Dumb Political Correctness

Durbin has a history of lying about private meetings but you libs still believe him over three other witnesses. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2...y_of_lying_about_private_meetings_431501.html

 

Trump reportedly was bragging about it to colleagues saying it was going to play well with the base (he's right). Until it got a little out of hand internationally.

I on't think it's a big deal that he said it compare to all of the rest of the crap he's done. It's very unpresidential but when has that stopped him. Lying about it is the issue, much like all of his other lies.

 

A. That website acted like a Stormy Daniels site.
B. Lindsey Graham concurred with Durbin, correct?

 

If you have trouble with the site it links to Politico. Graham does state that Trump said ******** or something close to it. However, Graham has always been a political coward. If Trump didn't say it I'm not sure Graham would stick up for the prez and take flak like Cotton and Perdue have done. I'm not sure if i should take him seriously or not.

 

According to whom? Let me guess that it's "anonymous sources".

 

I bet Rand Paul gets more. But those are the "good" death threats, right? The ones based on hating his policy?

 

I listened to the Booker tirade. What a sanctimonious tool and bully.

 

The same could be said about Obama, which is not justification for the truth they both spoke about shithol- countries, but I never read you crying about Obama's antics.

 

The point misses that it's not about the 4 letter word. It's about his input into policies that are the worst of your grumpy uncle from Thanksgiving trying to institutionally limit people who don't look like him or who don't pray like him (as if that SOB prays).

 

You need to quit listening to mainstream news. They have brainwashed you.

 

Define "limit?" Are you for open borders? Do you think there should be limits on immigration numbers? Do you believe that we should have quotas to bring people in specifically from certain countries? Do you think merit should be considered? Do you think we should give special consideration to people who come from specific countries, regardless of their merit or ability to or willingness to assimilate?

 

I think in this case, Trump was discriminating against the least developed/poorest countries. It was not look or belief based.

Also, I have suprisingly heard from a lot of friends on the left (including some I have not heard from in general in awhile) that were very turned off by Booker’s tirade. I have not seen all that much positve feedback to it on social media either. I think Booker may have taken it a bridge too far.

 

He was screaming at and being very hostile to a woman. If a Republican senator talked in that tone to a female witness, all we'd hear about is how sexist he was for approaching her that way and"mansplaining" at her.

 

I know your questions weren't for me, but I'll answer them anyway.

No.

Yes.

Yes, but that should be only part of the immigration system. See answer to next question for context.

Yes, qualified. I think we should have fairly generous immigration for people who will be productive pretty much from the get-go. If you can contribute to our society in a concrete way, we want you. But I also think we should be taking a significant number of the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free" that are described on the Statue of Liberty. That is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation, and I can't fathom abandoning it.

Yes. I already discussed merit in response to the prior questions. Regarding ability to or willingness to assimilate, the United States has witnessed countless waves of immigration over the decades. In every one of those waves, the immigrants themselves rarely assimilated. They maintained their original culture, including language, diet, and dress. Their children straddled cultures, familiar with the old but also comfortable with the new. Their grandchildren were fully American, with little connection to their grandparents' homeland.

Note that I feel very differently about immigrants from countries with poor records. If we can't be reasonably sure that the immigrant isn't anti-American, they shouldn't be let in. I say "reasonably sure" because nothing is a certainty.

 

And they would be wrong just as the RNC and their parrot media sites are for pushing the "mansplaining" narrative now. She's the Homeland Security Secretary and should be able to take the tongue-lashing she received. From what little I saw of the hearing, it didn't rattle her. The language is abhorrent and undignified. The fact that the POTUS' language continues to be explained away should be called out as the enabling it is. Much props to Graham and Durbin.

 

I think that's where a lot of conservatives went off the rails, but I think it had more to do with the fact that many dems have traditionally played the "mean, rude, patriarch" card when a senator aggressively questions a female liberal. It's more about throwing the accusation back in someone's face than it is actually believing that Booker's a sexist. Listening to most of them, though, eventually it's pretty clear that their main issue is that Booker's being a drama queen for the purposes of propping up a presidential run.

 

I do not blame Booker, he is just getting some publicity for the next Presidential race.

 

The feedback I received about Booker was just that the whole thing did not merit a screaming tirade he chose to have. Some of my friends who consider themselves in the #Resistance enjoy going on screaming tirades about Trump, but they just felt that was not the time. I am not sure Booker helped himself, but it is too early to tell.

 

This whole incident made me smirk and then chuckle till I saw the Booker charade, what a ****hole. Her ability to sit and take it gains great respect (and amazement) by me.

 

Without quoting all of NJ's responses, I think that most Americans who aren't running a political party and have a reasonable amount of common sense would agree with those principles. The variables to me seem to be the numbers, the actual commitment level to border security that will accompany them, and the level of importance that country of origin has in the selection process. (Did I leave some things out?)

I do think that it makes sense to focus at least to some degree on countries where there's some level of hardship. To the extent that the person comes in and is able to contribute without immediately going on assistance, has a skill set that is in demand in the current job market, and is from a culture that isn't essentially hostile to our current culture (yes... if someone believes Sharia law should be implemented at a community level, they don't need to be coming here), and to the extent that the person is not bringing over handfuls of relatives which exponentially increase the admitted number of immigrants, then I don't think most people have an issue.

Basically, it seems to me that we're just wrangling at this point over the words Trump chose, and not the actual policy (which we don't actually know at this point.) I just don't think there's that much objection to ending (or at least dramatically curtailing) chain migration and ensuring that any lottery program is not, in fact, a pure lottery, but does include merit factors. Basically I'd just like to see us treat applications as individuals and not as ethnic groups. I don't think that's particularly unreasonable.

The other issue for me is what the rank and file democrats on the street want and what their leaders are trying to accomplish are - in my opinion - substantially different.

 

I'm sure Booker was a political opportunist in that moment. He's got me convinced that he's passionate about this issue. With that said, he and others are most certainly looking to create soundbites that become viral.

 

I'd agree with that. Your statement is fundamental to the American dream, IMHO. Trump's language as quoted didn't support that statement which is why I personally was upset.

 

You must be easily convinced.

 

Hypocrite. Where was he in 2008 when the Dems could have passed legislation

 

He wasn't in the Senate back then. Either way, that doesn't excuse him acting like a raging prick.

 

Maybe he was channeling his alter ego "T-bone."

 

I agree with you, mostly. The issue I think is that we aren't nuanced enough to separate country from ethnic group. That NJ guy is pretty sharp. I could not improve on his writing one bit. I think the real issue is that our President thinks and, at times speaks, in terms of "Haiti, they all have aids"...."Nigeri, they're all in huts and send me weird emails"...."El Salvador....they're all Mexicans (despite the fact that the whole implosion of that country is part of some of our own meddling)"..."Norweigans, they're good, I met their Prime Minister this week..." He needs to let some of the moderate GOP folks shape his views on this and not the Stephen Miller's of the world.

 

As I've mentioned, I'm half Cuban. My college roommate, a pretty arrogant guy from Boston used to call me, "The Mexican." It was in the spirit of a drunken young man giving his roomie some **** fully expecting to get some in return. I'd always say, "John, I'm Cuban" and he'd go, "What's the difference!"

 

This is virtually spot-on with my experience. My Grandmother came over from Cuba with my Father. She never learned English. She basically reconstructed a little Cuba in her home and later in her room when she moved in with my Dad in her final years. I'm the grandson you are referring to. I'm fully American with little connection to Cuba other than the love of it's music, food and the pride I have in my family's accomplishments. But if I were deported back to Cuba I'd be a streetwalker until I figured out how to survive.