A Year of President Trump
Accomplishments, disasters, results, misses?
What are your thoughts?
Comments
-
The last three days have been a microcosm of much of the Trump presidency.
On Tuesday, he met with a bi-partisan group of legislators on camera for 50 minutes, a meeting during which he expressed his support for and willingness to sign "anything" the group produced in its negotiations. He even went so far as to voice support for a "clean" DACA revision bill (one not attached to other, unrelated, legislation) only to be reeled in by a GOP legislator at the table who realized the president was moving dramatically away from his own and his party's position on the issue. What became of the president's willingness to sign "anything"? Today the White House basically rejected the first real bipartisan compromise proposal to arise from the group.
Yesterday, the president yet again tweeted about Hillary Clinton, the candidate he beat, but can't let go. More ominously, however, he repeated unsubstantiated, conspiracy theorist garbage about the FBI, that it might have used the infamous Steele dossier - which he falsely claimed has been "disproven" - to "influence the election."
Today he tweeted serious doubt about a FISA reauthorization bill then under consideration in the House, basing his concerns on a "Fox & Friends" segment. It was a tweet that compelled the speaker of the House to call the president personally to plead with him to retract the essence of his tweet, which the president did a few hours later.
Today, the White House refuses to deny that to a bi-partisan group of legislators, the president of the United States referred to African nations writ large and to Haiti as "s***hole countries," that he wondered aloud "Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out." Further, the president said we need more people from Norway - whose leader Trump hosted yesterday - and Asia.
And tonight, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal the president says he "probably" has a "very good relationship" with North Korean strongman Kim Jon Un, the leader whom the president has called "Lil' Rocket Man," the leader whose "nuclear button," the president asserted last week, was smaller than his (our president's).
So how is that litany of facts a microcosm of the Trump presidency?
- Tuesday, he proved he's willing to say anything to anyone, that for him, the presidency is a show, not a service.
- On Wednesday he proved that he's obsessed with Hillary Clinton, that he has yet to accept the fact that though he won the electoral college, he lost the popular vote - more Americans voted for his opponent than voted for him. He also showed that he's prone to conspiracy theories (think his many years leading the "birther" lie regarding Barack Obama's birthplace)
- Today he showed his addiction to television, particularly FoxNews, how whatever or whomever he last heard is the voice and point of view with the most sway over his point of view.
- Today he showed his profound ignorance of policy and issues of state. That he knew next to nothing about the FISA reauthorization issue was startling and frightening. The truth is, the president knows next to nothing about most issues.
- In his "s***hole countries" remark, he reminded the nation and the world that he is, at heart, a racist who is willing - basically because it's who he is - to say vile, offensive, disgusting things about people, about countries, about anyone and anything different from him or what he views as his "kind." The fact that for many Americans - including me - the president's latest rhetorical garbage was not at all surprising, demonstrates the destructive impact of his first year in office. He has successfully normalized hate speech for 35-40% of Americans. (How many Fortune 500 CEOs would survive were they to make such a comment to the boards of directors?)
- And throughout it all - a bit this week, but more so in the last year - he has also normalized lying. The Washington Post's count of the president's false or misleading comments has now topped 2,000 - and that's just in his twelve months in office.
So, how to summarize the president's first year? The fact that the president has time again proved himself to be a racist, emotionally immature, and woefully ignorant liar pushes what little he has accomplished to later, secondary review.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
So, how to summarize the president's first year? The fact that the president has time again proved himself to be a racist, emotionally immature, and woefully ignorant liar pushes what little he has accomplished to later, secondary review.
I asked you to describe the Trump presidency, not Obama.
-
A lot of "feelings" in the Coley post above. Maybe have a look at the actual facts and results of Donald's Presidency here.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/13/donald-trump-actually-accomplishing-his-goals/
-
@GaoLu said:
A lot of "feelings" in the Coley post above. Maybe have a look at the actual facts and results of Donald's Presidency here.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/13/donald-trump-actually-accomplishing-his-goals/
The left doesn't care about reality or facts.
