Profile picture
women meme 🔥 @KHandozo
, 144 tweets, 26 min read Read on Twitter
OK, I have the speech up. I am going to go in order, with many digressions along the way. This is the sort of on-the-fly essay writing I do on here sometimes, so I may get things wrong. If I write it up, I'll correct.
Linked the wrong speech, so I'm trying again.
OK, here's the link to *this year's* speech to the National Federation of Independent Businesses. As I say, there are now other transcripts and video available to cross check, if you want. whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
Any screenshots I post will be from this transcript, which I downloaded as a PDF yesterday.
The speech starts out as what it was meant to be, a series of banal niceties on the occasion of the 75th anniversary celebration of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Then there is the usual Trump switcharoo to praising his own numbers and gloating about them. "Joining us today are some terrific people who work very, very hard. And actually, they are starting to get a lot of credit. In fact, we had our highest poll numbers today."
Everyone who came before me was your enemy; I am your friend. For many years, Washington tried to hold you back and tear you down, crushing the American small business with crippling taxes and oppressive regulation. But all that has changed starting in November 2016. (Applause.) The Trump administration is with you, and we are with you 100 percent. And always will be. (Applause.)<br />
<br />
Instead of punishing entrepreneurship, we are now promoting entrepreneurship. (Applause.) Especial
And here's where things start to take a turn for a speech to small business owners. He is going to talk about immigration. Main Street is thriving and America is winning once again. You know, we’re respected again. This country is respected again. (Applause.)<br />
Before going any further today, I want to take a moment to address something you’ve been reading a lot about: the illegal immigration crisis on our southern border. It’s been going on for many, many decades and many years. And it has its ups and its downs. And all we need is good le
(I am trying to add captions to my screengrabs, but in some cases the whole text doesn't fit. You can read the entirety at the link above.)
So let's note one thing here: it's the usual "it's the Democrats' fault" business, but he also notes what he sees as the real problem: families who migrate with small children are not usually detained or immediately deported.
He uses the word "released," which has been going around in the phrase "catch and release," which refers to nonhuman animals, usually fish.
I was trying to find some reliable numbers for the policy, but most of the numbers I can find come from anti-immigration sources, so I'll leave that for the moment. (I'm slow at this, because I stop to look things up.)
We don't want to do this, but you're making us do this. Abuser logic. Because we cannot jail entire families, including small children, as a group, we must steal the children, which, remember, we don't want to do. These are crippling loopholes that cause family separation, which we don’t want. As a result of these loopholes, roughly half a million illegal immigrant family units and minors from Central America have been released into the United States since 2014 at unbelievably great taxpayer expense. Nobody knows how much we’re paying for this monstrosity that’s been created over the years — legislation that nobody has any ide
This part is true: he'd rather imprison families. The Obama administration did do this, but federal courts stopped it, and now the government has to justify keeping families in detention.
Here's some more info on family detention: detentionwatchnetwork.org/issues/family-…
Now we get to the outline of new plans. There's a lot here, so I'm going to go over it in pieces. Child smugglers exploit the loopholes, and they gain illegal entry into the United States, putting countless children in danger on the perilous trek to the United States. They come up through Mexico. Mexico does nothing for us. You hear it here: They do nothing for us. They could stop it. They have very, very strong laws. Try staying in Mexico for a couple of days. See how long that<br />
lasts. Okay? (Laughter and applaus
First thing: "child smugglers." Note that, like the term "MS-13," he is using an actual problem to create a label he can apply with a broad brush. Expect parents to be called "child smugglers" in future.
You can already see the conflation in the first sentence: "Child smugglers exploit the loopholes, and they gain illegal entry into the United States, putting countless children in danger on the perilous trek to the United States."
Note that the first clause does not match the third clause. The problem with "child smugglers" is not the "perilous journey," it is the fact that they are kidnapping children.
But he is not talking about actual child smugglers, he is talking about parents, which is why his sentence ends with an accusation of bad parenting.
How many times have you heard this as a conservative talking point? That migrants are bad parents for taking their children on a perilous journey? I have heard it many times.
And of course, the question should be "What would make you leave everything behind and take your children on a dangerous journey to escape the horrors of home?"
The Warsan Shire poem "Home" seems applicable here. People only flee their homes when they are desperate, frightened, in danger. genius.com/Warsan-shire-h… you have to understand,<br />
that no one puts their children in a boat<br />
unless the water is safer than the land<br />
no one burns their palms<br />
under trains<br />
beneath carriages<br />
no one spends days and nights in the stomach of a truck<br />
feeding on newspaper unless the miles travelled<br />
means something more than journey.<br />
no one crawls under fences<br />
no one wants to be beaten<br />
pitiedno one chooses refugee camps<br />
or strip searches where your<br />
body is left aching<br />
or prison,<br />
because prison is safer<br />
than a city of fire<br />
and one prison guard<br />
in the night<br />
is better than a truckload<br />
of men who look like your father<br />
no one could take it<br />
no one could stomach it<br />
no one skin would be tough enough
Many white people have ancestors who fled to the United States with their children when home was too dangerous to stay. Many fleeing people have been turned away from the United States with no place safe to go.
Then, immediately after the sentence about "child smugglers" who are bad parents, we get a transition sentence: "They come up through Mexico," which leads to the news that "Mexico does nothing for us."
When he says "us," Trump always means himself, which can be about his political positions or his business.
I thought he was likely talking about his businesses, given the weird sentence "They have very, very strong laws."
The suit was filed in 2016, but that report is from April, when new evidence was being presented in the criminal tax evasion case against Trump in Mexico.
