Summations Only

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.Now, the people in the meeting are saying that he didn't say that.Your conclusion is that the people in the meeting are lying and the one person claiming otherwise is definitely the truth?

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’ countriesI 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.Edited by Percy, : AbE2.

Your summary is inaccurate. Perhaps your sources are incomplete. Two people originally said they did not recall the statement, one of whom now says that the statement was not made at all. Beyond that, we have one person refusing to comment, and two Senators (one Republican and one Democrat) who have confirmed that the reports of Trump making the statement are accurate.

Plus we now have him bragging about it:

quote:

---

Conservative Journalist Says Trump Bragged About 'S**thole' Comments

​

Conservative reporter Erick Erickson said Sunday that President Donald Trump called friends to brag about his reported remarks describing Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as s**thole countries.

​

It’s weird that people in the room don’t remember Trump using that word when Trump himself was calling friends to brag about it afterwards, tweeted the columnist. I spoke to one of those friends. The President thought it would play well with the base."

---

Which indeed it has, plus it achieved the goal of distraction from the Russian probes.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

I don't think much to report in that area right now. If something newsworthy jumps up, I expect that it will be covered. But absent something like Trump firing Mueller ending up on the back page, I am not worried too much about the distraction from that.Now maybe we are being distracted away from the recently passed tax legislation...

quote:

---

President Donald Trump called friends to brag about his reported remarks...

​

The President thought it would play well with the base.

---

Disgusting.

So did he say shithole or not?

Is that an important point? I understand that there are some folks who want to make that the center of discussion, but it should not be.FWIW, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that he did use the term based on the evidence available. But Trump's use of "sailor's language" would not be the most important concern I would have.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's important enough to be the focus of all the headlines... because someone said he said it

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

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

Regardless of the importance, it is the question I asked. And your evidence is hearsay. Bravo

As NoNukes and I have pointed out and described why, you are focusing on the superficial. 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

Apparently, you are aware of how superficial your question is. I'll note that so far you've turned down the opportunity to engage in any less superficial portion of the dialogue here. Perhaps you are too busy engaging in real life to have anything to contribute here.

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

Actually, verification does not prevent something from being hearsay. It just means that the hearsay is likely reliable.