Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1682 of 4573 (826887)
01-13-2018 1:39 PM


The Republicans and Race
Trump's most recent punch-self-in-nose crisis (I'm talking about his denigrating comments about El Salvador, Haiti and Africa) raises the question, "Why is Trump doing this, and why is the Republican Party, especially Republican members of Congress, acting as enablers?"
The answer is demographics. Minorities tend to vote Democratic, and by 2040 minorities will be the majority group in the US. This Republican crisis looms large on their horizon because it means the end of their political domination at the local, state and federal level. There's also a component that wishes the country to remain as they see it, predominantly and dominantly white.
So they are fighting this impending change by all available means. They're gerrymandering election districts. They're restricting the rights of minorities to vote. They're deporting as many immigrants as they can (children of immigrants are citizens). And they're attempting to close the doors to immigration from as many countries of minority races as possible.
Trump today tweeted, "America First!" as a rebuttal, as if immigrants were not a strength of American character. Nothing puts America first more than insuring a steady inflow of new energy and ideas by keeping the doors open to immigration, especially from countries burdened by hardship. We don't need an influx of professionals and Masters and PhDs but of the poor and indigent and uneducated who will do the same as immigrant populations before them: work hard, improve their lot, and thereby improve the country.
We also don't want to halt what has been termed chain migration, because separating and breaking up families makes success harder.
Trump has been defended by some as just speaking the plain truth, saying what many are thinking but fear saying out loud. Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren said, "If they aren’t shithole countries, why don’t their citizens stay there? Let’s be honest. Call it like it is." This attitude ignores that the motivation to emigrate is from regions of distress, not from regions of prosperity and stability like Norway, a country Trump endorsed. It also flies in the face of the concept of the American melting pot and of the American ideal of showing compassion toward those in distress, which is why the El Salvadorans (earthquake) and Haitians (earthquake, too) are here. But most importantly it evades the true meaning of Trump's words, which is that if these are shithole countries then their people are shithole people, and shithole people shouldn't be allowed in.
The realization that immigrants are a benefit, not a threat, comes hard for some. This country has had recurring difficulties living up to the ideal of welcoming immigrants (never more deplorably than in the years leading up to WWII when we made immigration by Jews from eastern Europe extremely difficult), showing that recognition that immigrants bring great benefits only comes with difficulty. The tendency to feel threatened is great, especially and legitimately by those in the least skilled professions where new immigrants are most likely to compete for jobs. These issues must be faced forthrightly, and frequently they're not.
This isn't the first time the country has had the discussion of who and how many should be allowed in, and this is a discussion we should have, but it *is* the first time we've had such a vicious, acrimonious and callous racist-in-chief.
The Washington Post just ran an editorial that uses this recent example of Trump shooting himself in the foot to make the point that Trump is his own worst enemy. Here are some excerpts:
quote:
As the New Year heads to its third week, President Trump remains on a personal, political losing streak. None of his opponents not the Democrats, not the Never Trumpers, not any of the others can damage him as badly as he hurts himself.
...
...the conversation around the presidency the conversation at times forced by the president involved topics that were alternately disquieting and shocking, from questions about his mental fitness and stability to serve as president (which he helped to elevate with tweets) to the racist and vulgar comment he made about African and other nations in a private meeting.
Together they reinforce a portrait of a president who doesn’t appear to understand or appreciate the importance of the immigrant experience, often lacks clarity of his own views or the details of issues he is negotiating, and who projects an image that regularly flies in the face of standards long applied to those who occupy the Oval Office.
...
Through the course of the 2016 campaign, he attacked Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. He attacked a federal judge born in the United States of Mexican heritage, a judge who happened to be overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University. He got into a fight with a Gold Star family, who happened to be Muslim and whose son was killed in the Iraq war, after they used the platform of the Democratic National Committee to criticize his campaign proposal for a ban on Muslim immigration.
...
Now he has used a horrible vulgarity to denigrate nations whose immigrants to the United States have made valuable contributes to the country. He compounded his dismissal of those countries by asking why the United States country cannot take more immigrants from places like Norway, which happens to be predominantly white.
Condemnations came quickly from different parts of the political spectrum. A United Nations human rights spokesman said there was no other word than racist to describe Trump’s comment. The episode once again left the president politically isolated, save for those who either agree with him or are willing to set aside their discomfort, as many voters did when he was elected.
...
His response to events that go against him is to lash out by declaring that the processes of our democratic system are rigged or broken. His perspective on democratic governance is viewed almost entirely through the lens of whether he, personally, is winning or losing.
For some Trump advisers and for many Republican elected officials, there is not an almost automatic reaction to turn away when things like this occur, either to pretend what happened did not happen or to dismiss them as a president blowing off steam, like somebody ranting in a bar.
The consequences are far greater. As these kinds of comments pile one on top of another, they define the Trump presidencyand in the eyes of much of the world the current state of United States and the Republican Party itselfas much as the policies he and party leaders are pursuing.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1688 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2018 2:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1684 of 4573 (826889)
01-13-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1678 by NoNukes
01-13-2018 12:30 PM


