Sen. Perdue Denies President Said “Shithole” Countries Remark

David_Perdue,_Official_Portrait,_114th_CongressAs we discussed yesterday, both Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have said that President Donald Trump did indeed refer to Haiti and Africa as “shithole” countries.  However, Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) on ABC This Week says that the word was never used. Period. He also said that the meeting was “productive” and suggested that Durbin is lying (and has lied previously) about such meetings.  PreviouslyTom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Sen. Perdue have said that they simply do not recall.  Now Purdue says that he has a clear recollection and the words were never used.  Sen. Jeff Flake has said that he met with members in the meeting before the words were made public and that members openly discussed Trump’s use of these words.  Finally, a conservative columnist has gone public with the allegation that he spoke to friends of the President who said that he called to boast about using the term to energize his base.

President Donald Trump is denying that he referred to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries” in a meeting with members of Congress.  Perdue said on Sunday: “I’m telling you he did not use that word, George. And I’m telling you it’s a gross misrepresentation. How many times do you want me to say that?”

In the meantime, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen appeared on Fox Sunday with Chris Wallace (who in my opinion is consistently one of the best interviewers in the media). She said that she did not recall if the words were used.  Wallace was clearly skeptical and pressed her on the how dubious such a statement sounds. He noted that he could understand if she said that Trump never said it or did say it. However he noted that few people believe that such a statement by the President would not be recalled.  Nielsen looked distinctly uncomfortable but maintained that position even as Wallace noted that Graham reportedly confronted the President on the use of the words.  Moreover, Perdue, Graham, Durbin has clear (if conflicting memories) while Nielsen just does not remember if the President made such a highly inflammatory remark.

Flake said on ABC This Week that participants in that meeting had no such problem recollecting the words and spoke openly about the controversy before the words became public.

This is why the public has such open contempt for politicians.  Either the words were used or not used but, as noted by Wallace, few people believe that these politicians would not remember such a scene and shocking language.  In the end, I am more concerned with the fact that someone is obviously lying and I do not accept the moral relativism in Washington that no one expects you to tell the truth when it is beneficial to you or your party.

Do you believe that anyone could be in a meeting with six people in the Oval Office and not recall whether such language (and subsequent objections) were heard?

If not, do you believe Durbin/Graham or Perdue?

232 thoughts on “Sen. Perdue Denies President Said “Shithole” Countries Remark”

  1. Why is this a story? Turley is playing it up like he did with the Moore story. JT obviously had an anti-Moore agenda, so reason states he’s Anti-Trump. Turley, please save your criticism for a real reason. “Moral relativism” is just an excuse when you get sucked into the hysteria. Never listen to what politicians say; watch what they do!
    I wonder how long this post lasts until Turley deletes it.

  2. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    So this whole sorry mess sinks further into the foetid swamp of politics. The question of developing a possible immigration policy is subsumed beneath the web of faulty memories,lies and obfuscations of politicians. The whole exacerbated by the extreme polarisation of US politics in 2018. Overheated further by personal animosities between many of the actors in this travesty.

  3. Actually, yes,

    There are a number of false premises.

    Sorry but calling Haiti and El Salvador “shithole nations” is both accurate and not racist.
    It is merely coarse. I do not presume that private meetings with the president are all conducted in the language of public diplomacy. We in fact know that the majority of presidents – including Obama can be extremely vulgar in private meetings.

    I highly doubt that “shithole nation” was the most vulgar remark in the meeting.
    I highly doubt Graham spoke out.
    I highly doubt that any of the participants accurately remember the precise valugarities used.
    I highly doubt that the course language was confined to Trump.

    This whole issue is a stupid spittle contest.

    I do not care whether Trump said “shithole nation” and I am not a Trump supporter.
    I have little doubt actual Trump supporters are cheering.
    Most of the fuming is from those who would be outraged no matter what.

    I do not know if Durbin is lying, but I think that true or false Durbin made a huge mistake – there is absolutely no reason for anyone to discuss anything with Durbin in private again. He has substantially diminished his ability to negotiate.

    All of use need to get past the idiocy of trying to find the Trump outrage of the day and figure our how to negotiate a budget deal and a resolution of the immigration issue.

    I think that the overwhelming majority of americans support:
    avoiding deporting “dreamers”
    ending or limiting “chain migration”
    substantially improving border security
    and building a wall is necessary to get a deal.

    Trump is holding a Royal Flush and democrats need to strike the best deal they can get – rather than pretending they can go home with everything.

    I think this entire kerflufle is a deliberate attempt to game the negotiations.

    It is also a huge mistake because Democrats have a very small but very angry base that wants them to cede nothing, and idiotically beleives they are going to prevail through magic.

    1. The only thing that matters is what the politicians are really doing behind the smoke screen of this worthless story.

    2. “Durbin made a huge mistake – there is absolutely no reason for anyone to discuss anything with Durbin in private again. He has substantially diminished his ability to negotiate.”

      That is a major point to take away from this discussion.

      Feinstein improperly released Simpson’s testimony. How does that impact future testimony? I believe that the Senate should permit virtually everything to be released on this subject. Does that make it right for others to flaunt the Senate’s rules? Why have rules if they will be broken?

    3. I agree that this materially damaged any future negotiations, especially with Durbin.

      When Obama became President, he literally told Republicans to “get to the back of the bus.” You will note there was no flurry of outrage at the racist allegation. There was zero attempt at bipartisan negotiation, and the resulting Obamacare was a complete, unmitigated disaster.

      When Trump became President, he actually reached across the aisle, and negotiated with the every people who had claimed he was insane, should be forcibly evaluated, unfit for office, and who spread the libel dossier about him. But he sat down in a room and tried to work out a deal.

      One of the members of that opposing negotiating party complained that Trump used vulgar language about other nations. This is the same terms that the Left and Right have used for Third World problems, at times, although it’s not one I normally use. Environmentalists routinely use it to describe serious brownfields or contamination. It is a vulgarity common in parlance.

      This just sabotaged negotiations, present and future, with the President. So when Democrats do not have a future say, they can point to this moment.

      My father used to be a negotiator for our government. There is no way in hell he would have publicly complained about a dang thing that the opposing side said about anyone or anything, because his worth as a future negotiator would have been in the toilet. Negotiating calls for diplomacy.

      I firmly believe that this was a deliberate attempt to sabotage bipartisan agreements between Democrats and Republicans. Trump was working out a deal, and you can’t have that if your entire premise is that he’s raving mad.

      That said, Durbin laid a trap for Trump. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what was said. However, “I do not recall” typically means “Please God don’t get me involved in this lega/political mess”. Therefore, my suspicion is that either this phrase, or something similar, was used. I do not know anything about Durbin’s history of lying, but if it wasn’t said, then I would have expected a more robust defense.

      In the end, it comes down to how Trump handles these types of boobytraps, which will be a common occurrence throughout his Presidency.

      There are many ways he could have admitted to using vulgarity, and laughed at Durbin acting the Pollyanna. It would have been an opportunity for an effective pivot, and maintained focus.

