"Shithole Countries"

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

We should limit the amount of immigrants that come in, but generally I agree with your sentiment. Immigration should be merit based, not this lottery bull **** (in some cases at least).

Also have not problem with Trumps shithole comment...after all these people are coming here because their country is more than likely a complete shithole.

And love how the msm continues to meltdown over any Trump comment.

I think you (among others) are missing the larger fundamental point. It's not about calling some nations a "shithole" because the brutal truth is that they are. It's his insinuation that these people shouldn't be reaching for what America has to offer, don't deserve to try, and that America shouldn't attempt to extend help - to be the beacon of hope and light for the world's pressed and downtrodden that we've always been.

The problem isn't that he called those countries shitholes, it's that he's inferring that the people are shit.

Who the hell do you think you are telling another person what they meant when making a comment? Such arrogance, ego and stupidity! Trump possibly said what he said and just because you dont like him doesnt give you the right to change the narrative to fit your crybaby bullshit

[SDHornet]

I don't take it that way at all. I take it as he wants to bring in the best and brightest and not just be about handouts to the down trodden. We can help a lot of these people in their own country (speaking specifically of Haiti here and any country dealing with natural disasters).

Haiti was a shithole before.

Let’s send billions in aid for decades to corrupt nations that lack the ability or desire from a power dynamic to affect positive change and just have them all move here then. It would probably cost less in the long run but then we’d also have to look at all these shitholians among us.

Well if we bring them all here how are organizations such as the Clinton Foundation going to bilk "foreign aid" for hundreds of millions of dollars?

[GannonFan]

Politicians say all kind of stuff these days. Trump's poorly timed comment here is very akin to Hillary's "deplorable" comment - politicians writing off whole swaths of people on a whim. There's a reason I didn't vote for either of them in the past election. If you didn't get upset about the earlier comment I don't see how you can get upset about this one.

Taken in context Clinton's "deplorables" comment was spot on. She started off by saying that, yes, a lot of Trump supporters were in that category but went on to say that a lot of other ones were motivated by understandable concerns. And I think she was right.

phpBB [video]

The point of what she was saying is that, yes, it's a given that there is this core of nasty people supporting Trump but there area also a lot of people who have legitimate concerns. And I think that 2016 election season did tell us that there IS a block in the Republican base composed of hateful, ignorant people. Deplorable people. It is what it is. Her description of the situation was accurate.

You sold your soul a long time ago. Trump is awful. Hillary is awful. Their quick and wide ranging condemnation of countries or people, including that their deplorableness is forever (i.e. irredeemable) is what made them the worst two Presidential candidates ever. And then throw in the unimaginable levels of corruption and cronyism both sank to and any attempt to glorify one over the other is an exercise in denial. People like you who can say that one side of our current disaster is better than the other are part of the problem.

[DSUrocks07]

[SeattleGriz]

That is the meme.

[DSUrocks07]

That is the meme.

I like this one too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[89Hen]

We need to:
-End chain migration

You're clearly a racist for using that term. Dick Durbin says so.

[UNI88]

Taken in context Clinton's "deplorables" comment was spot on. She started off by saying that, yes, a lot of Trump supporters were in that category but went on to say that a lot of other ones were motivated by understandable concerns. And I think she was right.

phpBB [video]

The point of what she was saying is that, yes, it's a given that there is this core of nasty people supporting Trump but there area also a lot of people who have legitimate concerns. And I think that 2016 election season did tell us that there IS a block in the Republican base composed of hateful, ignorant people. Deplorable people. It is what it is. Her description of the situation was accurate.

You sold your soul a long time ago. Trump is awful. Hillary is awful. Their quick and wide ranging condemnation of countries or people, including that their deplorableness is forever (i.e. irredeemable) is what made them the worst two Presidential candidates ever. And then throw in the unimaginable levels of corruption and cronyism both sank to and any attempt to glorify one over the other is an exercise in denial. People like you who can say that one side of our current disaster is better than the other are part of the problem.

GF is owning this thread.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

You sold your soul a long time ago. Trump is awful. Hillary is awful. Their quick and wide ranging condemnation of countries or people, including that their deplorableness is forever (i.e. irredeemable) is what made them the worst two Presidential candidates ever. And then throw in the unimaginable levels of corruption and cronyism both sank to and any attempt to glorify one over the other is an exercise in denial. People like you who can say that one side of our current disaster is better than the other are part of the problem.

GF is owning this thread.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

And JSO is getting owned again.

[houndawg]

I think you (among others) are missing the larger fundamental point. It's not about calling some nations a "shithole" because the brutal truth is that they are. It's his insinuation that these people shouldn't be reaching for what America has to offer, don't deserve to try, and that America shouldn't attempt to extend help - to be the beacon of hope and light for the world's pressed and downtrodden that we've always been.

The problem isn't that he called those countries shitholes, it's that he's inferring that the people are ****.