-
@GaoLu said:
A lot of "feelings" in the Coley post above. Maybe have a look at the actual facts and results of Donald's Presidency here.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/13/donald-trump-actually-accomplishing-his-goals/
@davidtaylorjr said:
The left doesn't care about reality or facts.
To my count, Gao Lu and David, in the first five bullet points of my previous post in this thread, I made 14 assertions of fact about the president's conduct since Tuesday of this week, none of which either of you engaged in your respective posts. I will welcome the corrections to those assertions of fact that you provide.
Perhaps each of you will also share your response to the president's "s***hole countries" comment. Do you judge that comment to be acceptable or unacceptable coming from the president of the United States? from ANY American? More important, do you judge that comment to be racist or not racist?
As for the president's purported achievements during his first year in office, please recall that in my previous post I very specifically stated that the nature of the president's actions summarized in the previously-mentioned 14 assertions of fact that you chose not to engage, in my view pushes said achievements to "later, secondary review."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
A lot of "feelings" in the Coley post above. Maybe have a look at the actual facts and results of Donald's Presidency here.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/13/donald-trump-actually-accomplishing-his-goals/
@davidtaylorjr said:
The left doesn't care about reality or facts.
To my count, Gao Lu and David, in the first five bullet points of my previous post in this thread, I made 14 assertions of fact about the president's conduct since Tuesday of this week, none of which either of you engaged in your respective posts. I will welcome the corrections to those assertions of fact that you provide.
Perhaps each of you will also share your response to the president's "s***hole countries" comment. Do you judge that comment to be acceptable or unacceptable coming from the president of the United States? from ANY American? More important, do you judge that comment to be racist or not racist?
As for the president's purported achievements during his first year in office, please recall that in my previous post I very specifically stated that nature of the president's actions summarized in the previously-mentioned 14 assertions of fact that you chose not to engage, in my view pushes said achievements to "later, secondary review."
The comment was behind closed doors and not meant for public consumption. That's the first problem. Second, while the word choice is bad, I agree with the premise. No that isn't racist. It's called taking care of the homeland first.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The comment was behind closed doors and not meant for public consumption. That's the first problem. Second, while the word choice is bad, I agree with the premise. No that isn't racist. It's called taking care of the homeland first.
You and I apparently disagree, David, as to whether the fact that the president made his "s***hole countries" comment "behind closed doors" in any way affects the moral judgment due that comment. You appear to believe it does; I most certainly believe it does not.
We disagree as to whether the president's comment is racist. We also disagree as to whether a focus on "taking care of the homeland first" is in any way germane to the propriety of such a comment coming from the president of the United States.
To close, I'll note that though in an earlier post you claimed "the left (of which I'm a member) doesn't care about reality or facts," you have yet to propose a correction to any of the 14 assertions of fact I made in my initial post in this thread. For someone who, you claim, doesn't care about facts, I sure seem to have got a lot of them correct.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
The comment was behind closed doors and not meant for public consumption. That's the first problem. Second, while the word choice is bad, I agree with the premise. No that isn't racist. It's called taking care of the homeland first.
You and I apparently disagree, David, as to whether the fact that the president made his "s***hole countries" comment "behind closed doors" in any way affects the moral judgment due that comment. You appear to believe it does; I most certainly believe it does not.
We disagree as to whether the president's comment is racist. We also disagree as to whether a focus on "taking care of the homeland first" is in any way germane to the propriety of such a comment coming from the president of the United States.
To close, I'll note that though in an earlier post you claimed "the left (of which I'm a member) doesn't care about reality or facts," you have yet to propose a correction to any of the 14 assertions of fact I made in my initial post in this thread. For someone who, you claim, doesn't care about facts, I sure seem to have got a lot of them correct.
No Bill, we agree on the moral judgment. I'm just saying it wasn't a comment that was supposed to be made public and the people who did so should be ashamed. I heard the former governor of NC today on the radio, who knows Trump as well as many other officials, and he said that there is not a politician he knows that doesn't have moments like that on either side of the aisle. But those were never made for spurting it out to the public and it seems to be a phenom unique to Trump where people so readily throw him under the bus.