      The Dems have often been successful in moving the narrative off of the surprising number of successes to these fabricated crises. Why is this a fabricated crisis if Trump used foul language? Because most Presidents use vulgarities in such private meetings. To act shocked is absurd. To behave as if calling a place a “s&*(&hole” is racist is illogical, as the term has been applied to Russia, and Europe where terrorism support and extremism is sweeping neighborhoods. There is nothing inherently racist in claiming that a place has sunk low.

      1. While the Democrats and press are focusing in on inconsequential matters Trump is moving the nation in a new direction. Trump admitted to using strong words and I don’t believe the term “shithole” is an affront to intelligent people. People living in “shitholes” know the circumstances they are living in. Coincidental, but true is the fact that when first married I referred to the place my wife and me lived as a “shithole”. It was dangerous, 15 amps of electric total, leaks from the upstairs, roaches etc. I knew it was a “shithole” so I did the best I could and got the heck out of there before one of us ended up as a victim. It was the greatest stimulator for future success.

    4. dhill, thank you for your insightful response to Mr. Turley. One of the reasons @JonathanTurley is included in my Twitter feed short list, is not only because of his own well reasoned submissions, but also because of the typical higher quality of responses like yours.
      This is the first time I have ever responded on Twitter. Thank you for motivating me to do so!

      I trust that Mr. Turley will pick up on your response. While I understand from his legal background why he would be drawn to the truth-telling aspect of this story, I do look forward to hearing more from him re. the bigger picture that you fleshed out so well.

      I did find the query of who to believe to be simplistic at the least. After all, the world of communication has many exhibits of even video (with the advantage of the moving image in addition to audible words) – that have been shown to be grossly misinterpreted due to faulty human perception and bias.

      Lastly, as you and others have highlighted better than I could – ‘vulgar’, and ‘unpresidential’ maybe legitimate examples of accusations against Trump (however, not credibly by Dems given the almost celebrated potti-mouths of the last Prez. & Vice.) – but the leap to the “racist” label is surely a wholly biased one, (or to be charitable) a lazy one. (notwithstanding that the nations mentioned happened to major in black & brown inhabitants).

      1. You are going to play those cards versus Trump’s alleged language when:

        – The Washington Post in June 2017 PRAISED Kirsten Gillibrand’s use of the f-bomb, admitting that the woman has a limited vocabulary and maturity when it comes to articulating her point of view.

        – Tom Perez can’t get behind a podium without issuing forth a stream of vile language.

        – What Obama and Hillary both said is far more troubling than Trump calling a ****hole country a ****hole country.

        1. andrewworkshop – let us not forget potty mouth John McCain, the darling of the liberal press.

  4. For Turley and the other scheisskopfs who simply cannot get enough sheissloch, I suggest you replay the following video about 100 times a day for a week. Normally, this would cure even the most die hard scheisskopf, but in the deranged, perverted, and twisted “mental” circuitry of the Leftist, 700 times over a week is not nearly enough.

  5. Why have European and US policy makers prefered to attack and plunder resource rich countries rather than helping the people who live there?

    1. The donor class has likely decided that Trump, after having delivered the tax bill they wanted, is now detrimental to them plundering people’s retirement via elimination of Social Security. The ratcheting up of rhetoric against Trump helps the Koch’s get their replacement into the Oval Office, Mike Pence.

      1. Riddle us this Linda, if the oligarchs are hell bent on shoving you and everyone else into poverty, then how do they get to continue being oligarchs if you have no wealth they can take from you?

        And I’ll ask for the umpteenth time – what is ochlocracy?

        1. The answer to your question is the same explanation for why America was brought to financial Armageddon in 2008.
          Economist Picketty documented the ship is sinking just as you suggest. Six heirs to the Walton fortune have wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans combined. Each of the world’s richest 5 men have wealth equivalent to 750,000,000 people and their wealth is concentrating as indicated by no real wage increase for U.S. labor in 35+ years..

  6. Purdue is a 100% liar! Of course president effing moron said it. I know it. and so does every American or poster here willing to put country before party.

    Purdue at first lied when he said he didn’t remember (along with the traitor, Tom Cotton). That was obviously a lie. But now, the liar purdue insists the phrase “shithole countries” and preferring immigrants from Norway it wasn’t said at all? Really? And now the conservative response to president racist is to go in 100% lie mode? How shameful!

    For trashing his oath of office, both the liar Purdue and Tom Traitor/Cotton should immediately resign., Will they put country first. Not a chance. But if they did, they would immediately resign.

    As for the racist moron sitting in the White (Yea! it is a WHITE, WHITE, WHITE, WHITE, WHITE house) house, we’ve not in a long time had a weaker, more embarrassing, lying president. Rome fell……so shall we!

      1. Purdue is a public university created as a gift by the taxpayers to give students the opportunities denied them by legacy-admission colleges. Unfortunately, privatizers from the regional chamber of commerce now dominate the university board.

    1. You need a sedative. It shows this non-story is working on the emotionally vulnerable.

      1. and you need an honesty pill – your response shows that this important foreign policy story that could influence the USA’s future relationships in Africa and elsewhere, passes over the intellectually vacant

        1. That’s rich. Foreign policy isn’t done by six people behind closed doors. The presumed countries of the offended don’t have much to offer as far as DIME power. And the major governments of the world aren’t going to change policy based on a few choice words about those “offended” countries.

          1. The major governments of the world have and are changing policies based on the words and actions of the utter buffoons the gullible rubes and klan-wannabees elected.

            this is to “but Hannity hasn’t mentioned it to me yet” mistake

            1. No they are not. You truly do not understand how governments operate within or with each other. You’re entitled to an opinion but obviously the facts elude you.

                1. Hagel is another RINO serving on the Dems best interests. Of course he’s going to say that. All establishment Repubs are against Trump. It’s collusion. The story is nonsense. Even Durbin is walking back his statement. The shithole story was a cover for the real story, which is Dems don’t want to negotiate DACA. Attack is preferential to defense in politics, so they muster this idiotic story to consume the media shows.

  7. Given the Republican logic that it’s fine to use salty language and that there are countries appropriately described as “sh___oles”, why would the WH lie about saying it…..because grand lies are what the administration and Republican leadership do for the donor class to make it clear that the 99% are dupes.

    It’s just like the false imagery associated with Social Security that Paul Ryan peddles for the donor class.

    Trump will be President until the Koch’s decide otherwise.

    1. So unbiased aren’t you Linda? Of course Obama and Hillary are/were so terribly truthful about so many weighty matters. Yet I guess all you see is one side.

      1. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t even tell the most beneficial lie, for her candidacy. She wouldn’t say that Social Security wouldn’t be cut during her administration. If she had made that promise, she might have been elected. But, Bloomberg and Wall Street bankers wouldn’t have supported her. So, disparaging Hillary
        for lying is off the mark. There are accurate criticisms that can be leveled against her. But, they are very dissimilar to those that are descriptive of Trump.