Re: Former White House Official Defends Trump
Well said! Before seeing your message I posted Message 1682, and I think it echoes many of the things you say.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1678 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2018 12:30 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1686 of 4573 (826892)
01-13-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1681 by caffeine
01-13-2018 1:36 PM


Re: US Ambassador to the Netherlands
caffeine writes:
Somebody posted an article about it here.
Sorry, I missed that one.
If NoNukes was talking about the article that was posted about the news conference introducing the new American ambassador to the Netherlands (why isn't "the" capitalized?), it's in Message 1583.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1681 by caffeine, posted 01-13-2018 1:36 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1687 by Percy, posted 01-13-2018 2:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1687 of 4573 (826894)
01-13-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1686 by Percy
01-13-2018 1:54 PM


Re: US Ambassador to the Netherlands
Trying to answer my own question about why the "the" in the Netherlands isn't capitalized, I found some very interesting information. First this from What's the Deal with the Netherlands?:
quote:
The people, language, and culture are called "Dutch." While the country's capital is Amsterdam, its government is located in The Hague. The article "the" is not capitalized in "the Netherlands" (though it always is in "The Hague"). The country's name is plural in form but grammatically singular.
The capital is in one city while the government is in another? That seemed strange, so I looked up "capital" at Dictionary.com, whose definition is basically the same as the one at Oxford Living Dictionaries:
quote:
The city or town that is the official seat of government in a country, state, etc.
But then I used the dictionary feature on my Mac and got a different definition. I don't know what dictionary it uses:
quote:
The most important city or town in a country or region, usually its seat of government and administrative center.
So that's why it's not a contradiction that Amsterdam is the capital while The Hague (where "the" *is* capitalized) is the seat of government.
Concerning why "the" isn't capitalized in the Netherlands, I found this at Language Matters: Capitalization - Look at it Case by Case:
quote:
In relation to place names, the article the should only be capitalized for The Gambia and The Bahamas and not for the Netherlands or the Philippines.
But that still doesn't explain why.
The "the" in the Czech Republic isn't capitalized either.
Ah, found another website (The Netherlands, the Netherlands or Netherlands?), this seems to be the most relevant part:
quote:
It is not officially The Netherlands
Two countries have The as an official part of their English names: The Gambia and The Bahamas. This is not the situation for the Netherlands, even though the article is considered to be part of the name.
Why has the article not been formally integrated into the country’s English name? In the end, the answer may just be that that Netherlands is not an English-speaking country, so it has not felt the need to take any formal step with regard to its English name. The Gambia and The Bahamas are English-speaking, so they have done this. It may also be the case that the Dutch don’t feel any particular urge to clarify this point. They call their country just Nederland. The Dutch equivalent (De Nederlanden) is not used in modern Dutch to refer to the Netherlands.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1686 by Percy, posted 01-13-2018 1:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1724 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2018 1:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1689 of 4573 (826897)
01-13-2018 3:17 PM


Inexplicable
From Fox News: MLK's Niece: 'Outrageous' That Critics Are 'Unjustly' Calling Trump Racist
Martin Luther King's niece is defending Trump against charges of racism? Checking her Wikipedia page, she's a Fox News Channel contributor and a Republican.
Go figure.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1690 by NoNukes, posted 01-13-2018 5:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1691 of 4573 (826956)
01-15-2018 7:48 AM


The First Year of Trump
This Saturday Trump will have been in office one year, and in honor of that upcoming anniversary CNN describes the first year of Trump in the opinion piece The exhausting first year of Donald Trump's presidency. I'm going to quote the first few paragraphs, but most people will want to read the whole thing. One cannot keep in one's mind at one time all the outrageous actions and tweets of the past year because memory, for most of us, doesn't work that way, so this article accomplishes it for you succinctly and economically:
quote:
It will be impossible to adequately explain in decades to come just what it was like to be alive in the exhausting first year of Donald Trump's presidency.
From the moment he trampled the unifying conventions of the inaugural address by decrying "American carnage," Trump shattered political normality, tearing at racial and societal divides, the limits and decorum of his office, even raising doubts about his fidelity to the nation's founding values.
Trump is like a raging storm that never blows itself out, as his early morning Twitter rants injected into the nation's central nervous system trigger outrages that obliterate traditional political debate and make days feel like weeks, weeks feel like months and months feel like years.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1692 of 4573 (826958)
01-15-2018 9:01 AM