How in the world is the comment racist? Please explain that.
And in response to one of your assertions, since you get so hung up on that. Let's talk about the Dossier, it is false, proven to be false, even though you said it hasn't been. There has not been a shred of evidence that any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document has any truth to it.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:'t care about facts, I sure seem to have got a lot of them correct.
No Bill, we agree on the moral judgment. I'm just saying it wasn't a comment that was supposed to be made public and the people who did so should be ashamed. I heard the former governor of NC today on the radio, who knows Trump as well as many other officials, and he said that there is not a politician he knows that doesn't have moments like that on either side of the aisle. But those were never made for spurting it out to the public and it seems to be a phenom unique to Trump where people so readily throw him under the bus.
If we agree on the moral judgment, then why aren't you outraged that the president said what he said, whether in public or private? Your strongest criticism seems to be of the actions of those who revealed the president's statement, and not of the fact that the president made it. In your view, is it okay for a politician to hold such views and to make such statements as long as they aren't made public?
As a rule, in my view, if the president of the United States says disgusting and offensive things about people, nations, and continents in private, and those things reflect his or her genuine viewpoints, then I want to know.
None of my friends says garbage like our president says. Any who did wouldn't be among my friends! Do you have friends who say such things? If you do, why are they still your friends?
How in the world is the comment racist? Please explain that.
According to the Washington Post, the president reacted to the potential of immigration of more people from "Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries." The nations evaluated by the president's derogatory comment are all predominantly people of color. In addition, the president reportedly told lawmakers that we need more people from nations such as Norway (one of the whiter nations on earth) and from "Asian countries." In my view, the judgment or grouping together of people based on their ethnicity or skin color when done by people in power is a racist act, which for me makes the president's statement a racist statement.
And in response to one of your assertions, since you get so hung up on that. Let's talk about the Dossier, it is false, proven to be false, even though you said it hasn't been. There has not been a shred of evidence that any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document has any truth to it.
Off the top of my head, the dossier's assertions about Carter Page, once thought to be completely false, have now been proven substantially correct. HERE'S a helpful summary from Newsweek of what we currently know and don't know about the dossier's veracity.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:'t care about facts, I sure seem to have got a lot of them correct.
No Bill, we agree on the moral judgment. I'm just saying it wasn't a comment that was supposed to be made public and the people who did so should be ashamed. I heard the former governor of NC today on the radio, who knows Trump as well as many other officials, and he said that there is not a politician he knows that doesn't have moments like that on either side of the aisle. But those were never made for spurting it out to the public and it seems to be a phenom unique to Trump where people so readily throw him under the bus.
If we agree on the moral judgment, then why aren't you outraged that the president said what he said, whether in public or private? Your strongest criticism seems to be of the actions of those who revealed the president's statement, and not of the fact that the president made it. In your view, is it okay for a politician to hold such views and to make such statements as long as they aren't made public?
I said I did not like his word choice. But the position I hold is the same as his. These countries are third-world. They are not the best conditions. They, in many circumstances, have highly uneducated populations. That is not who I think we should be targeting to bring to this country. So yes, my outrage is more at the people who shared a closed door conversation to take away from the substance of the position and instead focused on word choice.
As a rule, in my view, if the president of the United States says disgusting and offensive things about people, nations, and continents in private, and those things reflect his or her genuine viewpoints, then I want to know.
While his word choice was wrong, I don't think he is off the mark on the conditions in those countries. Any reasonable person can see the conditions in those countries are horrific.
None of my friends says garbage like our president says. Any who did wouldn't be among my friends! Do you have friends who say such things? If you do, why are they still your friends?
How in the world is the comment racist? Please explain that.
According to the Washington Post, the president reacted to the potential of immigration of more people from "Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries." The nations evaluated by the president's derogatory comment are all predominantly people of color. In addition, the president reportedly told lawmakers that we need more people from nations such as Norway (one of the whiter nations on earth) and from "Asian countries." In my view, the judgment or grouping together of people based on their ethnicity or skin color when done by people in power is a racist act, which for me makes the president's statement a racist statement.