        1. It was a video.
          I will do everything I can to bring the perpetrators to justice.
          Bubba boinking and raping? Vast right-wing conspiracy.
          Under sniper fire.
          Against gay marriage. Um, for gay marriage.

  8. For the record, if I were betting on this silly issue, I would bet Trump did use “shithole.”

  9. Liberals here and nationwide have referred to states in the southern US as “shitholes” and worse. LBJ called the Voting Rights Act his “nigger bill.” Please remember, the biggest swing topic that got Trump elected was PC. And one sidebar observation, at least this has gotten JT to ease up on the very useful word of “shit.”

    1. Name a nationally known liberal who has used that term to describe a southern state, I will wait.

      1. Or how about simply “deplorable” and “irredeemable?” About one’s own citizens – seems much much worse to me. Trump is basically correct, while Hillary is wrongly disparaging roughly half of the citizens of her own country.

    2. The issue is not so much he used the term shithole” to describe some countries. The issue is that he wants to block entirely immigrants from the entire continent of Africa, then El Salvador and Haiti. While opening his arms to countries like Denmark. It’s not about “merit-based” which is what he now claims he intended, He wanted to block them all. Some of his base is concerned about the browning of America and he’s just the man to put an end to it whether it be by banning Muslims or blocking those from “shithole countries.”

      As for Perdue, was he lying earlier or lying now? I’m certain he was lying in both statements.

      1. Enigma, It sounds like you are not interested in an immigration policy that helps America and Americans that include people of all races rather you are interested in reducing the number of white voters. I think that type of attitude is racist.

      2. “block entirely.” Please provide evidence of this.

        And I will tell you I am concerned about changing the character of our country by randomly and massively importing poor people and those that don’t share our values.

          1. “The evidence is Trump’s words. He said what he meant.”

            We have to remember that all interpretation of words spoken by Trump have to go through Enigma’s color filter.

      3. Enigma, re “…opening his arms to countries like Denmark” – doing so reduces the number of immigrants applying to get in – how many folks from countries with excellent social benefits want to immigrate here unless they are already super wealthy?

  10. There are a number of issues here ranging from ‘shithole’ specific to the inherent problem with the American governmental, election, leadership, disaster.

    First, momentum is the guiding morality for America and its systems. If it is moving, has moved, and appears to move in a seemingly beneficial direction then no one really gives a sh*t. We have an oligarchy for a government with representatives that are essentially contradictions or oxymorons. Yet, when things appear to go okay, coupled with blind patriotism, we look at them in their thousand dollar suits and admire or detest them depending on which side of the line they seem to be. In reality they all walk the line sketched out by special interests and money from oligarchs. The lies are a given.

    Second, distraction is one of the primary tools in a gut conducted negotiation. If you can keep your opponent focused on your points and distract him and the negotiation from his points, then time dictates that you have the upper hand. Trump is essentially an ego. He was born with all the connections, wealth, and accolades that come from royalty of this sort. Trump demands and has always demanded to be treated like royalty, be told he is smart, be applauded for all of his accomplishments up to the point of being recognized for how little his failures cost him. Trump is a presence built on the momentum of wealth, the fear of those working for him losing their jobs, and his overwhelming need to be the center of attention. But, Trump knows how to run a negotiation, and that is what this is.

    Third, Trump is, because of the shallowness of his self-he has never really put any effort into what he has done as he has said himself/he was set up in life as he has said himself/his only final responses when faced with his shortcomings are to lie, blame others, lie, deride others, lie, and fabricate history, the present, and the future through unending lies. Trump revels in this attention. This attention distracts from the damage he is doing to America in pandering to the oligarchs and Republicans-after all Trump has not depth and has quipped both in favor of the left as well as the right through out his life.

    Trump is Trump and being accused of referring to third world countries as ‘shitholes’ serves him on many levels. It primarily serves to strengthen his base, those who understand what he is saying, agree with him, and/or would like to say the same thing but can’t.

    This works for Trump. He sets a new bar. He makes a point that would, if presented euphemistically, be ignored. He creates chaos on the side of Congress. Trump comes out of this laughing his head off, if he has any sense of humor at all.

    This is what we get for leadership when we ignore reality and rest on our laurels and myths, perversely or not.

    1. Your post is ignorant. Fact is, these countries – whether Trump said it or not – are ****holes. You can run around virtue signaling all you want about the choice of language. As you do, I will refer to you Gillibrand, Perez, Clinton, and Obama who either regularly use the same language or worse.

      The whole thing is a stunt. What is tomorrow? Hint, that’s part A of the stunt. The part B is concealing other news that otherwise would’ve dominated coverage. Things like the Lambert 11 count indicment announced a day ago. Things like the dossier breakthrough that will hit tomorrow or Tuesday mid-morning at the latest.

      What is an ocholocracy and why do you advocate for it?

  11. Ok he may have said it. But if we take away the “emotional” side of things, those countries are SHITHOLES. Hence why there was a conversation with the President about immigration….if they weren’t shit hole countries then immigration would not be a discussion for them.

    1. I agree. Unlike all the virtue signalers. I have been to many of these places. I have seen things you’d have to believe with your own eyes for things are that bad in such places. There’s a reason Americans prefer to vacation in say Denmark rather than Djibouti, or in New Orleans rather than Nigeria. It has little to do with the color of skin and more to do with a desire not to contract disease merely by washing one’s hands. (Yes, I’ve been to a place where unless you knew the water had been heated to a boil it was advised to not wash ones hands with it or consume it).

        1. TBob, great video. We have a local non profit – Water Mission that helps out globally.

          As much as I commend their efforts/success I would like to see everyone in the U.S. have access to safe drinking water

    2. Countries don’t immigrate, people do, and some are “very nice people” Trump wants to block them all. Everyone from Africa, El Salvador, and Haiti. He didn’t advocate “merit-based” which he now said was his intent. He was very clear.

      1. Enigma, Trump never said any of that. He wants merit-based immigration. You are looking for selective immigration and based on your own words it looks like your method of selection is based on color.

          1. Enigma, you just never listen to Trump unless his words have been cut and pasted by the left wing media. He stated “merit-based” over 20 years ago and hasn’t stopped.

            Look at your color selection for who should enter the country. It isn’t based on merit. Color, color, and color. When will you learn color is only skin deep and we should look at a man’s character rather than the color of his skin.

      2. You seem to think the Democrats see ‘very nice people’…they see votes and cheap labor.

        A merit-based system would allow in qualified people from shithole countries too – even those with predominantly black and brown populations.

        Recall that Trump had just been meeting with the PM of Norway earlier that day. Hence, Norway was the country that came to his mind to say.

            1. You may be asking what did I personally hear him say? The answer was nothing but I have no problem believing the reports from those in the room, some of whom may have developed amnesia later but freely talked about it with their colleagues after the meeting. Even Trump and the administration didn’t initially deny it until they saw how bad things had become.

              He’s involved with another battle with the Wall Street Journal about what he said about North Korea’s leader, even though they have it (and released it) on tape. Who ya gonna believe, Trump or your lying ears?