Trump: "I am not a racist"
When Trump says, "I am not a racist," it brings back memories of Nixon's, "I am not a crook." But Nixon was a crook, and Trump is a racist. The New York Times today ran an opinion piece titled Trump Is a Racist. Period. Best excerpt is a quote by James Baldwin: I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.
AbE: Also from the New York Times is this opinion piece documenting the history of Trump's racism: Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.
Edited by Percy, : Formatting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1693 by NoNukes, posted 01-15-2018 9:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1695 of 4573 (826970)
01-15-2018 10:25 AM


Lying for Trump
Republicans are apparently not only willing to support Trump if it helps further their own agenda, they're even willing to lie for Trump. Never was this more evident than on Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation when Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who was at the Oval Office meeting with Trump, not only denied hearing the president refer to El Salvador, Haiti and Africa as "shithole countries," he even denied that Trump had expressed the sentiment at all. He repeatedly iterated his own position that immigration should be merit based and claimed that Trump was actually expressing that position, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Cotton went further and accused Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) of misrepresenting Trump's words and of having a history of misrepresentations. See Sen. Tom Cotton says Trump's words, sentiments on immigration were misrepresented.
Another Republican meeting attendee, Senator David Perdue (R-GA) is also denying that Trump used the "shithole countries" term. He called it a "gross misrepresentation."
Another Republican meeting attendee, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen also denied Trump used the term, saying that she didn't recall Trump using "that exact phrase."
What turns these Republicans into liars for Trump? Have they no honesty and integrity? Do they think that "playing politics" is a license for lying, that it doesn't measure their character?
Some Republicans are honest. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), another meeting attendee, stated that Trump's comments as reported in the media were essentially accurate.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 1696 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 10:33 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1697 of 4573 (826977)
01-15-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1696 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 10:33 AM


Re: Lying for Trump
New Cat's Eye writes:
He repeatedly iterated his own position that immigration should be merit based and claimed that Trump was actually expressing that position, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
What is the evidence to the contrary? All I've seen so far is that it has been reported (by one person) that Trump said shithole countries.
What's your source? Even Trump's tweet only denied the terminology, not the sentiment. Both Durbin (D-IL) and Graham (R-SC) say he used the terminology and expressed the sentiment that people from countries like El Salvador, Haiti and Africa aren't welcome. Reporter interviews of staff after the meeting confirmed that account. Many Republicans are facing the reality that Trump made those comments, especially since they're precisely the kinds of things that everyone knows Trump would say. Cotton and Perdue are lying. See Sen. Dick Durbin: President Trump used 'hate-filled, vile and racist' language in immigration meeting for a fairly detailed account.
AbE: Here's another article describing the meeting and aftermath: Trump derides protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries
Your conclusion is that the people in the meeting are lying and the one person claiming otherwise is definitely the truth?
I said that Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) was lying when he denied that Trump even expressed the sentiment if not the words, and that Perdue comments were also lies. This is the self-evident conclusion given the wealth of evidence that Trump said precisely what he was reported to have said. It's not a surprise that Trump is lying - by now we've come to expect that he has only the most tenuous connection with truth. The big surprise is the brazenness with which some Republicans are willing to lie for Trump. Why? Is having presidential support for your agenda so important that it is worth compromising one's character?
AbE2: Here's an analysis piece which discusses how the media should respond to profanity, and it reaches the same conclusion I have about lying for Trump: The words Trump uses, and the words the media must use in response:
quote:
And it’s one that is not limited to the president. Consider the Republican senators who said they couldn’t remember whether they heard Trump use his atrocious words in the meeting they attended, or denied he said them. If they weren’t lying, what other explanation might there be?
Given Trump's history of racism, do you really believe him when he says, "I am not a racist"? Did you see the James Baldwin's quote from my Message 1692: I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do. It's not like Trump can hide who he is - he's been a public figure for a long time. Growing up in the New York metropolitan area I have a much longer familiarity with Trump (and his father) than most. His racism is not new news.
Changing the subject, here's a nice opinion piece from The Guardian saying we have little to fear that Trump is waltzing down Hitlerian paths: If authoritarianism is looming in the US, how come Donald Trump looks so weak? Other recent articles have stressed that although the effects of Trump will likely be felt for a generation, especially in the judiciary, our institutions are actually standing up to Trump's assaults fairly well.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.
Edited by Percy, : AbE2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1696 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1701 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1704 of 4573 (827015)
01-15-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1701 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 1:50 PM