First problem, the Washington Post. Fake News. Second it was not racist and you have to have an agenda to even twist it as such. Color has nothing to do with the countries and the Asian region. Asia has some of the top technological minds in the world. Europe has some of the best inventors and doctors. That's not racist, that is fact. So people like you and the Washington Post are what is really disgusting by twisting things to always play the race card just to destroy the President.
That is the same thing as when I say that homosexuality is disgusting and a sin people say I am homophobic.
And in response to one of your assertions, since you get so hung up on that. Let's talk about the Dossier, it is false, proven to be false, even though you said it hasn't been. There has not been a shred of evidence that any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document has any truth to it.
Off the top of my head, the dossier's assertions about Carter Page, once thought to be completely false, have now been proven substantially correct. HERE'S a helpful summary from Newsweek of what we currently know and don't know about the dossier's veracity.
Sorry, The thing the Dossier said about the president. It's all fake.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
First problem, the Washington Post. Fake News.How many of the lawmakers in the room at the time the president allegedly made the comments the Post attributes to him have come out to say he didn't say them, that the Post's (and others') reporting is "fake news"? Dick Durbin of Illinois has confirmed the Post's reporting. Please quote from the lawmakers who have contradicted the Post's reporting. If you can't find such lawmakers to quote - and you can't - perhaps you'd like to revisit your decision to label the Post as "fake news" in this matter?
Sorry, The thing the Dossier said about the president. It's all fake.
And the goal posts move!
In an earlier post, of the dossier you wrote (emphasis added)...
@davidtaylorjr said:
And in response to one of your assertions, since you get so hung up on that. Let's talk about the Dossier, it is false, proven to be false, even though you said it hasn't been. There has not been a shred of evidence that any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document has any truth to it.Now you claim that only "the thing the dossier said about the president" is untrue. I assume you're referring to the so-called "salacious" stuff about prostitutes. I acknowledge there is no evidence that what Steele was told about the prostitutes is true (but that doesn't mean he wasn't told it!!) But I hope you will admit that you moved the goal posts quite a bit when you changed your claim from the truth of any "shred of evidence (about) any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document," to "the thing...about the president."
p.s. As for the racism of the president's remarks, we disagree strongly, so I don't think there's reason to mine that subject further. Though I would appreciate your response to my question whether you have friends who say things like what Trump said, and if so, why they are still among your friends.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
First problem, the Washington Post. Fake News.How many of the lawmakers in the room at the time the president allegedly made the comments the Post attributes to him have come out to say he didn't say them, that the Post's (and others') reporting is "fake news"? Dick Durbin of Illinois has confirmed the Post's reporting. Please quote from the lawmakers who have contradicted the Post's reporting. If you can't find such lawmakers to quote - and you can't - perhaps you'd like to revisit your decision to label the Post as "fake news" in this matter?
Sorry, The thing the Dossier said about the president. It's all fake.
And the goal posts move!
In an earlier post, of the dossier you wrote (emphasis added)...
@davidtaylorjr said:
And in response to one of your assertions, since you get so hung up on that. Let's talk about the Dossier, it is false, proven to be false, even though you said it hasn't been. There has not been a shred of evidence that any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document has any truth to it.Now you claim that only "the thing the dossier said about the president" is untrue. I assume you're referring to the so-called "salacious" stuff about prostitutes. I acknowledge there is no evidence that what Steele was told about the prostitutes is true (but that doesn't mean he wasn't told it!!) But I hope you will admit that you moved the goal posts quite a bit when you changed your claim from the truth of any "shred of evidence (about) any piece of punctuation, much less substance of the document," to "the thing...about the president."
Thought it was clear we were talking about the parts referring to the President so yes, I guess appearnce would say I moved the goalpost. Nobody cares about Carter Page.
p.s. As for the racism of the president's remarks, we disagree strongly, so I don't think there's reason to mine that subject further. Though I would appreciate your response to my question whether you have friends who say things like what Trump said, and if so, why they are still among your friends.
