Shit-holes Of The World

[Progenitor A]

Oh dear!
Very undiplomatic language from POTUS!
Some things one just does NOT say in public (WAS it said in public?), no matter how accurately what one says describes what one is describing

[aquacultured]

So why do you keep defending the oaf and implying he's good for the world?

Please say why you think he describes what he has done, accurately?

(Please be as accurate/diplomatic as you can.)

[mrsonde]

Jan 13, 2018 2:38:56 GMT 1 aquacultured said:

So why do you keep defending the oaf and implying he's good for the world?

Please say why you think he describes what he has done, accurately?

(Please be as accurate/diplomatic as you can.)

I'll butt in again on your tete-a-tete and have a go at this one, si vous le permettez.

As far as we can tell, he expressed the view that his country would be better off with an immigration policy that resulted in fewer people from Africa, Haiti, and other "shithole" countries, and proportionately more from places like Norway - by which he means, I think we can probably agree, people from cultures more concordant with a liberal secular free-market democracy derived from Judeo-Christian values and Enlightenment principles, or at least understanding of and willing to respect them. (I wouldn't be surprised if you'd be eager to push that further, and presume that he also meant of white European origin, with the further implication that this would be a racial prejudice, but I'd leave the agreement at that point - I've seen or heard no evidence at all in this or any other instance that he's in the least "racist".) Yes? are we agreed on our starting premise?

Please say why you think he describes what he has done, accurately?

It may well be that I misunderstand the intended meaning of this challenging sentence, but I take you to be asking whether it's accurate that Haiti, Africa etc. are "shithole" countries? On the whole, yes: of course they are, and it's a basic truth that everyone understands, even though the causes and remedies are not - they're endemically systematically corrupt and politically poisoned by leftist ideology and hence crippled economic systems that means they're blighted by poverty, overpopulation, poor health, irresponsible governance, skewed development and dependency on foreign aid, and are very likely to continue in that typical vein until major structural reform can somehow occur, releasing the initiative and drive of the minority of people with the requisite intelligence in those places absolutely necessary to bring about improvement. If for no other reason - though there are plenty of others - immigration from those countries should be as limited as possible.

As for whether it's "good for the world" for the leader of the most powerful economy in the world to at last be able to perceive these fundamental truths, however he chooses to express them (of piffling importance, in my view), I would say: of course it is. You cannot begin to solve problems by denying they exist, still less by totally misunderstanding the causes of them. Even if the exacerbations of the solutions that have been attempted so far as the results of such faulty anaylsis are simply stopped because of this welcome perception, that would be an immeasurable improvement.

[fascinating]

places like Norway - by which he means, I think we can probably agree, people from cultures more concordant with a liberal secular free-market democracy derived from Judeo-Christian values and Enlightenment principles

A place which has high public ownership of strategic areas of the economy (including in oil and hydroelectricity), free public health care, strongly progressive taxation and extensive welfare provision? Wouldn't the American right called these policies 'communism'? Of course, it is a very rich country.

[mrsonde]

Jan 15, 2018 12:48:43 GMT 1 fascinating said:

places like Norway - by which he means, I think we can probably agree, people from cultures more concordant with a liberal secular free-market democracy derived from Judeo-Christian values and Enlightenment principles

A place which has high public ownership of strategic areas of the economy (including in oil and hydroelectricity), free public health care, strongly progressive taxation and extensive welfare provision? Wouldn't the American right called these policies 'communism'? Of course, it is a very rich country.

It is a very rich country, but not because of the economic policies you describe (most of which would have been more accurately so up until the early 80s, when similar radical reforms as Thatcher was obliged to undertake here were required - they've been obliged to undergo a similar fiscally conservative adjustment in the past few years.) The health system is free for children, no one else - more accurate to have chosen Saudi Arabia or the UAE to make that point, and it's as valid to the extent it is for the same reason: It is a very rich country, with enviable largely windfall natural resources, and a very small population to share it.

Also somewhat inaccurate - no country spends more on welfare provision than the US, and no country has a more "progressive" taxation regime (that is to say, the proportion of govt. revenues, State and Federal, paid by the wealthiest quintile, and thus transferred to the poorest.)