Ledbetterman10 said:

It's not racist. If there were hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the country from the northern border, the same people that support a wall between Mexico and the U.S. would support a wall between Canada and the U.S. And that's not to suggest that illegal immigrants come only from Mexico. People do come from the northern border, as well as people that overstay their Visas. But those pale in comparison to the amount of people that illegally cross the southern border. I don't think Trump's proposed wall is the best answer to this problem. But I don't think the idea is racist either. 

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It's not racist. If there were hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the country from the northern border, the same people that support a wall between Mexico and the U.S. would support a wall between Canada and the U.S. And that's not to suggest that illegal immigrants come only from Mexico. People do come from the northern border, as well as people that overstay their Visas. But those pale in comparison to the amount of people that illegally cross the southern border. I don't think Trump's proposed wall is the best answer to this problem. But I don't think the idea is racist either. 

I don’t actually believe that people currently supporting a border wall between the USA and Canada would also support a wall between  Canada and the US, even if the same level of migration was seen. There is clearly racist language being used to describe the undesirability of the migrants from the south as disease-laden criminals that I frankly don’t believe would be at play if we were talking about Canadians. 

Ledbetterman10 said:

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It's not racist. If there were hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the country from the northern border, the same people that support a wall between Mexico and the U.S. would support a wall between Canada and the U.S. And that's not to suggest that illegal immigrants come only from Mexico. People do come from the northern border, as well as people that overstay their Visas. But those pale in comparison to the amount of people that illegally cross the southern border. I don't think Trump's proposed wall is the best answer to this problem. But I don't think the idea is racist either. 

I don’t actually believe that people currently supporting a border wall between the USA and Canada would also support a wall between  Canada and the US, even if the same level of migration was seen. There is clearly racist language being used to describe the undesirability of the migrants from the south as disease-laden criminals that I frankly don’t believe would be at play if we were talking about Canadians. 

I don't think that language would be used either in describing Canadians. But I still think the concept of a border-wall preventing mass illegal immigration would be supported for either border by the people that support Trump's wall.

benjs said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

oftenreading said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

It's not racist. If there were hundreds of thousands of people illegally entering the country from the northern border, the same people that support a wall between Mexico and the U.S. would support a wall between Canada and the U.S. And that's not to suggest that illegal immigrants come only from Mexico. People do come from the northern border, as well as people that overstay their Visas. But those pale in comparison to the amount of people that illegally cross the southern border. I don't think Trump's proposed wall is the best answer to this problem. But I don't think the idea is racist either. 

I don’t actually believe that people currently supporting a border wall between the USA and Canada would also support a wall between  Canada and the US, even if the same level of migration was seen. There is clearly racist language being used to describe the undesirability of the migrants from the south as disease-laden criminals that I frankly don’t believe would be at play if we were talking about Canadians. 

I don't think that language would be used either in describing Canadians. But I still think the concept of a border-wall preventing mass illegal immigration would be supported for either border by the people that support Trump's wall.

A country has a right to fortify its border and prevent illegal immigration. If there was an illegal immigration problem from the US to Canada, I wouldn't object on moral grounds (though I would object from other perspectives).

It's actually possible to make an argument that the wall is a very progressive yet economically foolish initiative for the same reason - fewer undocumented immigrants will be looking to work too hard for too little earnings for jobs not wanted by the vast majority of Americans, leading to rising costs for businesses and higher product/service prices for consumer.

The Justice Department has revealed that it has charged Julian Assange, who is behind bars in Britain awaiting possible extradition to the United States. This has rendered unhelpful a whole lot of past commentary by President Trump.

Trump’s response: deflect, deflect, deflect.

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “It’s not my thing.”

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks” is patently false. While “my thing” is a subjective phrase open to interpretation, it’s pretty difficult to argue that WikiLeaks hasn’t been Trump’s thing.

In fact, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks more than 100 times in just the final month of the 2016 campaign, according to Factba.se. Many of those times, he expressed admiration for the anti-secrecy group’s work. “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” he said once. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks,” he said another time. Yet another time: “Oh, we love WikiLeaks. Boy, they have really — WikiLeaks! They have revealed a lot.”

[Trump disavows past enthusiasm for WikiLeaks after Assange’s arrest]

Trump’s decision to play down his past embrace of WikiLeaks is no surprise. In fact, it’s his M.O. Whenever anyone around him gets in trouble — be it Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos or Michael Cohen — he and his White House tend to minimize their proximity to him, no matter how implausibly. Foreign policy advisers become “coffee boys.” Campaign chairmen who ran the heart of his 2016 campaign become people who “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time.”