I have friends who say things like Trump, just different word choice. But like I said that is ****not**** racist no matter how you twist it. That's just stupid to say so.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
First problem, the Washington Post. Fake News.How many of the lawmakers in the room at the time the president allegedly made the comments the Post attributes to him have come out to say he didn't say them, that the Post's (and others') reporting is "fake news"? Dick Durbin of Illinois has confirmed the Post's reporting. Please quote from the lawmakers who have contradicted the Post's reporting. If you can't find such lawmakers to quote - and you can't - perhaps you'd like to revisit your decision to label the Post as "fake news" in this matter?
Yep, still hold the Post is Fake News. Tom Cotton and David Perdue don't recall that happening.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Yep, still hold the Post is Fake News. Tom Cotton and David Perdue don't recall that happening.
I figured you latch onto Cotton's and Perdue's inability to recall the words. Let's compare notes:
In their joint statement, the senators said "In regards to Senator Durbin’s accusation, we do not recall the President saying these comments specifically...."
In his statement, Senator Durbin said, "I cannot believe that in the history of the White House, in that Oval Office, any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday. You’ve seen the comments in the press. I’ve not read one of them that’s inaccurate.” And then, “He said these hate-filled things and he said them repeatedly.”
And at the end of this article, you'll find South Carolina GOP senator Tim Scott quoted as saying his colleague Lindsey Graham - who Durbin says confronted Trump openly about the slur when the president spoke it - had told him "the comments, as reported in the media, were 'basically accurate.'"
So a Democrat says Trump said it and that media reports about the comments are accurate. A Republican senator tells a GOP colleague those reports are "basically accurate." And two Republican senators can say nothing more than they "can't recall" the comments. You know politics, David. When a politician says "I can't recall," what does he or she usually mean? If Trump didn't say those horrible things, Mitch McConnell wouldn't have been silent all day, Paul Ryan wouldn't have called the comments "very unfortunate," and the president's political allies who were in the room wouldn't be out today saying only that they "can't recall"!
Trump said what they said he said. That's not fake news.
-
I don't find caring about the destitute to be racist. Many immigrants do come from countries of unbelievable filth. In distress, Trump expressed (inappropriately and privately--he has an unfortunate knack for that) frustration that many people live in horrible squalor and we can't just take them in illegally. We need a better way to help them. A few people are twisting what Donald said, according to their own limited ability to see and think, into something deplorable. Shame on them. I see a man who is to be respected and a doer. But wants to do things right and well.
I have seen the squalor. People who go to the bathroom inside their own houses. Unbelievable stench and filth. If it gets cleaned up, dogs and pigs clean it up. Indeed many live in houses on stilts and their human waste eventually falls through the floorboards for animals below to eat.
I strongly decry those who don't know or willfully are ignorant of such horrible living conditions, who would deny that it is so, who would deride a President who calls it what it is. Shame on those mockers! Get up, with me and do something! I know what it is to dig latrines where there are none, to hug people ridden with lice and hepatitis, to clean up human waste messes so wretched one periodically goes out to vomit. Stop the foolish critical political word-games and nonsense and go do something!
-
EDIT: Senator Lindsey Graham has issued a statement in which he does not dispute the reports about the president's comments; in fact, in my view, his statement pretty much makes it clear that Graham heard Trump say what Durbin and others heard.
"Following comments by the President, I said my piece directly to him yesterday. The President and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel. I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals,” Graham said in the statement. “The American ideal is embraced by people all over the globe. It was best said a long time ago, E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One. Diversity has always been our strength, not our weakness. In reforming immigration we cannot lose these American Ideals.”
Does THAT sound like the statement of a senator who DIDN'T hear Trump speak rhetorical garbage yesterday? No.
Trump said it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
EDIT: Senator Lindsey Graham has issued a statement ... .... Graham said in the statement. “The American ideal is embraced by people all over the globe.