              President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

              “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

              “Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

              1. I only asked because you said, “Trump wants to block them all. Everyone from Africa, El Salvador, and Haiti.”

                Block them all? Everyone from the entire continent of Africa?

                That’s not at all what I heard. I heard that he wants to end the lottery system in favor of a merit-based system, though I haven’t heard what those necessary merits might be. And my understanding is that “take them out” referred to take those numbers out of the deal being put forth.

              2. And I asked because you said to Allan, “You’re listening to what others say he meant as opposed to what he actually said.”

                And since you can only know what he ‘actually said’ based upon news reports, and conflicting “he said, I heard, I didn’t hear,” first-hand reports, you are in fact listening to what others say he said, no?

                1. Meaning…that listening to what others say he said is not the same as hearing what he actually said.

                  1. My interpretation of the comment “take them out” is that he was most likely telling them to take certain numbers of people out of the proposed deal that the Dems were trying to slip in. Then when Trump balked, and allegedly said, “take them out” — they tried to shame him into agreeing to include their numbers/countries, and when he wouldn’t, Durbin chose to leak a private negotiation conversation that created a global sh*tstorm. To what end? To hurt Trump and derail the DACA negotiations. Dirty politics.

                    So now if the Dems stall it, rather than reaching a deal in good faith and solving the problem, they can hang the “DACA/Trump is a racist” issue over the voters as we go into the midterm elections and keep pounding away at it.

                    I see Trump as wanting to limit the flow of unskilled third world migrant labor into the country precisely because he sees it as negatively impacting our citizens and especially our black communities. This is hardly racist.

                    And I take it to mean that Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries will be included — but under a system based on individual merits, rather than a lottery system based on a certain number from a specific country. Again, not racist. He’s trying to protect US citizens – including our black communities that numbers show are often disproportionately effected by both legal and illegal immigration.

                    1. ” I see what he says on a regular basis.”

                      You don’t see what he says on a regular basis Enigma. You hear from sources what they would like you to think he said and many of those sources hate Trump and are race-baiters.

                      When asked to prove things in the past you have failed miserably.

                    2. “Most of what In attribute to Trump is in his public statements, on video, for the world to see.”

                      Enigma, that is such Bull. You quote statements that never existed on paper or video. Sometimes you quote out of context. You even called him a racist based on a news article that you said proved his father to be a racist. I quoted the article and it didn’t prove anything of the sort. You then called Donald J Trump a racist because you believed his father was one and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

                      One cannot trust anything you say when race is involved.

                      Answer the real questions.

                      1) What racist ideas do you have against American Citizens of any color? Don’t their lives count?

                      2) What is your objection to merit and suitability?

                    3. There you go with your demands again after misstating my comments, positions and sources. As mespo I believe once pointed out to me, your questions are your purview, my answers are mine.
                      For the record, I called Fred Trump a racist not only because he was arrested alongside other Klan members rioting against NY police (and they all shared the same lawyer) but because he actively engaged in Housing discrimination to the point he was sued twice by the Justice Department.

                    4. “For the record, I called Fred Trump a racist not only because he was arrested alongside other Klan members rioting against NY police (and they all shared the same lawyer)”

                      Enigma, there were marchers, protesters, and onlookers. Fred Trump was let go because he did nothing. You have never disclosed data on what any of the people arrested did and I don’t think you had the slightest idea. You just decided to call a lot of people racists because it suited your politics and they may have just been onlookers. Same thing for the housing dispute which was common to many landlords in NYC. Radical groups tried to entrap many landlords. They were like you. They wanted to call landlords racists if they were of the wrong color. It was that type of political maneuvering that caused about 100,000 units to be voluntarily turned into the City of NY without payment for the property in ~one years time. It was similar policies that almost caused the bankruptcy of NYC. You don’t give a damn even though many of those policies hurt African Americans. We differ because I care about Americans no matter what color they are.

                      Your entire argument revolves around the color of one’s skin and not their character so let us deal with the underlying questions you refuse to answer with good reason. You can’t answer them because Trump is right and that creates a problem for your political agenda.

                      1) What racist ideas do you have against American Citizens of any color? Don’t their lives count?

                      2) What is your objection to merit and suitability?

                    5. “I refuse to answer your questions ”

                      Enigma I’ll deal with only one of the immigration questions. You said this question “assumes things not true”.

                      If you don’t object to this question then you agree with Trump and disagree with our present policy of chain migration and lotteries sprinkled with illegals.

                      “What is your objection to merit and suitability?”

                    6. There you go again, telling me what I agree with and what Trump believes at the same time. I think chain migration is pretty much the way families have always come to this country including Trump’s. If Friedrich Trump’s sister had not preceded him, we wouldn’t have had this present bunch to deal with. Those wanting to end chain migration, basically want to shut the door now that they and their clan have gotten in. The lottery system exists to make sure we don’t end up excluding countries that have had low acceptance during the previous five years. Trump opposes it because he wants to exclude people from certain countries. I’m not sure what your point is that many “illegals” come through that program. If they receive a green card, are they not legal?
                      I ask you, who would you trust to administer merit and sustainability. If you want to see an overall increase in education level, that probably won’t affect the African nations like you might think because they are already sending a higher percentage of doctors and graduate level students than most other countries. In the same way, I wouldn’t trust Trump to administer any such program, you might not trust any progressive administration to do so. Requiring fluent English would have eliminated Fred Trump and a high percentage of all the immigrants in American history. I don’t see that as a problem usually lasting more than a generation. Most immigrants I’m aware of feel it’s essential to their success to learn the language and do well in school. Please tell me how this “merit-based” immigration system would work in detail and who would get to decide who qualifies and who doesn’t.

                    7. Enigma writes: “There you go again, telling me what I agree with”

                      Nope, just demonstrating your hypocrisy that I think is clear to most thinking people I pointed out If you don’t object to this question then you agree with Trump and disagree with our present policy of chain migration and lotteries sprinkled with illegals.

                      “What is your objection to merit and suitability?”

                      Instead of answering the question you latch onto chain migration and the lottery system which in Enigma talk seems to be an objection to merit and suitability. You give lip service to African physicians that may very well have merit proving the point that one advocating merit and suitability is colorblind something you don’t seem to want. However, one need not be educated to have merit. Merit depends on what the US needs.

                      Poorer Americans which includes blacks and Latinos are competing for jobs with a lot of untrained labor that has entered the nation. We have to get control over this problem so that our poorer citizens can have jobs and not have their services so devalued.

                      That brings us to question #1) What racist ideas do you have against American Citizens of any color? Don’t their lives count?

                      Let me permit you in on a little secret. I think we will need immigration in the future once we absorb the recent immigrants and whoever else is allowed in, but first, we need to protect our borders. Then we have to make sure that those that have immigrated here learn English and adopt our underlying culture (while holding onto their own) which includes our government and the Constitution. We need not admit anyone who will be a drain on our society. I am not unaccustomed to minorities so my question is what is best for America and those in need that are citizens of America. Your question seems to involve color.