But Trump unquestionably made WikiLeaks a prominent feature of his stump speech in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, bear-hugging its disclosures and arguing it was performing an important service. The media trafficked in these disclosures, too, but Trump went a step further in actually praising WikiLeaks. As with Russia, he adopted an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend approach. Even after he became president and his own intelligence community essentially accused WikiLeaks of being a front for the Russian government, Trump declined to harshly judge either one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/why-trumps-non-answer-julian-assange-is-so-inexplicable/?utm_term=.b45f71c4f094

josevolution said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bahahahahahaha.

The Justice Department has revealed that it has charged Julian Assange, who is behind bars in Britain awaiting possible extradition to the United States. This has rendered unhelpful a whole lot of past commentary by President Trump.

Trump’s response: deflect, deflect, deflect.

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “It’s not my thing.”

“I know nothing about WikiLeaks” is patently false. While “my thing” is a subjective phrase open to interpretation, it’s pretty difficult to argue that WikiLeaks hasn’t been Trump’s thing.

In fact, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks more than 100 times in just the final month of the 2016 campaign, according to Factba.se. Many of those times, he expressed admiration for the anti-secrecy group’s work. “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” he said once. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks,” he said another time. Yet another time: “Oh, we love WikiLeaks. Boy, they have really — WikiLeaks! They have revealed a lot.”

[Trump disavows past enthusiasm for WikiLeaks after Assange’s arrest]

Trump’s decision to play down his past embrace of WikiLeaks is no surprise. In fact, it’s his M.O. Whenever anyone around him gets in trouble — be it Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos or Michael Cohen — he and his White House tend to minimize their proximity to him, no matter how implausibly. Foreign policy advisers become “coffee boys.” Campaign chairmen who ran the heart of his 2016 campaign become people who “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time.”

But Trump unquestionably made WikiLeaks a prominent feature of his stump speech in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, bear-hugging its disclosures and arguing it was performing an important service. The media trafficked in these disclosures, too, but Trump went a step further in actually praising WikiLeaks. As with Russia, he adopted an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend approach. Even after he became president and his own intelligence community essentially accused WikiLeaks of being a front for the Russian government, Trump declined to harshly judge either one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/11/why-trumps-non-answer-julian-assange-is-so-inexplicable/?utm_term=.b45f71c4f094

He will deny it just like Peter denied Jesus !

The Juggler said:

This morning the president tweeted a screen cap from the Lou Dobbs show showing his approval rating at a whopping 55!

The Lou Dobbs show got the numbers wrong (or did so purposely?). The 55% actually reflects his disapproval rating. 

The poll, featured on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," showed a 55 percent overall approval rating for the president. However, the 55 percent figure actually represents the number of respondents who said they hold unfavorable views of the president. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

MEDIA

Fox Business issues correction for botched Trump approval poll

By REBECCA MORIN

 

04/11/2019 12:50 PM EDT

The Fox Business Network issued an on-air correction Thursday after the network aired a poll graphic — later shared online by President Donald Trump — that incorrectly displayed the president's unfavorable rating as his job approval rating.

“It’s been a quite start to the day for President Trump, though he did send out a tweet this morning from the Lou Dobbs show last night on Fox Business," Washington correspondent Blake Burman said on behalf of Fox Business. "That tweet featured a poll that was not entirely accurate, which Fox Business would like to correct."

The Georgetown Politics poll, as featured on Fox Business network's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," showed a 58 percent approval rating for Trump's handling of the economy and a 55 percent overall approval rating for the president.

However, the 55 percent figure actually represents the number of respondents who said they hold unfavorable views of Trump. According to the survey, 41 percent have a favorable view of Trump. Of those polled, 52 percent disapprove of Trump's job as president, compared with the 43 percent who said they approve.

"According to a poll from Georgetown University, 58 percent of respondents approved of the president’s handling of the economy. That portion of the graphic was right," Burman said. "However, the graphic also showed that 55 percent of the respondents approve of the president, that number is not correct. The 55 percent number was those who have an unfavorable impression of President Trump.”

Fox News White House Correspondent Kevin Corke also issued a similar statement on Fox News.

Trump tweeted a screenshot of the incorrect infographic to his 59.6 million followers, adding "Great news! #MAGA." The president has not taken down his tweet.

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Question: Do any of you guys/girls think Trump's proposed border-wall is racist? Just the border wall. Not other Trumpisms that may or may not be racist. No Stephen Miller or how the separated families at the border have been treated. Just the concept of a border-wall. Do you think it's racist?

No,  I think it's dumb and ineffective.  It's also akin to the Berlin Wall which was a symbol of tyranny and isolation. 

How is it anything like the Berlin Wall?
The Berlin Wall separated a country into 2, that is not like having a border wall.
Suddenly putting up a wall that separates the North from the South and not letting families cross over to visit their children, that would be like the Berlin Wall.