>
Dream on, L. Graham ... the reality is something totally different! All over the world, the people have come and are coming to realize how the USA is trying "to embrace the world" (as its sole hegemon) by bringing bombing and destruction, cultural demise, economic exploitation ... and such has been the case from long before Trump was elected and came into office.
-
@GaoLu said:
I don't find caring about the destitute to be racist. Many immigrants do come from countries of unbelievable filth. In distress, Trump expressed (inappropriately and privately--he has an unfortunate knack for that) frustration that many people live in horrible squalor and we can't just take them in illegally.I certainly don't dispute the need for concern for and action on behalf of the "destitute," Gao Lu. However, I do question the relevance of that need to this thread's discussion of president's reported comments.
As you probably know, Mr. Trump made his "s///hole countries" comment during an Oval office meeting with legislators, a meeting whose subject was immigration, not foreign aid. The question at issue when the president and those members of Congress met was not "Whom do we help?" but rather "Whom do we let in?" (Note that his question was "Why do we need more Haitians?" not "How can we help more Haitians?")
So I don't find concern or care for the destitute in any of the president's reported remarks. Instead, I find concern for the president's immigration agenda, which, according to his reported comments, apparently advocates increased representation of Norwegian and Asian populations, and decreased representation of "s///hole" country populations.
Where in the president's reported remarks do you find concern for the destitute, rather than a concern that those who are destitute don't immigrate to the United States?
And I think it's appropriate to issue a few reminders about immigration and the United States:
- We are a nation of immigrants.
- Many, if not most, who seek migration to other countries do so because they believe conditions in those other countries are better than conditions in their current countries.
- There was a time in the not-too-distant past of the United States when Irish, Italians, and other populations were considered the "destitute" whom many did not want to allow in.
- A poem called "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus is engraved on a plaque attached to the Statue of Liberty. In part, the poem reads,
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
To me, that sounds like, "We welcome people from "s///hole countries."
Shame on those mockers! Get up, with me and do something!
Staying on topic, do you also pour shame on the president for the content of his comments?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
I don't find caring about the destitute to be racist. Many immigrants do come from countries of unbelievable filth. In distress, Trump expressed (inappropriately and privately--he has an unfortunate knack for that) frustration that many people live in horrible squalor and we can't just take them in illegally.I certainly don't dispute the need for concern for and action on behalf of the "destitute," Gao Lu. However, I do question the relevance of that need to this thread's discussion of president's reported comments.
As you probably know, Mr. Trump made his "s///hole countries" comment during an Oval office meeting with legislators, a meeting whose subject was immigration, not foreign aid. The question at issue when the president and those members of Congress met was not "Whom do we help?" but rather "Whom do we let in?" (Note that his question was "Why do we need more Haitians?" not "How can we help more Haitians?")
So I don't find concern or care for the destitute in any of the president's reported remarks. Instead, I find concern for the president's immigration agenda, which, according to his reported comments, apparently advocates increased representation of Norwegian and Asian populations, and decreased representation of "s///hole" country populations.
Where in the president's reported remarks do you find concern for the destitute, rather than a concern that those who are destitute don't immigrate to the United States?
And I think it's appropriate to issue a few reminders about immigration and the United States:
- We are a nation of immigrants.
- Many, if not most, who seek migration to other countries do so because they believe conditions in those other countries are better than conditions in their current countries.
- There was a time in the not-too-distant past of the United States when Irish, Italians, and other populations were considered the "destitute" whom many did not want to allow in.
- A poem called "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus is engraved on a plaque attached to the Statue of Liberty. In part, the poem reads,
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
To me, that sounds like, "We welcome people from "s///hole countries."
Shame on those mockers! Get up, with me and do something!
Staying on topic, do you also pour shame on the president for the content of his comments?