Re: Lying for Trump
New Cat's Eye writes:
So did he say shithole or not?
As soon as I read this I knew how I was going to reply, but first I read NoNukes reply, and he said the same thing I was going to say. Yes, I believe he said "shithole countries", but the particular adjective is not what's important. What's important is the sentiment expressed, which, to rephrase in greater detail, is that if you're from a country experiencing natural disasters, economic hardship, war, etc., or are just a country on a continent of many countries with issues ranging from problems no worse than our own all the way up to the worst sort of problems, then you're not welcome here.
For the record, I'm against basing our immigration policies solely or even primarily on merit. The immigrants who built this country and made it great were not the best and the brightest but those most motivated to make a new and successful life for themselves. That they did it here and not somewhere else is our great fortune. Trump is making many potential immigrants question emigrating to the US, even those who would satisfy merit based approaches, and that is to our detriment.
You ignored everything else I said to focus on the least important question, one which was answered anyway with all the evidence I presented that Trump did indeed say "shithole countries". There's also the issue of Republican senators Cotton and Perdue lying. Cotton even impugned Senator Durbin's reputation, accusing him of misrepresentation. This is just an example of the broader problem of the Republican party serving as Trump enablers.
This thread is about the The Trump Presidency, but it has a strong undertone that questions Trump's fitness for office. Everyday brings new evidence of his unfitness and of his unwillingness to grow into or adapt to the role, and we stopped needing more evidence sometime around the end of the summer in my opinion, and of course other people will have different thresholds of evidence.
But now with Trump's first year coming to a close there can be no one who questions, even those in Trump's base, that this president ignores presidential norms and decorum and treats the truth with reckless abandon. And many in the Republican party are playing the role of enablers, sacrificing their character and integrity on the pyre of political expediency.
Trump places under constant siege our ideals and institutions. We have to somehow make it through these four years with them still intact. Too many Republicans are aiding Trump in his efforts to make chaos and mayhem his legacy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1701 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1705 of 4573 (827016)
01-15-2018 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1703 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 4:35 PM


Re: Lying for Trump
New Cat's Eye writes:
It's important enough to be the focus of all the headlines... because someone said he said it
Discussion makes it possible to delve into issues at a much greater level of detail than headlines. Try it. So far your three recent messages have had 4, 1 and 1 sentences, and seem focused at the most superficial level.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1707 of 4573 (827020)
01-15-2018 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 5:17 PM


Re: Lying for Trump
New Cat's Eye writes:
Regardless of the importance, it is the question I asked.
As NoNukes and I have pointed out and described why, you are focusing on the superficial.
And your evidence is hearsay. Bravo
Except it isn't hearsay. What the president said has been verified through a variety of sources by multiple news outlets.
But much more importantly, the specific words he used is an insignificant issue compared to the sentiments he expressed, which you seem strangely uninterested in. Is it really your sole interest to defend Trump against the claim that he uses salty language? Who's going to believe that?
And you're damning him by defending him about what matters least. When I composed the rules for this forum I purposely left out any rule about language, because it's the meaning of what you say that matters, not how you say it. What words Trump uses to express himself shouldn't matter, assuming children aren't in the room. What matters is that he used a term that left it unambiguously clear just how he feels about countries like El Salvador, Haiti and the entire continent of Africa.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1710 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2018 12:37 AM Percy has replied
 Message 1713 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 8:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1709 of 4573 (827029)
01-15-2018 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 5:17 PM


Re: Lying for Trump
From the New York Times article Trump Comments, Infuriating Africans, May Set Back U.S. Interests (sorry, no link, can’t figure out how to get a URL out of the NYT app):
quote:
Reuben E. Brigety II, who was the United States ambassador to the African Union from 2013 to 2015, said on Monday that he had been in touch with African ministers and ambassadors throughout the weekend.
The appropriate word to describe their reactions to the president’s comments is fury, he said, notwithstanding the fact that the president has said that he didn’t say what was attributed to him. They don’t believe it.
Gee, they don’t believe it. I wonder why. 70% of the American people and the entire rest of the world know just what kind of racist, xenophobic liar we’ve elected president, why don’t you?
Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1711 of 4573 (827036)
01-16-2018 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1710 by NoNukes
01-16-2018 12:37 AM


