doesn't surprise me.
Seriously? You need me to spell it out for you? "We all" is everyone who believes Trump to be incompetent. That's about as specific as anyone can get considering the fact that there is no registrar of every single opinion on the planet. The polls suggest "we all" is anywhere from half to three quarters of the American people and the pretty much the rest of the developed world, but polls are educated guesses based on samples. It's actually more accurate just to say "we all" as a reference to all of us who do in fact feel this way.
Then again, it's pretty obvious you're just looking for something to pick at. Coming from a Nazi like you I suppose it's not surprising that the comment you chose to make an issue of is an inconsequential side-comment that has no bearing on my argument. Perhaps it's only the inconsequential side comments that you have the mental capacity to wrestle with.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.