In case you haven't noticed, the Statute of Libert has nothing to do with United States Immigration policy.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I certainly don't dispute the need for concern for and action on behalf of the "destitute,"
Thanks for addressing that affirmatively.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
In case you haven't noticed, the Statute of Libert has nothing to do with United States Immigration policy.The Lazarus poem, which was affixed to the Statue of Liberty in 1903, welcomed millions of immigrants in the early 20th century. In my view, it reports the nation's attitude, if not its official policy, toward arriving populations. The Statue and its poem represent the nation's spirit and intentions to the world. It declares that our default position is to welcome, not reject, those who seek a better life in our land.
No, the poem is not the law; but it is who we are... or at least, who we once claimed we were. I think it would be a great loss were we now to decide that the Statue and the Lazarus poem no longer speak for us.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
think it would be a great loss were we now to decide that the Statue and the Lazarus poem no longer speak for us.
Here is how it was originally done when that poem was written--being done legally and with planning.
-
A nice example of a super hypocrite and liar ... the supposed "anti-racist" of Jewish background, Tim Wise. He commented about the "shithole" comment:
For those who keep excusing Trump because "that's just how some people talk.." um, if your standards for the president are no higher than those you set for your Uncle Cooter, YOU are the problem. Unfiltered people are either demented or 4. Either way, we should ignore them
— Tim Wise (@timjacobwise) January 13, 2018A little over a year ago, this same fellow himself spoke of a "shithole" country
W/each new day I know why part of my family left shithole of imperial Russia. 100 years after last rev lets hope 4 another1 #ComeAtMeBroski
— Tim Wise (@timjacobwise) December 15, 2016SO, I suppose in the USA it is perfectly fine to call Russia a "shithole" country, but when the president correctly (!!!) calls or describes a number of real "shithole" countries as what they in fact actually are, it is a racist comment ???
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
think it would be a great loss were we now to decide that the Statue and the Lazarus poem no longer speak for us.
Here is how it was originally done when that poem was written--being done legally and with planning.
Minor details....
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
In case you haven't noticed, the Statute of Libert has nothing to do with United States Immigration policy.The Lazarus poem, which was affixed to the Statue of Liberty in 1903, welcomed millions of immigrants in the early 20th century. In my view, it reports the nation's attitude, if not its official policy, toward arriving populations. The Statue and its poem represent the nation's spirit and intentions to the world. It declares that our default position is to welcome, not reject, those who seek a better life in our land.
No, the poem is not the law; but it is who we are... or at least, who we once claimed we were. I think it would be a great loss were we now to decide that the Statue and the Lazarus poem no longer speak for us.
The Lazarus poem has NEVER been anything related to US Policy, Law, or any such thing. That is something liberals often point to in order to squelch immigration policy that actually makes sense. Not to mention, the statute of liberty itself doesn't have anything to do with immigration at all. It was a gift between allied nations.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The Lazarus poem has NEVER been anything related to US Policy, Law, or any such thing. That is something liberals often point to in order to squelch immigration policy that actually makes sense. Not to mention, the statute of liberty itself doesn't have anything to do with immigration at all. It was a gift between allied nations.David, I encourage you to review the entire history of the Lazarus poem's connection to the Statue of Liberty, not just the statue's original intent. HERE'S a good place to start.
In that article, you'll discover that the poem was written to help raise money for the construction of the statue's pedestal. Initially, Lazarus declined the invitation to submit a writing, "but writer Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that the statue would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor."
Two other quotations from the article:
Paul Auster wrote that "Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world."
.
John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was [Lazarus's poem] that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants."
So, was the Statue of Liberty originally intended as a reflection of openness to immigrant? No. Has the Statue of Liberty ever officially reported U.S. policy? No. But has it ever symbolized the nation's welcome of immigrants. Yes. Does it do so today? Undeniably.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
The Lazarus poem has NEVER been anything related to US Policy, Law, or any such thing. That is something liberals often point to in order to squelch immigration policy that actually makes sense. Not to mention, the statute of liberty itself doesn't have anything to do with immigration at all. It was a gift between allied nations.David, I encourage you to review the entire history of the Lazarus poem's connection to the Statue of Liberty, not just the statue's original intent. HERE'S a good place to start.
