Cont: The Trump Presidency Part IV

[Skeptic Ginger]

White supremacist outburst? Wow.

From the link:


This guys as big a blowhard as Trump, as well as a liar. Unless I missed the part where Trump talked about skin color.

I think Haiti is a ****hole and it isn't because of anyone's skin color, it's just a ****hole. So is San Jose, CA

Aside from the word that Trump used (or maybe including it) he is being true to his platform and has been since day one. Other than that word there should be nothing shocking about his attitude toward immigration at all....

Really? That's where you're going with this, he didn't say ******* or Mexicans or brown people ergo he's not a racist?

Wow!

 

[Pixel42]

White supremacist outburst? Wow.

From the link:


This guys as big a blowhard as Trump, as well as a liar. Unless I missed the part where Trump talked about skin color.

Yes, it's obviously sheer coincidence that the ******** African countries from which Trump wants to stop immigration are mostly black and the ones from which he wants to increase it, like Norway, are mostly white.

I think Haiti is a ****hole and it isn't because of anyone's skin color, it's just a ****hole.

Do you also agree with Trump that immigration applications from people who happen to have been born there should be rejected, whilst people from countries which he doesn't consider ********* should be welcomed? Regardless of how much or how little they have to offer?

 

[Mumbles]

White supremacist outburst? Wow.

Jemele Hill was right about him. As was I, before he was elected. If he doesn't like it, he can simply drop his white supremacism.

Aside from the word that Trump used (or maybe including it) he is being true to his platform and has been since day one. Other than that word there should be nothing shocking about his attitude toward immigration at all.

As for me, I never said I was shocked. I said I was annoyed at everyone acting shocked now, as if his entire campaign hadn't been him channeling George Wallace in 1964.

 

[Foolmewunz]

When Trump's expletive about craphole countries was translated into other languages for foreign news it sometimes made no sense or was humorous.




Now, it might be true that in Taiwan people do talk about craphole places as being places where birds don't lay eggs - I don't know.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-hole-remark-causes-problems-translators.html

Chinese sayings often use idioms and can be very oblique, but that doesn't save this cite. The full saying is "a place where birds don't lay eggs and dogs don't ****(poop)". It refers to a place so far away and deserted that neither would occur. Not really at all close to the actual term used. The Taiwanese were just avoiding using the statement he made. Perhaps because they think he's their last great hope to fight off the Mainland.

(I can't think of any Chinese slang or curses that involve toilets or bathrooms. Considering that the traditional Chinese toilet - if there was one - is the "squatty potty", a **** hole pretty much would just mean toilet, traditionally.)

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm not being critical at all. I'm just saying that as buildings go $1 billion is a pretty large chunk of change to spend.

I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance, or dazed by large numbers. I spent most of my career building very large, expensive buildings and building complexes. For private entities, local, state, and federal contracts.

I have a relatively pragmatic grasp of what these things cost.

It's still a pretty good chunk of change.

Whether or not the price tag is justified is an entirely different topic, and I have not seen enough hard data to make any informed judgements about that.

So I'm not.

The new embassy was paid for by the sale of other US owned properties and the sale of the old embassy ($431 million). It sits on five acres in a city with one of the highest land values in the world . Those five acres alone would have cost in the millions and that land is in an area that Trump criticized for being "off location".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You seem very eager for UK foreign and domestic policy to be decided by poll.

What on Earth are you basing that on?

I'm sick of hearing about London and Londoners and how the entire United Kingdom and the 88% of the population who don't live in London must respect Londoners' imagined right not to be offended.

Well, whatever personal issues you're bringing to the table, this particular conversation is about what Khan said.

Since when did I say he can't speak?

Straw man.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Of all the things The PDJT has done this is probably the one I care about least.

I very much agree, but Seth Abramson has a thread in which he lists the ways in which this story is relevant to countering some of the defenses some people have made concerning the possibility of criminal behaviour re Russia in the election. I still don't think there's much there there, but there is a little more to it than, say, Clinton and Lewinski.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know what the WH has planned to mark MLK day, but I would hope that people associated with MLK's family and the civil rights movement have a plan to humiliate the president on the world stage. His bigoted comments right before MLK's national holiday call for nothing less.

Saw who was there. The only two people I recognized were Ben Carson and Alveada King - both of whom I gave up on long ago.

 

[baron]

What on Earth are you basing that on?

Have you forgotten what you just said, which was

You don't believe the Mayor of London has any means by which he can gather data on what people who live in London think? I mean, we know from polling data that Khan is one of the most popular politicians in the country - even (especially?) after he's called out Trump for erroneous and tactless statements about London terrorist attacks - and we know from polling data that a plurality of British people don't think Trump should be allowed to visit the UK. So what his opinions are more popular than Trump's in the UK, and from what data is publicly available we know that what he's saying agrees with what the plurality of people in Britain think. Given the ethnic make-up of London (and the disruption it would cause in London) it seems reasonable to assume that a greater number of Londoners than the general population would be opposed to Trump visiting, and given that Khan is the Mayor of London it seems reasonable that he would have access to more data than the general public.

What can that possibly mean unless it's that Khan should respect the (assumed) will of the people and try to ban Trump from London?

Well, whatever personal issues you're bringing to the table, this particular conversation is about what Khan said.

Very convenient. How about addressing my contention that you believe the will of the people should only be respected if you agree with it? If I'm wrong then show me I'm wrong and I'll concede that you are arguing from an honest position. Until that point I maintain you're being hypocritical and your argument is baseless.

Straw man.

No, you can't wriggle out of it with the standard cheap shot. You said

...on what basis are you claiming that he can't speak on behalf of Londoners on this matter?

and I replied

Since when did I say he can't speak?