                      I wish to maintain America as America and I would think immigrants would want that as well or they wouldn’t be coming here. If they wish to change America maybe they should stay put.

                    8. Not at all, never have, I’m asking who do you think would fairly decide? Consider the possibility that the House and Senate may no longer be in Republican hands after 2018 and the people making the decision now might not be the same next year.

                    9. Fair enough. That is a bureaucracy Congress has control over. There are reasons for permitting immigration. Those reasons should satisfy the needs of American citizens rather than the needs of anyone else. Remember not everyone that is permitted to work in the US needs to get citizenship or entitlement benefits. If they are here working I think the company they work for should be covering all of their costs, not the American taxpayer. Citizenship should be something special.

                      If you are concerned that politics might enter decision making (“possibility that the House and Senate may no longer be in Republican hands after 2018 “) then perhaps citizenship and the right to vote should be substantially delayed in the hope that such a provision would decrease political gamesmanship.

                      Open borders do not function well in a nation with significant entitlements.

                      We should probably look at the immigration and naturalization laws of other nations such as Switzerland and Mexico.

                    10. Then you advocate for completely closed and sealed borders? That’s the only logical conclusion based on your position because you a) don’t support open borders and b) distrust those charged with choosing who does and does not get to come to America and attain citizenship.

                    11. I’m amazed at the people who presume to tell me what I believe? I do distrust an arbitrary system and can’t picture this administration coming up with anything but. DHS Secretary Nielsen said under oath today that Trump liked Norwegians because they were “industrious and hard-working” which seems about as arbitrary as you can get. I’m going to go out on a limb and ask what your comfort level would be with a program designed by Obama and Hillary?

                    12. Trump said Norwegians and Asians who are not white, but that is left out of many of the comments on the news since they could claim racism if only the white Norwegians were brought up. A stupid claim, but who says left wingers are smart especially in the news business. It might be that he used Norway as an example because he had just met with the Norwegian ambassador.

                      So many people continuously trying to play the race card.

                    13. So it’s not possible to just hate black and brown people? He’s been demonstrating it his entire adult life, Why does that surprise you? If I don’t respond immediately to your future posts. It will be because I’m living my life for a while. You should try it. Good night!

                    14. “So it’s not possible to just hate black and brown people? He’s been demonstrating it his entire adult life, Why does that surprise you?”

                      You sound very hateful and full of rage while calling another a racist. Trump may be a bit crude and eccentric but he isn’t a racist nor is he an anti-Semite as some nuts call him. They found that out when they learned his daughter converted to Judaism and all his Married children are married to Jews. Trump has Jewish grandchildren. He has worked with people of all races and genders. In fact, his higher level employees were probably the most diverse of any builder of his stature. Your proof of his racism only demonstrates that you are an ignorant and arrogant man.

                    15. So it’s not possible to just hate black and brown people? He’s been demonstrating it his entire adult life, Why does that surprise you? If I don’t respond immediately to your future posts. It will be because I’m living my life for a while. You should try it. Good night! Oops, almost forgot red people, wouldn’t want to ignore all his hard work.

                    16. Enigma, I guess in order to make a point from a pointless post you thought posting it twice with minimal revision would make what you said worthwhile. You can repeat this hundreds of times and it will still stink. You have to control your rage and your arrogance.

                    17. “Rage and arrogance? ”

                      Yes, Enigma, I would say rage and arrogance are two things you have not learned to control.

                    18. “It went without saying, you don’t get a vote Allan.”

                      Enigma, you just don’t understand market economics. Elsewhere I get to vote with my dollars. Here I get to vote with my postings. You are full of rage and arrogance.

                    19. “I know how you hate it when I call you a troll. You could try not being one? ”

                      You are wrong Enigma. I don’t mind at all since that type of comment demonstrates your arrogance and a host of other problems. However, thank for your parting remark telling me to enjoy my day. Such love makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

                    20. What about Asians? Trump’s comment included “and Asians” but I notice you left that out. Why did you leave that part out? Does it advance your argument to doctor the data the way NBC doctored the Trayvon Martin 911 audio?

                      Your premise is flawed and here’s why: Obama and Hillary Clinton were both in positions to design a non-arbitrary immigration protocol but neither did. If either legitimately devised a system – let’s say comparable to the Australian system – I’d have supported that.

                      What you fail to explain is your own position on this topic. Do you support closed borders or wide open borders? No, I’m not telling you what you think. I’m taking your stated points made right here in this forum and observing that those are the only two possibilities available. So which is it? Or do you support some other mechanism by which to regulate who does and does not get to be in this country? If so, what is it?

                    21. I see it as trying to understand the situation through logic and reasoning as opposed to simply believing the garbage and the media tells me to believe. This is about media spin and dirty politics, not about solving problems. Think.

                      *replying to Enigma here b/c there wasn’t a reply button under E’s comment.

              3. And lastly, the context for Trump’s was a private meeting. His comments were uttered during a closed-door negotiation with lawmakers. This conversation was leaked to the press and we are now judging and assessing Trump’s comment as if he uttered the words for public consumption. He did not.

                1. Which do you consider to be a more accurate reflection of his views? What he says to a small group of other old white men like himself or what he say’s to the public? I’m judging his words for their content. He said about Haiti, “Take them out!” Not nearly the same thing as merit-based immigration policy.

                  1. Enigma writes: “Which do you consider to be a more accurate reflection of his views? What he says to a small group of other old white men like himself or what he say’s to the public?”

                    What a racist comment.

                    1. Enigma I think your comment speaks for itself.

                      ““Which do you consider to be a more accurate reflection of his views? What he says to a small group of other old white men like himself or what he say’s to the public?””

                      Trump isn’t a racist. He is an American like you and me. He is looking to improve America’s future not weigh it down with people that have to be cared for instead of people that can produce. It has nothing to do with color. It has to do with merit and suitability. What is your objection to merit and suitability?

                      (My name changed because of posting problems.)

                    2. “Take them out!”

                      Why don’t you provide us with the context of those words and proof those words were said. Provide us with a paragraph .before, during and after the statement was supposedly made. You can’t because there is no record of the statement.

                      That is why you use your race-based thinking to determine what he said. Of course, we have plenty of evidence of what he means because the President has been very transparent and has explained his philosophy over and over again. You prefer to take three words that may or may not have existed and without context choose a racist reason to ascribe to him. In other words, you don’t need proof to call a person racist. All you require is that their opinion disagrees with yours. Is that not known as playing the race card?

                      You still haven’t answered the real question and have tried to blame the lack of agreement on racism rather than reality.

                      What is your objection to merit and suitability?

                    3. Andrew: “Merit and suitability are two things the left trembles in fear over.”

                      Enigma certainly does.

                  2. I’d say that’s a close call. Trump, in my estimation, doesn’t work too hard at hiding his real views from people, if anything, he errs on the side of being too loose with his words in public.

                    And again, you do not know the context in which the words “take them out” were said – or even if they were actually said. You know what is being reported as having been said, which may or may not be accurate or entirely true.