In that article, you'll discover that the poem was written to help raise money for the construction of the statue's pedestal. Initially, Lazarus declined the invitation to submit a writing, "but writer Constance Cary Harrison convinced her that the statue would be of great significance to immigrants sailing into the harbor."
Two other quotations from the article:
Paul Auster wrote that "Bartholdi's gigantic effigy was originally intended as a monument to the principles of international republicanism, but 'The New Colossus' reinvented the statue's purpose, turning Liberty into a welcoming mother, a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world."
.
John T. Cunningham wrote that "The Statue of Liberty was not conceived and sculpted as a symbol of immigration, but it quickly became so as immigrant ships passed under the torch and the shining face, heading toward Ellis Island. However, it was [Lazarus's poem] that permanently stamped on Miss Liberty the role of unofficial greeter of incoming immigrants."
So, was the Statue of Liberty originally intended as a reflection of openness to immigrant? No. Has the Statue of Liberty ever officially reported U.S. policy? No. But has it ever symbolized the nation's welcome of immigrants. Yes. Does it do so today? Undeniably.
Which is something totally different Bill. The point is you, and other liberals, try to use that poem as a litmus test for immigration policy and have no business doing so. I believe Jim Acosta, wonderful journalist (note sarcasm) did the same thing in a press briefing a few months ago and he got his plate handed to him mightily.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Which is something totally different Bill. The point is you, and other liberals, try to use that poem as a litmus test for immigration policy and have no business doing so. I believe Jim Acosta, wonderful journalist (note sarcasm) did the same thing in a press briefing a few months ago and he got his plate handed to him mightily.
And again you move the proverbial goal posts, David.
In your post to which I responded, you claimed that "the Lazarus poem has NEVER been anything related to US Policy, Law, or any such thing," that "the statute of liberty itself doesn't have anything to do with immigration at all. It was a gift between allied nations."
Through the history of the Lazarus poem, I then showed you that though the statue INITIALLY had nothing to do with immigration, by the turn of the 20th century and with the poem's help, it clearly did.
NOW, your claim changes into an objection to using the poem as a "litmus test for immigration policy," something I have not done. I raised the poem to our attention simply as what I called a "reminder about immigration and the United States." The point I made was that to me, the poem "sounds like, 'We welcome people from 's///hole countries.'" That was an interpretation of the poem, not a policy litmus test.
Perhaps we can stay on common ground this way: What is your interpretation of the Lazarus poem, and of the fact that it is permanently attached to the Statue of Liberty? How would the author of the poem respond to presidential invective against immigrants from "s///hole countries"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Which is something totally different Bill. The point is you, and other liberals, try to use that poem as a litmus test for immigration policy and have no business doing so. I believe Jim Acosta, wonderful journalist (note sarcasm) did the same thing in a press briefing a few months ago and he got his plate handed to him mightily.
And again you move the proverbial goal posts, David.
In your post to which I responded, you claimed that "the Lazarus poem has NEVER been anything related to US Policy, Law, or any such thing," that "the statute of liberty itself doesn't have anything to do with immigration at all. It was a gift between allied nations."
Through the history of the Lazarus poem, I then showed you that though the statue INITIALLY had nothing to do with immigration, by the turn of the 20th century and with the poem's help, it clearly did.
NOW, your claim changes into an objection to using the poem as a "litmus test for immigration policy," something I have not done. I raised the poem to our attention simply as what I called a "reminder about immigration and the United States." The point I made was that to me, the poem "sounds like, 'We welcome people from 's///hole countries.'" That was an interpretation of the poem, not a policy litmus test.
Perhaps we can stay on common ground this way: What is your interpretation of the Lazarus poem, and of the fact that it is permanently attached to the Statue of Liberty? How would the author of the poem respond to presidential invective against immigrants from "s///hole countries"?
My position is they are unrelated. And the statute still has nothing to do with immigration in reality. People see it as that, they associate it with it, but it actually has nothing to do with it.
-
David, I think Bill knows better. Once he has lost a cause he starts blowing political smoke awhile.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)