Who the hell do you think you are telling another person what they meant when making a comment? Such arrogance, ego and stupidity! Trump possibly said what he said and just because you dont like him doesnt give you the right to change the narrative to fit your crybaby bullshit

Oh shut up you sissy bitch.

[houndawg]

If you are talking about the people that come to Montana then I agree. It sucks here stay in Washington.

I tell as many people as I can about Montana. Especialky the fly fishers and non-motorized boatists.

And the wolf lovers and tree huggers.

Give them a few years to educate the locals and even Montanans could rise from shitholiness and walk on their hind legs.

[kalm]

I tell as many people as I can about Montana. Especialky the fly fishers and non-motorized boatists.

And the wolf lovers and tree huggers.

Give them a few years to educate the locals and even Montanans could rise from shitholiness and walk on their hind legs.

[Ibanez]

We should limit the amount of immigrants that come in, but generally I agree with your sentiment. Immigration should be merit based, not this lottery bull **** (in some cases at least).

Also have not problem with Trumps shithole comment...after all these people are coming here because their country is more than likely a complete shithole.

And love how the msm continues to meltdown over any Trump comment.

I think you (among others) are missing the larger fundamental point. It's not about calling some nations a "shithole" because the brutal truth is that they are. It's his insinuation that these people shouldn't be reaching for what America has to offer, don't deserve to try, and that America shouldn't attempt to extend help - to be the beacon of hope and light for the world's pressed and downtrodden that we've always been.

The problem isn't that he called those countries shitholes, it's that he's inferring that the people are shit.

Should we should allow a multitude of uneducated (or poorly educated) people come to the US and fail in their attempt to thrive in the 21st Century economy? Should we allow these people to come, fail to get jobs OR take jobs away from the low-no income people that are already here and swell our welfare rolls? I get the argument of these people doing jobs that Americans either don't do or want to do - but it exacerbates the problem.

The fact is that we aren't an agricultural or industrial economy anymore - the economy that allowed potato farmers come here in the late 19th/early 20th Century and seamlessly go into a manufacturing plant or assembly line and eek out a decent living. America should accept the best and brightest - and that will allow us to continue to become a country that can spend billions on humanitarian causes around the globe. It'll allow us to be competitive. I'm all for legal immigration. I'm all for these "dreamers" staying (as long as they become citizens within a certain time frame). I'm all for accepting people in on humanitarian reasons. But I don't think it is in the best interest of the USA to just accept every person that shows up and wouldn't be able to thrive and prosper in our country.

[∞∞∞]

That's where our philosophical difference is. You see immigration from a point-of-view that adds to the economic value of America; I see it from a point-of-view that adds to the social value of America being the beacon for anyone escaping oppression and seeking freedom, whether they be rich or poor, skilled or unskilled.

[kalm]

That's where our philosophical difference is. You see immigration from a point-of-view that adds to the economic value of America; I see it from a point-of-view that adds to the social value of America being the beacon for anyone escaping oppression and seeking freedom, whether they be rich or poor, skilled or unskilled.

Quantify "social value".

[CAA Flagship]

Should we should allow a multitude of uneducated (or poorly educated) people come to the US and fail in their attempt to thrive in the 21st Century economy? Should we allow these people to come, fail to get jobs OR take jobs away from the low-no income people that are already here and swell our welfare rolls? I get the argument of these people doing jobs that Americans either don't do or want to do - but it exacerbates the problem.

The fact is that we aren't an agricultural or industrial economy anymore - the economy that allowed potato farmers come here in the late 19th/early 20th Century and seamlessly go into a manufacturing plant or assembly line and eek out a decent living. America should accept the best and brightest - and that will allow us to continue to become a country that can spend billions on humanitarian causes around the globe. It'll allow us to be competitive. I'm all for legal immigration. I'm all for these "dreamers" staying (as long as they become citizens within a certain time frame). I'm all for accepting people in on humanitarian reasons. But I don't think it is in the best interest of the USA to just accept every person that shows up and wouldn't be able to thrive and prosper in our country.

I think "skill" is less important than getting quality people. Get a quality person (clean history) and they will probably thrive as much as anyone else. But the problem is that some countries have a difficult time verifying these individuals due to poor recordkeeping, corruption, etc. And the corrupt governments would be happy to pawn off their bad seeds onto us. This is the "shithole" part, the governments.

[Ibanez]

That's where our philosophical difference is. You see immigration from a point-of-view that adds to the economic value of America; I see it from a point-of-view that adds to the social value of America being the beacon for anyone escaping oppression and seeking freedom, whether they be rich or poor, skilled or unskilled.

What value does a bunch of poor people who refuse to learn English add?