                    1. Members from both parties that were in the room acknowledge it, persons informed by others in the room confirmed it. Friends of Trump who he called to gauge the impact confirmed he bragged about it. What reason do I have not to believe? Certainly Trump’s denial means nothing. We’ve seen/heard him deny things on video and audio tape. He lies each and every day (Google it for yourself don’t demand I prove it). What statements do you think might have been merely close to what was reported that you think would be acceptable?
                      That Trump is a racist isn’t even a question in my mind given his extensive history, the only remaining question is who stands with him? Sen. Perdue and Rep. Kevin McCarthy have made their stance known. #They’reWith Him

                    2. “who stands with him? Sen. Perdue and Rep. Kevin McCarthy ”

                      We got Enigma. Anyone you disagree with is a racist. Even Latinos and blacks are racists or Uncle Toms if they recognize that their jobs and salaries diminish with so much unskilled labor coming across the border.

                      What racist ideas do you have against American Citizens of any color? Don’t their lives count?

                    3. So Enigma, since you know what you know and there is absolutely no possibility that there could be any other interpretation of the words said, other than that Trump is a racist trying to hurt and discriminate against all black and brown people, not only right here in the USA, but also throughout the entire world over, then there’s nothing more to say. You already know all that you care to know. And keep in mind that it’s not “the Truth” — it is just your interpretation of it.

      3. Enigma, you’re attempt at revisionism of Turmp’s words and intent aren’t fooling anyone here. The libs don’t need convincing and the rest know better.

        1. It is not I that is revising Trump’s words, it’s sycophants like Cotter and especially Perdue, who has already revised his own story as if we don’t remember the first one.

          1. Four attendees at that meeting have stated emphatically that Trump never said “shithole.” And now Durbin has walked back his initial claim.

            1. Durbin hasn’t walked back anything, nor has Lindsey Graham. Perdue only recently claimed that it was never said, he use to believe he didn’t hear it. For 15 hours there were no denials at all, then the pressure to back Trump built. The President himself has bragged to his friends about how this will “help him with the base.” You are proving him right.

              1. After leaving the closed-door meeting attended by 9 people, Durbin told one of his aides that Trump had made a “shithole” reference. The aide leaked the story to the media, who reported the aide’s second-hand story. The aide heard Durbin’s characterization of Trump’s discussion. Durbin interpreted Turmp’s meaning… “shithole” was Durbin’s word choice, not Trump’s. The aide characterized Durbin’s recollection to the media. The media reporter took this now third-hand story and reported is as fact.

                Enigma, you can twist this story all day long to make it fit your perception of reality, but are you going to apologize to everyone here that you’ve insulted when (or if) the media officially retracts this story?

                1. I’ve seen Durbin giving televised comments that he doesn’t take back a word of his comments and that he’s seen no inaccuracies in media accounts. If Durbin retracts his story I’ll happily apologize to all, if Trump continues to lie, I’ll continue to denounce him.

              2. Enigma, do you think there is a racist bone in your body? I bet there is. We all have our prejudices. No one is denying racism and prejudice exists. But is it possible that Trump, with all of his flaws and failings, is trying to help solve problems for the good of the American people – all of us of every color? And that unchecked flow of third world unskilled labor HURTS our black communities the most, and that Trump is trying to do the right thing for all of our citizens by limiting it? Is that even a remote possibility? I doubt it, but just thought I’d ask again.

                And keep in mind that politics is not really about solving problems, it is about attaining and wielding power and influence, and holding on to it as long as you can. And right now we have some of the dirtiest politics ever going on in Washington. Perhaps you can at least see that Trump is primarily about trying to solve problems for the good of the country as a whole? The man doesn’t even take his $400k salary.

                1. He isn’t trying to solve problems. He doesn’t understand and couldn’t explain any of his own alleged policies. His only interest is making money and currying favor. He doesn’t need to take a $400,000 salary. He made that up in spades by doubling the fees at Mar-a-lago. Not even mentioning the Washington Trump Tower. He’ll probably get more relief from Deutsche Bank after cancelling millions in Federal fines against them. Please don’t try to make the case that he and his family aren’t getting richer by him being President? That argument will become embarrassing.

                  1. What was Obama’s net worth before be was elected?
                    I think we can all agree to just not mention the Clinton Foundation scam. They’re just pure criminals.

                    1. I’m not sure of your point. Obama had income from his books and divested himself of everything before taking office. He didn’t get rich while being President but like almost all others is getting some hefty speaking fees now.
                      You’ll have to be more clear on the “Clinton Foundation scam” I’m not aware of funds going directly to the Clinton’s from their charitable organizations, I am aware of the Trumps personally benefitting from theirs.

                    2. You should have a nice day as well. It might even be nicer if the lens on your glasses permitted better acuity instead of blocking your vision with so much color.

                    3. Enigma said: “Obama had income from his books and divested himself of everything before taking office. He didn’t get rich while being President but like almost all others is getting some hefty speaking fees now.”

                      Yes, Obama is now taking speaking fees from Wall Street! Unbelievable hypocrisy.

                      Barack and Michelle Obama also got a whopping $63 million dollar advance for both of their books about their White House years. That’s a sh*tload of money. I’d call that getting rich just for being president, wouldn’t you?

                    4. And we taxpayers are going to pay Barack a $200k pension plus benefits and perks for the rest of his life. Why? He’s extremely wealthy now. Thank you for your “service” Mr. President. Oh please.

                  2. I’m not making that argument. I’m just pointing out that he is not taking a salary for this job. Of course he is getting richer by being president. Just like Hillary and Bill were dead broke and now worth hundreds of millions. Just like Barack was a community organizer before he took a $400k salary for eight years and now lives the lifestyles of the rich and famous and owns more than one multi-million dollar mansion. Just like Bernie Sanders has been a government bureaucrat his entire career and now owns three homes and is worth millions.

                    Anyway, I tried, but you go back to your corner and I suppose I will stay in mine. Nice chatting with you. See you around the blog. 😉

                    1. TBob, there is no proof either way, but there is evidence it is costing the family a lot of money. They have to decline business offers because he is President and the bad press has caused the value of some of his properties to drop. My friend lives in one of the properties that use Trump’s name on the west side of Manhattan and I understand the board is trying to drop Trump’s affiliation.

                      I’m waiting for Enigma to demonstrate the balance sheet of Trump enterprises has gone way up because he is President. I say I don’t know even though I have a bit of knowledge on the subject, but Enigma has only superficial biased knowledge that is based on politics and race, not reality.

                    2. Allan, good point. As for Enigma, he is dug in, and there will be no changing his mind, no matter what good Trump does.

        2. In postings below, Enigma is trying to defend the Clintons financial honesty. He is not “aware…”. Below is some of their earlier financial dealings where one wonders where they got the money.

          “It’s a claim that has been widely mocked – Hillary Clinton’s famous statement she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

          But there is a grain of truth behind it, according to New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi.