Now how is a direct and accurate answer to your question a straw man? Don't be so ridiculous.

 

[baron]

I do believe you are misunderestimating just how much power Trump has and who actually stands to lose.

Are there any words in there? I'm afraid I don't speak in childish cartoons.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Have you forgotten what you just said, which was



What can that possibly mean unless it's that Khan should respect the (assumed) will of the people and try to ban Trump from London?

How about what it actually says?

Very convenient.

You think it's convenient that the conversation we're having about Khan's statement has nothing to do with your personal hangups about people imagining London is the entirety of the UK? What an odd position to have.

How about addressing my contention that you believe the will of the people should only be respected if you agree with it?

That which is asserted without evidence...

If I'm wrong then show me I'm wrong and I'll concede that you are arguing from an honest position. Until that point I maintain you're being hypocritical and your argument is baseless.

You're free to think whatever you want. Just be aware that the more you assume the less correct you're likely to be, and that I'm not the kind of person who can be tricked into defending straw men.

You said



and I replied

Indeed. Now look at those two statements again and note the differences between them. Therein you will discover your straw man.

 

[baron]

How about what it actually says?



You think it's convenient that the conversation we're having about Khan's statement has nothing to do with your personal hangups about people imagining London is the entirety of the UK? What an odd position to have.



That which is asserted without evidence...



You're free to think whatever you want. Just be aware that the more you assume the less correct you're likely to be, and that I'm not the kind of person who can be tricked into defending straw men.



Indeed. Now look at those two statements again and note the differences between them. Therein you will discover your straw man.

A whole post with no attempt at debate. I was right, at least you've confirmed that much.

 

[Upchurch]

Aside from the word that Trump used (or maybe including it) he is being true to his platform and has been since day one. Other than that word there should be nothing shocking about his attitude toward immigration at all.

Not to beat a dead horse, but you are very clearly cherrypicking Trump’s (alleged) words. He is not being consistent about his attitude toward immigration. He was enthusiastic about the idea of people immigrating from Norway. Immigration is not the element that was upsetting him.

I do agree that he is being true to his overall platform in regards to racism. It is why the alt-right, and much of the regular right, support him.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A whole post with no attempt at debate. I was right, at least you've confirmed that much.

I explicitly said that I wouldn't debate any straw men. So, yes, you were right that I wouldn't debate your straw men, and your indicator that you were right that I wouldn't debate your straw men was me confirming explicitly that I wouldn't debate your straw men.

If you'd like to discuss Kahn's statement and what I've actually said about that statement, then I will be happy to do so.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

"Mexican". He specifically said "Mexican".

My mistake.

In that case, recusal was probably warranted, since he was likely either a drug dealer or a rapist.

 

[baron]

I explicitly said that I wouldn't debate any straw men. So, yes, you were right that I wouldn't debate your straw men, and your indicator that you were right that I wouldn't debate your straw men was me confirming explicitly that I wouldn't debate your straw men.

If you'd like to discuss Kahn's statement and what I've actually said about that statement, then I will be happy to do so.

Do you or do you not believe that Trump's visit should depend on the will of the British people? It's a straight question.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Do you or do you not believe that Trump's visit should depend on the will of the British people? It's a straight question.

I'll answer your question if you first address the points of mine and answer the questions of mine you have left unaddressed and unanswered through your straw men.

 

[baron]

I'll answer your question if you first address the points of mine and answer the questions of mine you have left unaddressed and unanswered through your straw men.

Fine, for a second time, I'll address every single point you made.

You don't believe the Mayor of London has any means by which he can gather data on what people who live in London think?

Yes, I believe he does.

I mean, we know from polling data that Khan is one of the most popular politicians in the country - even (especially?) after he's called out Trump for erroneous and tactless statements about London terrorist attacks - and we know from polling data that a plurality of British people don't think Trump should be allowed to visit the UK.

Yes, we do.

So what his opinions are more popular than Trump's in the UK, and from what data is publicly available we know that what he's saying agrees with what the plurality of people in Britain think.

That is possible.

Given the ethnic make-up of London (and the disruption it would cause in London) it seems reasonable to assume that a greater number of Londoners than the general population would be opposed to Trump visiting, and given that Khan is the Mayor of London it seems reasonable that he would have access to more data than the general public.

That is possible.

So on what basis do you claim that his opinion is just the same as everybody else's?

As I already explained, his opinion is no more valid than anybody else's. That doesn't mean he has no more leverage.

And even if it is, given that it's in line with that of a plurality of the UK and that part of his job is literally to speak on behalf of Londoners, on what basis are you claiming that he can't speak on behalf of Londoners on this matter?

Where did I claim he can't speak?


Now for the third time, will you or will you not answer my straight question.

 

[fagin]

Some Trump supporters? demonstrated at Sadiq Khan's address to the Fabian Society.

Bit rubbish as demonstrations go, quite frankly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-supporters-sadiq-khan_uk_5a59e1ace4b03c418965d116

"The police were called and the demonstrators were removed to cheers and applause from the audience, having disrupted the event for around 15 minutes.

Having sat flicking through a newspaper, Khan then got back up to speak, calling the hecklers “very stable geniuses”."

 

[Parsman]

Do you or do you not believe that Trump's visit should depend on the will of the British people? It's a straight question.

To be honest the will of the people in any Democracy tends to be indicative rather than determinative in this day and age. The real point is that Trump is afraid of the poor reception he is likely to receive in the UK where he is at least as unpopular as he is in the USA. He hasn't pulled his visit because of any actions by Mayor Khan but because he is what he is - a narcissist who only wants adulation.