Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Investing effect from amoral, dysfunctional, insulting, obscene, vulgar central government
"Then blame davidmoran for the deviation of the conversation. My comments were a direct rebuke of the article he linked. So either you didn't read his link, or you are heaping your dissatisfaction in the wrong direction."
@Maurice: David's link is to an article which examines Mr.Trump's conversation with Mr. Turnbull. Again, the subject of the conversation is largely irrelevant: the inability of the president to understand and respond in an intelligent and rational manner is the subject here.
Once again, please: That conversation clearly reveals a man who cannot listen accurately, cannot understand repeated clarification when presented in plain, simple language, and is more interested in expounding on his own preconceived prejudice than in having a rational exchange of information. If you don't think that's an accurate interpretation, let's hear an alternative explanation.
Which link of mine? You are seriously defending the Trump "conversation" with Turnbull? Where DT simply cannot grasp it? I cannot tell if you actually understand what Australia has done, and why, but then you do cite the eccentric Roy Beck's site.
Anyway, it may become one of those times ignorance and stupidity really do backfire:
Jeez, you have to keep rereading the conversation if you really think DT understands the issues "very well". Even a DT fan can see that.
Not sure why you think I advocate open borders, but slinging charges seems about right as an automatic style. Myself, I think there are prudent and supple responses to immigration, and that we in fact already have many of them in place, even as there remain issues with enforcement. I sense you have not really studied the US matter in detail and know what the state of play has been. But I am not about to start that education. (Life's too short etc.) Here is a neutral primer maybe:
@Maurice: "Trump understands the conversation with Turnbull very well."
Odd. Here's the article title, and a few samples of the annotated editorial comments:
"Australia’s Prime Minister Slowly Realizes Trump Is a Complete Idiot " • "In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous."
• "At this point, Trump fails to understand the policy altogether"
• "Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic."
• "After several attempts by Turnbull to explain Australia’s policy, Trump again expresses his total inability to understand what it is"
• Turnbull quote: "No, you don’t get it at all!"
I unfortunately conclude that the president is not the only one who cannot listen accurately, cannot understand repeated clarification when presented in plain, simple language, and is more interested in expounding on his own preconceived prejudice than in having a rational exchange of information.
It's true that "many discussions go into directions that the original poster and others didn't intended them to go".
However, that's not the case with respect to my posts where the subject under discussion is Trump's obvious inability to follow the conversation with Mr. Turnbull. The subject of the phone call itself is secondary, and I make no comment upon that, as the subject is worthy of an extended debate of it's own. You have chosen, by misdirection, to conflate the two issues. Got it.
@Maurice, it's not "Obama's vision", for heaven's sake. Are you really someone who must just trace it all to that guy? You sound smart sometimes, like someone who realizes trends about the way the world has developed and is developing. But not here. And the president is splashing happily in the swamp and has been since day one. You have been and are being gulled. Seems odd for someone who gives some things some thought.
Whatever. I was posting about the DT conversation and incapacities it shows. The NYer piece is interesting. We can hope.
And while this isn't the most recent of articles, is Mexico against building walls to slow down immigration? If you think yes, then read the following...
Comments
@Maurice: David's link is to an article which examines Mr.Trump's conversation with Mr. Turnbull. Again, the subject of the conversation is largely irrelevant: the inability of the president to understand and respond in an intelligent and rational manner is the subject here.
Once again, please: That conversation clearly reveals a man who cannot listen accurately, cannot understand repeated clarification when presented in plain, simple language, and is more interested in expounding on his own preconceived prejudice than in having a rational exchange of information. If you don't think that's an accurate interpretation, let's hear an alternative explanation.
Which link of mine? You are seriously defending the Trump "conversation" with Turnbull? Where DT simply cannot grasp it? I cannot tell if you actually understand what Australia has done, and why, but then you do cite the eccentric Roy Beck's site.
Anyway, it may become one of those times ignorance and stupidity really do backfire:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-trumps-phone-call-with-australias-prime-minister-will-haunt-him-in-court
Not sure why you think I advocate open borders, but slinging charges seems about right as an automatic style. Myself, I think there are prudent and supple responses to immigration, and that we in fact already have many of them in place, even as there remain issues with enforcement. I sense you have not really studied the US matter in detail and know what the state of play has been. But I am not about to start that education. (Life's too short etc.) Here is a neutral primer maybe:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0
Odd. Here's the article title, and a few samples of the annotated editorial comments:
"Australia’s Prime Minister Slowly Realizes Trump Is a Complete Idiot "
• "In the transcript, Trump is unable to absorb any of these facts. He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones, and that the United States has the ability to turn away any of them it deems dangerous."
• "At this point, Trump fails to understand the policy altogether"
• "Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic."
• "After several attempts by Turnbull to explain Australia’s policy, Trump again expresses his total inability to understand what it is"
• Turnbull quote: "No, you don’t get it at all!"
I unfortunately conclude that the president is not the only one who cannot listen accurately, cannot understand repeated clarification when presented in plain, simple language, and is more interested in expounding on his own preconceived prejudice than in having a rational exchange of information.
However, that's not the case with respect to my posts where the subject under discussion is Trump's obvious inability to follow the conversation with Mr. Turnbull. The subject of the phone call itself is secondary, and I make no comment upon that, as the subject is worthy of an extended debate of it's own. You have chosen, by misdirection, to conflate the two issues. Got it.
Whatever. I was posting about the DT conversation and incapacities it shows. The NYer piece is interesting. We can hope.
Now go read the CFR primer.
Oh, oh, Maurice, I shoulda known, I shoulda known. We all should've.
I mean, Beck, sure, but someone here?
http://www.snopes.com/mexico-guatemala-border/
Not only do you not know, you are gulled, yet again.
I am surprised even a rightwingnut like Beck is leaving that page up. Site hygiene, nah.
You are writing about crow and foot and mouth, so I guess you did not read that Snopes link. So extremely droll. Nationalism and nativism often are.