Jump to content


Immigration Ban


Recommended Posts


Quote

Mims: "Thank you. There could be an MS-13 gang member I know about — if they don't reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it."
 

Trump: "We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we're stopping a lot of them — but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals. And we're taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that's never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It's crazy.
 

The dumbest laws, as I said before, the dumbest laws on immigration in the world. So we're going to take care of it, Margaret. We'll get it done."

 

 

Does the full context make the "animals" comment sound better?

I mean, he has referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists. The idiot generalizes all the time (when it suits his purposes). To me, the fact that he's replying to someone talking about MS-13 doesn't help a lot, because he never once mentions MS-13 himself. And the fact that I have the context that it's Trump speaking, tells me he thinks they're all the same.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Does the full context make the "animals" comment sound better?

I mean, he has referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists. The idiot generalizes all the time (when it suits his purposes). To me, the fact that he's replying to someone talking about MS-13 doesn't help a lot, because he never once mentions MS-13 himself. And the fact that I have the context that it's Trump speaking, tells me he thinks they're all the same.

 

I'd argue it doesn't. I made one comment about it on Twitter & my notifications have been blown up all day by people arguing about it.

 

No one I know of is making the argument MS-13 are good people. That's preposterous; they're a gang. But my argument (and others I've seen) is that they're still people. The terminology "animals," in reference to anyone, should bother people. Trump has a long history of such dehumanizing language, primarily directed at women & minorities. It's logical to sort this comment into that pile.

 

But then you get the MAGA crowd rolling in with their "ACKSHULLY..." or "When you look at what he was REALLY talking about..." essentially arguing semantic. Ironically, THEY are ignoring the context of his prior use of such language. They miss the forest for the trees.

 

It's an odd stance to make, because you logically would also have to defend using such language against Neo-nazis, skinheads, murderers, etc. But I think this sums up my views perfectly:

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I mean, he has referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists.

 

This isn't incontrovertibly true. It's only true through a specific interpretation.

 

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 

Not saying you're wrong, or defending Trump, but you can't ~technically~ prove any intent in his statements because they're so vague and in broken English that you can't really pin down specifically what they mean. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

This isn't incontrovertibly true. It's only true through a specific interpretation.

 

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 

Not saying you're wrong, or defending Trump, but you can't ~technically~ prove any intent in his statements because they're so vague and in broken English that you can't really pin down specifically what they mean. 

This is comforting.  Our president is so poor with the English language that we can't reasonably dissect his words....

 

I think that NYC attorney needs to expand the list of people to be deported for not speaking "English".

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment

On 5/17/2018 at 8:37 AM, NM11046 said:

If I didn't live in Massachusetts I'd probably live in CA.  BOOM!

 

The same guy that reduced the laws of knowingly infecting others with HIV/AIDS from a felony to a misdemenor. 5th largest economy and 1.3 billion in debt, and cities and the state can't pay pensions. Have fun out there. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Waldo said:

The same guy that reduced the laws of knowingly infecting others with HIV/AIDS from a felony to a misdemenor. 5th largest economy and 1.3 billion in debt, and cities and the state can't pay pensions. Have fun out there. 

Well, California has a very large economy, so debt numbers will always seem high without context. For example, California's combined state and local debt is $426.1 billion and their Gross State Product (GSP, equivalent to gross domestic product for a country) is $2847.6 billion, which gives a debt-to-income ratio of 15.0%. In comparison, Nebraska has a combined state and local debt of only $18.9 billion and GSP of $122.9 billion, which gives a debt-to-income ratio of 15.4%. So California and Nebraska have about the same debt burden when you account for the size of their economies. And if you want to compare per capita, California has 39.8 million people for $10953.73 debt per person; while Nebraska has 1.9 million people for $9947.37 debt per person. Or about $1000 more person for California, which doesn't seem like a whole lot.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Well, California has a very large economy, so debt numbers will always seem high without context. For example, California's combined state and local debt is $426.1 billion and their Gross State Product (GSP, equivalent to gross domestic product for a country) is $2847.6 billion, which gives a debt-to-income ratio of 15.0%. In comparison, Nebraska has a combined state and local debt of only $18.9 billion and GSP of $122.9 billion, which gives a debt-to-income ratio of 15.4%. So California and Nebraska have about the same debt burden when you account for the size of their economies. And if you want to compare per capita, California has 39.8 million people for $10953.73 debt per person; while Nebraska has 1.9 million people for $9947.37 debt per person. Or about $1000 more person for California, which doesn't seem like a whole lot.

 

 

I've also read that they've improved their debt situation quite a bit the past 2-3 years.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I've also read that they've improved their debt situation quite a bit the past 2-3 years.

 

usgs_line.php?title=Gross%20Public%20Deb

It spiked during the financial crisis, but it clearly peaked in 2010-11 & has fallen every year since.  Brown took over as governor in 2011. They've posted surpluses every year since...

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

usgs_line.php?title=Gross%20Public%20Deb

It spiked during the financial crisis, but it clearly peaked in 2010-11 & has fallen every year since.  Brown took over as governor in 2011. They've posted surpluses every year since...

well that doesnt fit the agenda

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...