Trump's message was not about 'socialists'. [Trump swayed between sides on the political spectrum before his present position with the Republicans.] His communication style is against 'etiquette', something that I actually respect over the pretentiousness of the past's presumptions about how to behave as a politician. This era that has evolved regarding the Internet and communications no longer requires people to BE 'perfect'. Prior to this era, because we could not reasonably recognize famous people in ANY area without stereotyping them as holding some personality for life, once someone -- especially with respect to politics -- presented a poor image in their public etiquette, they were permanently presumed to BE what that particular perception painted them to be. Today this is not necessary but we have not yet adjusted to the fact that people are actually prone to error in what they say. As such, Trump represents the guy who says-it-like-it-is which by those holding this preference don't mean they LIKE what one has to say but that they approve of the person's relative honesty in light of the obvious errors in apparent reasoning. That is, he is one to believe that what one says at some particular time, T, as meaning that person is NOT DEFINED by their present statements necessarily, but to the present situation.Dachshund wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 amLacewingLacewing wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:14 amAs usual, you're projecting your crazy crap onto others. So convinced of the insanity in your head. Why don't you apologize for being such an ignorant hate-spewing asshole?
I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF. No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it. It was great see Trump make a point of emphasising that option to the contemptible, US-bashing, Al Quada apologist, Muslim Senator Ilhan Omar.
Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane (with a one way ticket) to sunny Venezuela or some other socialist shit-hole like Cuba. i'm sure the super- awesome , mystical, healing power of your love would be greatly appreciated in Caracas (don't forget to pack lots of your New Age crystals, and Runes, as well, sister the the cosmic energy they radiate will cure the city's economic woes in a flash !).
In short, If you love socialism, and you think it's kwell, your are not fit to live in the US, sweetheart; so why don't you "do the right thing" and piss off; the sooner the better!
I happen to share this perspective even if I can disagree with one's particular opinions on the situation. That is, I appreciate one being relatively carefree in speaking without concern of fearing they'd be misinterpreted because people really DO change their minds according to conditions. However, this era is still new. The left are also doing this and why we get the 'Social Justice Warrior' who strictly advocates with obvious bias to anyone speaking against their specific arguments in counter to their own. In fact, Trump's success is ABOUT how the normally careful etiquette expected of the left has become absurdly beholden to act with strict volition about their advocacy with no exception to middle grounds. Thus we get the modern strict feminist approach that acts as though women were a distinct Nationality....and thus, the "Neo-femin-azis" as some have termed it.
As to his words, his intent is about International politics versus the Domestic. If those who have become 'citizens' of some country, the expectation is that if they like where they are for the major philosophy that that system represented, they would or should abandon the LOYALTY of the qualities of the very places they came from where those places were deemed 'abusive' enough for them to escape. As such, if you embrace some advocacy of the people escaping from those prior places AND do so with some presumption that those people have some INTRINSIC genetic quality of significant importance to you, then should you NOT want to focus your attention on trying to IMPROVE those places where you came rather than merely to get them all to relocate to a haven in a land you prefer to segregate into communities most uniquely OF those of only your kind?
Here is where I agree with him and what pisses me off about the irrationality of how others of my own preferred left-wing side are acting with disapproval. Why, if America is so great for its VOLITION to BE so admired, cannot those countries everyone is escaping from not FOCUS their interest on FIXING those other countries BY the apparent VOLITION (free will of the people) unless the 'free will' of the intrinsic qualities of people FROM those countries are such that they are not believers IN free will as relevant? Why, for instance, is no one not trying to look deeper into Mexico's reasons for NOT having the same success as the United States's ideals, especially when they are NEXT DOOR to such a favorable country?
If it is NOT true that America's qualities are 'volitional' but merely due to LUCK, then by the perspective of those coming into this country is to presume the host country (the U.S.) is merely LUCKY, not just selectively virtuous due to some incredible insight into creating a system based upon 'freedom'. As such, if the U.S. is just merely a lucky fortunate place, then the appeal by those thinking this who come here, are presuming that their own homes are not failures due to their VOLITION, but due to mere BAD LUCK. This mentality means that the immigrants who favor encouraging others from their prior home are interpreting compassion of their own as though they are perfectly reasonable to escape NO MATTER what their prior country's ideals are.
So, in essence, if we keep permitting open immigration (and in fact encouraging it as my own country, Canada does), we are NOT helping solve the problems of the people who come from bad places but rather ENCOURAGING those places to both justify AND maintain the behaviors that contribute to the reasons people are fleeing them.
As to Trump appearing to target the four women of 'color' who favor immigration concerns, this is POLITICAL rhetoric and not something that speaks of Trump hating the immigrant. If it incidentally favors the extremists who by default share this view BUT out of hatred of others intrinsically, this is irrelevant. Why should anyone fear speaking freely about something they rationally believe simply because stupid people elsewhere may 'read into' this irrationally as meaning your opinion supports their own views?
This is the 'snowflake' mentality. If one person out of a whole school is allergic to peanuts, the snowflakes think it is up to ALL people to evade sending their children to school with peanut butter sandwiches. It arrogantly comes from spoiled arrogant people thinking that what luxury they have to FREELY select optional means to behave is shared among all the others. If your kid is allergic to peanuts, demand they go home for lunch rather than make the whole complement of the population be the ones to have to go home to have the freedom to eat peanut butter sandwiches. For most who DO give their kids peanut butter sandwiches in the first place, this alternative is more often FROM those who can't even afford the same luxury of those other kids who COULD afford to find alternatives freely.
So, while Trump's particular political preferences may not be mine in general, I disagree with presuming this represents some extreme anti-socialistic, Neo-Nazi belief he holds against the immigrant. You CAN have compassion FOR your neighbor's welfare even if you disagree with them moving in with you.