If I have to choose between a roommate with a degree in medicine, tech or a skill like hvac repair over someone with no education- my choice is pretty obvious. Education is everything and CAA nailed it. The corrupt, shorty governments are the cause.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

[Ibanez]

Should we should allow a multitude of uneducated (or poorly educated) people come to the US and fail in their attempt to thrive in the 21st Century economy? Should we allow these people to come, fail to get jobs OR take jobs away from the low-no income people that are already here and swell our welfare rolls? I get the argument of these people doing jobs that Americans either don't do or want to do - but it exacerbates the problem.

The fact is that we aren't an agricultural or industrial economy anymore - the economy that allowed potato farmers come here in the late 19th/early 20th Century and seamlessly go into a manufacturing plant or assembly line and eek out a decent living. America should accept the best and brightest - and that will allow us to continue to become a country that can spend billions on humanitarian causes around the globe. It'll allow us to be competitive. I'm all for legal immigration. I'm all for these "dreamers" staying (as long as they become citizens within a certain time frame). I'm all for accepting people in on humanitarian reasons. But I don't think it is in the best interest of the USA to just accept every person that shows up and wouldn't be able to thrive and prosper in our country.

I think "skill" is less important than getting quality people. Get a quality person (clean history) and they will probably thrive as much as anyone else. But the problem is that some countries have a difficult time verifying these individuals due to poor recordkeeping, corruption, etc. And the corrupt governments would be happy to pawn off their bad seeds onto us. This is the "shithole" part, the governments.

I consider them linked. Not many ph.d candidates are also members of MS13.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grizzaholic]

I like this one too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Detroit?

[CID1990]

One of the most fascinating transformations I see is in brand new, young foreign service officers- at their first consular assignment

we come in about 95% liberal, 3% moderate, and 2% conservative

that breakdown remains throughout the state dept with one exception- after one or two consular tours, most officers will agree that our immigration system is a train wreck, and the diversity visa program is one of the lowest hanging fruit

BTW- not many people realize this (but it may come up soon) - the DV program has a formula by which they determine if we have "enough" people from a given country.

About 3 years ago, it was determined that we had enough Nigerians, so the DV program in Nigeria ended. They still have family based immigration, but the DV program is gone.

DV is absolutely fraud-ridden as well. An applicant wins the lottery and then they have the golden ticket. In many cases they get paid to add fake family members, particularly spouses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Nigeria...ugh...

When I was with my old firm my boss hired a guy from Nigeria that sucked really bad at English. So basically I had to re-write all of his TMs and other work documents...yeah he didn't last long but he did make me look really good. I ended up getting a raise shortly after he was canned.

He had a bad BO problem too, working with him in a conference room was not pleasant.

[CID1990]

Nigeria...ugh...

When I was with my old firm my boss hired a guy from Nigeria that sucked really bad at English. So basically I had to re-write all of his TMs and other work documents...yeah he didn't last long but he did make me look really good. I ended up getting a raise shortly after he was canned.

He had a bad BO problem too, working with him in a conference room was not pleasant.

It is deceiving going to Nigeria thinking language won't be a problem, since their official language is English.

They all speak their tribal languages (Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo) and their English is VERY inflected. My driver and I had to speak very simply to each other- and slowly.

They also have Nigerian Pidgin which is recognized as a dialect of English. If you go to BBC's website you can select to read it in Nigerian pidgin and it is hi-larious... especially this one article from a few months ago about the woman here in the US who had a problem with a jogger crapping on her lawn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

That's where our philosophical difference is. You see immigration from a point-of-view that adds to the economic value of America; I see it from a point-of-view that adds to the social value of America being the beacon for anyone escaping oppression and seeking freedom, whether they be rich or poor, skilled or unskilled.

Our “social” system can’t take any more “social value” ....it’s bankrupting the country.

[UNI88]

We should limit the amount of immigrants that come in, but generally I agree with your sentiment. Immigration should be merit based, not this lottery bull **** (in some cases at least).

Also have not problem with Trumps shithole comment...after all these people are coming here because their country is more than likely a complete shithole.

And love how the msm continues to meltdown over any Trump comment.

I think you (among others) are missing the larger fundamental point. It's not about calling some nations a "shithole" because the brutal truth is that they are. It's his insinuation that these people shouldn't be reaching for what America has to offer, don't deserve to try, and that America shouldn't attempt to extend help - to be the beacon of hope and light for the world's pressed and downtrodden that we've always been.

The problem isn't that he called those countries shitholes, it's that he's inferring that the people are ****.

Back to GF's point, what is the difference between Trump inferring that people are **** and Hilary outright saying that people are **** by calling them deplorables? Where was the the progressive outrage against Hilary's bigotry?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

That's where our philosophical difference is. You see immigration from a point-of-view that adds to the economic value of America; I see it from a point-of-view that adds to the social value of America being the beacon for anyone escaping oppression and seeking freedom, whether they be rich or poor, skilled or unskilled.

Our “social” system can’t take any more “social value” ....it’s bankrupting the country.

There are a few things at work "Bankrupting" the country..
I don't disagree entirely but...