          He reveals some of the numbers in his new book “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit.”

          Three years before leaving office, Bill Clinton had to pay $850,000 to settle the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Just as he was leaving office he paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association in lieu of disbarment for having lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

          The Associated Press reported the Clintons faced legal bills as high as $10.6 million incurred defending themselves in the Whitewater scandal and the Lewinsky affair. This figure did not include legal expenses associated with the Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers cases.

          “So they had a huge amount of legal bills when they left the White House, and leaving the White House, I point out, the Clintons even stole the furniture, they stole the silverware,” Corsi, a WND senior staff writer, said during a recent interview on Stand for Truth Radio with Susan Knowles. “They had to return hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of government property that they lifted when they left the White House in classic grifter fashion.”

          And yet, a few years after leaving the White House, each Clinton ended up with a net worth of at least $100 million.

          During this time Hillary earned income from her roles as senator and secretary of state, and both Clintons received speaking fees, but Corsi noted that was not enough to add up to $100 million.

          The only other income source they had during this time was the Clinton Foundation.

          “So it’s clear the money was diverted from the Clinton Foundation to pay for the Clintons’ lifestyle, and to end up in their bank accounts in schemes designed to bypass the IRS, in schemes designed to make this not easily detectable in the financial records of the foundation,” Corsi surmised.

          Inurement, or the illegal use of a non-profit organization for personal profit, is the central charge Corsi levels against the Clintons in “Partners in Crime.”

          He told Knowles the Clintons began with just the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, with the sole purpose of soliciting charitable donations to build Bill Clinton’s presidential library. The organization later morphed into what’s now known as the Clinton Foundation.

          From the initial foundation, the Clintons set up various subgroups with questionable legal status. One of them was the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), established for the stated purpose of fighting AIDS in Africa. But was CHAI a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation or a separate corporation?

          “The Clinton Foundation never went to the IRS and got a determination letter, which you have to get under law in order to declare a new purpose of charitable giving [in order to] get tax-favored status,” Corsi explained. “The Clintons did not go and file this as a separate corporation.”

          The result, according to Corsi, is confusion: The Clinton Foundation and CHAI consolidate their financial statements so onlookers cannot tell how much money is being donated to fight HIV/AIDS and how much is being donated for other purposes.

          “These confusions permit the Clintons to do a form of accounting that becomes so convoluted that you can’t undo it, you can’t get behind it,” Corsi said. “In other words, they have one number for salaries. Well, okay, where did that money come from? Was it used in the Clinton Foundation salaries or in the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the CHAI foundation part?”

          Then the Clintons set up the Clinton Global Initiative, again with no IRS determination letter authorizing it to solicit charitable donations. But because the media look at CGI and assume it’s doing great charitable work, they don’t ask tough questions such as, was CGI ever incorporated? Or, did it ever get IRS approval to raise money for these purposes? Or, where does the money that is raised actually go?

          Like CHAI, according to Corsi, CGI’s finances get lumped in with the rest of the Clinton Foundation’s numbers in the foundation’s audited financial reports. There is no detail about where money came from and how it is being spent. Furthermore, Corsi said the numbers don’t reconcile with press releases stating how much money was pledged to the Clinton Foundation.

          “This is the kind of shoddy accounting that you would expect from a third-rate grifter, a con artist, and would be immediately red-flagged by the IRS or the state attorneys general if anybody was paying any attention,” Corsi reasoned. “But since it’s the Clintons, they don’t get scrutinized.”

          Perhaps they should.

          In 2009 the Clintons reorganized CHAI, trying to break it off into a separate corporation from the Clinton Foundation because CHAI was receiving money from UNITAID to fight AIDS in Africa. But when the reorganization occurred, the balance sheets showed $17 million went missing during the transition from Old CHAI to New CHAI.

          “This kind of a reorganization, reshuffling of money, money disappearing in the Clinton Foundation, is unfortunately not all that unusual when you take a look at the Clinton Foundation financials,” Corsi said.

          He pointed out Eric Braverman, whom Chelsea Clinton had brought in to help straighten out the Clinton Foundation, resigned as foundation president rather than sign the financial audits presented to him.

          “He must have realized… that if you sign these financial statements on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, you’ll be taking on criminal liabilities yourself to become part of the scam,” Corsi said.

          Much has been made lately about the many suspicious deaths associated with the Clintons, but Corsi doesn’t think that is the issue that will ultimately trip up the power couple.

          “I think we’re going to get the Clintons on comparing the information I’ve got in ‘Partners in Crime’ with the way the financial statements were done, which I show you how to do in the book, and the glaring errors and omissions, this incomplete mess of financial statements audited by auditors who should be held accountable for an accounting scam that I think is as big or bigger than Enron.

          “The Clintons, I think, will not be able to explain the fraudulent financial statements and the fraudulent regulatory statements,” he said.”

  12. If little Jeffy Flake said it happened, it didn’t. Still, those countries are shitholes.

      1. YNOT – I am disappointed in you. I would have expected a better comeback. BTW, I’m rubber and you’re glue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. 🙂

  13. No I do not believe Durbin/Graham. It seems when their idea gets denied they start to whine and make up stories. As far as Flake and Durbin is concern they hate the President as much Senator McCain and is ready to destroy the President at any chance they get. Senator Cotton and Senator Perdue seem like more honest Patriotic men then Senator Perdue and Lindsay Graham always follows where the wind is blowing.

    1. I thank you for your fact-based contribution and will contribute likewise, as McCain, Flake and Durbin are patriotic Americans dedicated to the sanctity of the United States Constitution. On the other hand, Perdue, Cotton and Trump are anti-American, do not believe in the sanctity or the text of the United States Constitution, and would likely prefer to eradicate the form of government we practice currently and establish some form of Nationalist-Socialist form of government of the type promulgated by Mussolini and Hitler.

      This is to “hannity told me to cheer for my team” sandie

      1. “Perdue told conflicting stories that cannot coexist within two days of each other. That’s not patriotism, it’s just lying.”

        What were the conflicting stories Perdue told?

        1. He and Cotten issued a joint statement in writing saying they “don’t recall” whether the President said those words
          “In regards to Senator Durbin’s accusation, we do not recall the President saying these comments specifically but what he did call out was the imbalance in our current immigration system, which does not protect American workers and our national interest,” they said. “We, along with the President, are committed to solving an issue many in Congress have failed to deliver on for decades.”
          Two days later he swears the President absolutely did not use the words and called Durbin a liar. How does that work, was he hypnotized, did he have repressed memories? He lied in one statement or the other, I’m betting both. I just watched a hearing where someone else in the room bent over backward in refusing to say anything other than “tough language” was used. She conveniently could not recall either but did all but confirm Durbin’s story.

          1. The statements only conflict in your world (and you didn’t quote what he said two days later). I have dealt in high stakes business affairs where things become rather raunchy. Recognizing a deal is desired most people don’t leave the room and then complain about the raunchy words used by another unless of course, they want the deal to collapse. The opposition, to cool things down, will avoid calling that person a liar, but when the liar succeeds in causing a deal to fail they will then admit to what they heard including the lousy lying temperament of the one that destroyed the deal.