Re: Lying for Trump
NoNukes writes:
Except it isn't hearsay. What the president said has been verified through a variety of sources by multiple news outlets.
Actually, verification does not prevent something from being hearsay. It just means that the hearsay is likely reliable.
There may be some legal definition you have in mind, but before writing that I looked up "hearsay" in the dictionary, which said it's:
quote:
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate
Another dictionary said it's:
quote:
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge
Since what the president said has been substantiated and verified, it isn't hearsay by these definitions.
I touch on this verification issue in my next message where I review a Washington Post article detailing the meeting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1710 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2018 12:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1714 by NoNukes, posted 01-16-2018 9:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 1712 of 4573 (827037)
01-16-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 5:17 PM


Re: Lying for Trump
Sorry to reply to your message yet a third time, but this morning brought a Washington Post article titled Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration. Let me take you through it.
Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Graham (R-SC) arrived at the oval office last Thursday expecting to meet with Trump to discuss their bipartisan immigration agreement, but that's not what happened:
quote:
But when they arrived at the Oval Office, the two senators were surprised to find that Trump was far from ready to finalize the agreement. He was fired up and surrounded by hard-line conservatives such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who seemed confident that the president was now aligned with them, according to one person with knowledge of the meeting.
The congressional "hard-line conservatives" surrounding Trump were Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
quote:
Trump told the group he wasn’t interested in the terms of the bipartisan deal that Durbin and Graham had been putting together. And as he shrugged off suggestions from Durbin and others, the president called nations from Africa shithole countries, denigrated Haiti and grew angry. The meeting was short, tense and often dominated by loud cross-talk and swearing, according to Republicans and Democrats familiar with the meeting.
Trump's racist character showed itself again when the topic of the Black Caucus came up:
quote:
Attendees who were alarmed by the racial undertones of Trump’s remarks were further disturbed when the topic of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) came up, these people said.
At one point, Durbin told the president that members of that caucus an influential House group would be more likely to agree to a deal if certain countries were included in the proposed protections, according to people familiar with the meeting.
Trump was curt and dismissive, saying he was not making immigration policy to cater to the CBC and did not particularly care about that bloc’s demands, according to people briefed on the meeting. You’ve got to be joking, one adviser said, describing Trump’s reaction.
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly is clearly on board with Trump's agenda and language:
quote:
White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly was in the room and was largely stone-faced, not giving any visible reaction when Trump said shithole countries or when he said Haitians should not be part of any deal, White House advisers said.
About Trump's language:
quote:
Trump was not particularly upset by the coverage of the meeting and his vulgarity after it was first reported by The Washington Post, calling friends and asking how they expected it to play with his political supporters, aides said.
Everyone was saying it would help with the base, which would agree with his characterization, one person who spoke with the president said.
This is disturbing because Trump seems to want to let what his base rule what legislation he signs, rather than working towards compromises acceptable to all sides.
The White House understood there was a brewing controversy but wasn't too concerned because the President didn't seem too concerned:
quote:
By Thursday evening, many White House aides were concerned that the story was exploding beyond the usual level for a Trump controversy, but they carried on with their plans for the night: a send-off for deputy national security adviser Dina Powell, a former Goldman Sachs executive and ally of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Nearly every top official ducked into the exclusive Italian restaurant Cafe Milano in Georgetown to toast Powell. There was little effort to significantly push back on the story that night because aides knew that Trump had said it and that the president wasn’t even too upset, according to people involved in the talks.
Trump later denies he used the language but doesn't deny expressing the sentiments, thereby revealing his willingness to lie about even the littlest things:
quote:
Then Friday morning, Trump appeared to suggest in a tweet that he had not used the objectionable word at all: The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used.
This little excerpt reveals Perdue and Cotton to be just what we thought they were, deceptive little liars for Trump:
quote:
Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard shithouse rather than shithole, allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said.
Representatives for both men declined to comment.
Oh, gee, I wonder why they declined to comment. I wonder if it could be because Cotton just blatantly and baldfacedly lied on national television on Face the Nation when he denied that Trump said the word (even if he did truly believe the president said "shithouse" instead of "shithole", claiming deniability on that basis is simply deceitful, deceptive and unprincipled), he even denied that Trump has expressed the sentiment that people from Haiti, El Salvador and Africa were not welcome. Perdue merely denied that Trump used the language, but that still makes him a liar.
We have a profane, erratic, racist, xenophobic liar for a president surrounded by sycophants. Sad.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1706 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024