            None of us know what happened and neither do I, but following such an act committed by Durbin, I too would have been circumspect about immediately calling Durbin a liar because my goal would be to make a deal. Durbin didn’t want one and that is obvious for if he truly wanted one he never would have made such an accusation. In business meetings, I won’t deal with a person of Durbin’s nature because people like Durbin aren’t loyal to anyone but himself. The DACA people should string him up because he likely caused them more problems than any other person in the room.

            1. You should be on the payroll like the others that can’t tell the difference in the Perdue statements. The first was in writing if you need to have the second transcribed to acknowledge it. Go for it. Attack Durbin, me, or anyone else while defending liars. Have a good day.

              1. Enigma, you just don’t understand how deals are made or broken. Trump wanted a deal, but he wasn’t going to give away everything. He likely would have given more than many of his supporters would have liked him to do. His pledge was to send all the illegals back. The issue on the table was DACA, the folk who are wondering what is going to happen to them. Trump seemed willing to let them stay which was a big change. Durbin killed any possibility of making a deal by not acting appropriately. He is now responsible for the pain DACA people suffer. Everyone now has to wait until cooler heads can pass a deal. The problem due to Durbin is much harder and it might negatively impact more people who don’t even have a legal right to be here.

                Your problem Enigma is you do not understand how humans interact with one another and you have no idea how to negotiate a deal. You like to use blunt force and race. That type of method has only limited value. Now that you find your comments unjustified instead of being dignified and recognizing how badly you screwed up you go back to your usual patterns of denial. Get used to being wrong. You are seldom right.

                1. You have been distracted by the shiny ball rolling under the couch. The issue here is that the President of the United States revealed himself to be a liar and a racist, yet again.

                  This is to “but at least he’s my liar and racist” allan

                  1. Mark M, are you not intelligent enough to even try and dispute what I said? Strike that. You aren’t and that is why none of your remarks contain content. That is also why your job is assistant filer at a law firm for that is the best you can do.

                  1. No, you aren’t. You would like me to think like you. Fortunately, I and people like me don’t. If we did this country would be a shithole.

                    1. One of us follows the other around, telling them how they must think and what they must believe and how they arrive at their conclusions. Trust me, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I might encourage you to do some of your own research sometimes. You might learn something.

                    2. Enigma, I follow ideas and when I see them misstated like you so often do, I correct them.

                      By the way, the President had his physical and he is quite healthy and did well on his mental status tests. I think that means a lot of those providing a diagnosis over the net need to go back to school.

                    3. You can’t correct anything without knowledge. You’re always asking me to document what I say which I do unless you demand it like an a-hole in which case I suggest you find the easily searchable information yourself.

                    4. “You can’t correct anything without knowledge.”

                      That is correct Enigma and that is why I so frequently ask for details that you so infrequently provide and when you do the details are often wrong.

                      My suggestion is for you to become more fact-based and then draw your conclusions instead of doing what you presently do which is to draw conclusions and then find an agreeable opinion that you take as fact.

  14. a) I’m still stunned that otherwise smart people like Turley don’t see this for what it is. Tomorrow is MLK’s birthday. This whole thing is a Democrat stunt designed to race bait and obscure attention from far more serious things like the Lambert indictment. (I wouldn’t be surprised if yesterday’s Hawii thing too was done for that reason).

    b) So what if he did call certain countries ****holes. I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. Is the implication that it is somehow America’s responsibility to make those places less horrible than they are? If those countries are not ****holes, why do their citizens risk their lives to get to America?

    c) Less than a year ago Kirsten Gillibrand received a very favorable item in Washington Post highlighting her frequent use of foul language. Tom Perez has potty mouthed his was from podium to podium. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton used terrible language to describe American citizens. For all of these people it’s ok and in Gillibrand’s case it’s an endearing quality yet for Trump it’s taboo? Ridiculous.

    d) Maybe what really upsets people is less the choice of words (if Trump used those words at all) and the fact that every sensible thinking person must acknowledge that some countries in fact are better than others and that we don’t live in the fairy tale world of global citizenship that’s been soft peddled for a generation or so now.

    e) No one really knows what Trump did or did not say. The President has been placed in the tough spot of trying to disprove a negative, refer back to point a.

    1. “This whole thing is a Democrat stunt”

      How do you explain the involvement of Lindsay Graham and Jeff Flake in the Democratic stunt?

      1. Flake??? If there was a king of the Never Trump movement he would be it. Show me one thing Flake has ever said that supports this President. Flake sounds like a Democrat 99% of the time. Graham is little better. He’d welded at the hip to the DC establishment and he’s going along to get along. Take a look at Graham’s history. Sure, in more recent months he’s warmed to Trump, but like Flake he has a long history of sounding a whole lot like a Democrat. That both in this case side with Durbin doesn’t surprise me or really mean anything. The name of this stunt is virtue signaling rather than engaging in a substantive discussion over why quality of life in some countries is horrible. Flake and Graham love to virtue signal.

        1. The bipartisan “stunt” consists only of reporting what Trump said. What you fail to realize is that many people are genuinely and reasonably outraged by Trump’s remarks. GRANTED – a certain segment of the left has made outrage cheap, but that doesn’t mean it’s never appropriate. We’re not going to let those a-holes determine how we feel and respond are we? Trump’s remarks were offensive, if that word has any meaning. This doesn’t have to be a huge deal. Trump could just admit that he said what he’s accused of saying and apologize. Or defend himself. He’s lying because he knows that he shouldn’t have spoken that way in his role as POTUS and there is no defense and he never apologizes.

          1. No one is genuinely outraged by Trump’s remarks. This is faux rage and you know it. As for Trump apologizing, keep holding your breath. Maybe you’ll hear it while unconscious.

      2. By the way, Lambert was indicted yesterday. Bet you haven’t seen/heard anything about that because this ridiculous stunt has dominated coverage along with the Hawaii thing from yesterday.

        1. FINALLY…a voice of reason

          SHITHOLE is merely a diversion to keep the real news from reaching the American public

          That the DemocRats are sinking in a deep shithole!

          1. Thank you. The 11 count indictment is quite a read. One would think a legal mind like say, Turley, would want to take it all in and then write something about it. There are some interesting implications in there too that again, ought to garner attention. I’ll do what I can do to keep pushing the word though.

  15. Amazing what when can remember when one is encouraged by the “great” and the powerful. Sounds a lot like the AG! Mr, Sessions.

    Even Lindsey, I didn’t hear nothing or see nothing, Graham said it happpened,

    1. What if it did happen? Leading Democrats curse all the time and some get favorable write-ups in the Washington Post for it.

      Ever been to any of those countries? Why haven’t you? Oh wait, because even you know they are ****holes!

      1. The problem isn’t that he cursed. It’s that he gratuitously insulted an entire continent (if not race) of people. Do leading Democrats do that or something equivalent all the time?

Comments are closed.