Very, very strong laws.
"Try staying in Mexico for a couple of days. See how long that lasts. Okay?" I mean, I expect it would last a couple of days. I think he's actually suggesting illegally entering Mexico and that you would be removed within a couple of days.
It's not entirely clear, though, because this is stream of consciousness. I do this in conversation sometimes, where I will make connections in my head, not describe those connections, and then blurt out where I landed.
So he's talking about people entering the country illegally, Democrats make us separate families, by the way Mexico does nothing for us, they have strong laws, try staying there a couple of days, and the part about entering illegally was only in his head.
(I'm still commenting on this section of the speech.)
Then we have the part about trade and NAFTA - as @alexandraerin frequently points out, he doesn't understand trade, and thinks that another country making money means we are losing. The whole conman dealmaker thing again. A deal is me cheating you.
More of the same, along with the continued unclear transition between thought and speech. If you mentioned people who could be characterized as "they" in a previous sentence, but introduce a new "they" in your next, you need to specify who you are talking about. And we’re going to take care of our American farmers, and we’re going to take care of our manufacturers, and our manufacturing jobs. But they’re making unbelievable amounts of money, and that’s not including the drugs that are flowing through our border, because we have no wall and we have no protection. The drugs that are coming in from Mexico and through the southern border is disgraceful.
Right now it reads as though the American farmers and manufacturers are making unbelievable amounts of money and that's not counting the drugs flowing across our border.
But the point is clear, and the only reason to highlight this jump is to show that it is not scripted.
We've also added a new-old charge against migrants, so we have child smuggling, irresponsible parenting, flowing drugs across borders. (And note that the turn makes the people involved sound more powerful than often-desperate smugglers.)
This part's almost funny except that it's in a speech outlining an expansion of fascist powers. He forgets that he promised to get rid of NAFTA, so he has to correct mid-sentence. So we’ll see whether or not we can make a reasonable NAFTA deal or deal —<br />
doesn’t have to be called NAFTA. We can do one-on-one with Mexico; one-onone<br />
with Canada.
"We'll make NAFTA even better - I mean, not NAFTA. Maybe an individual deal with Mexico or Canada, both countries that are definitely ready to do a deal with me."
Then, having said the word "Canada" aloud, he remembers that he's beefing with Trudeau and has to get in some digs about Canada. And, by the way, Canada — they like to talk. (Laughter.) They’re our great<br />
neighbor. They fought World War II with us. We appreciate it. They fought<br />
World War I with us. And we appreciate it, but we’re protecting each other.<br />
There was a story two days ago, in a major newspaper, talking about people<br />
living in Canada, coming into the United States, and smuggling things back into<br />
Canada because the tariffs are so massivshoes, then they wear them. They scuff them up. They make them sound old<br />
or look old.<br />
No, we’re treated horribly. Dairy. Dairy. Two-hundred and seventy-five<br />
percent tariff. So basically that’s a barrier without saying it’s a barrier.<br />
And I told them, if they don’t change their ways — and we have a tremendous<br />
deficit. People say, “Well, there’s really not that much of a deficit.” Well,<br />
they’re not including two things
There's the bizarre story about shoes, which is explained here: slate.com/business/2018/…
Slate also has an explainer on the dairy tariffs: slate.com/business/2018/…
Back to the speech: Big applause for "We can no longer be the stupid country. We want to be the smart country." And I told them, if they don’t change their ways — and we have a tremendous<br />
deficit. People say, “Well, there’s really not that much of a deficit.” Well,<br />
they’re not including two things: energy and timber. And those are the two big<br />
things when it comes to Canada.<br />
No, we have to change our ways. We can no longer be the stupid country. We<br />
want to be the smart country. (Applause.)<br />
So hopefully, we’ll be able to work it
I'm going to skip ahead in the speech, past the estate tax business when he congratulates a wealthy father and son on not having to pay estate taxes.
That leads to more muttering about estate tax, and then another jump directly from estate tax back to loopholes and child smuggling. This is the actual transition. You don’t have to pay the estate tax any longer. (Applause.) In most cases. In<br />
other words, loopholes — if your farm is really big, you start to pay. It’s a pretty<br />
big level, you know that. Pretty big. That would have to be a pretty big farm.<br />
These loopholes have created a massive child smuggling trade. Can you<br />
believe this? In this day and age, we’re talking about child smuggling. We’re<br />
talking about women smuggling
Hyperbole and superlatives are always necessary for Trump (see what I did there?), so human trafficking is the worst it's ever been in history. Image of Disney Winnie the Pooh thinking, with one eye squinting shut and his hand on his headimage of a slave auction in antebellum America
This is a repetition of a lie he's told before. washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
He even used the same wording when he said it in 2017. "...you go back 500 years, 200 years, 100 years, human trafficking, they say--think of it, what they do--human trafficking is worse now, maybe, than it's ever been in the history of this world."
One key word difference: "maybe." "Maybe" is gone now. He said it, people pushed back because it was a fucking lie, and so he has doubled down and now it is a certainty.
Sorry, I got distracted. Back to this. "Child smuggling" and "women smuggling" are weird terms that manage to turn women and children into property while criticizing the practice.
Part of it is separating women and children out from the "human" in human trafficking. Part of it is "smuggling," which I'll go into a little more.
"Trafficking" can refer to legal practices of trade. "Human traffficking" is jarring because treating humans as objects to be traded is wrong, and the phrase assumes that.
It's like saying "selling people." The shock is assumed in the fact that it is people who are being sold. Selling is not criminal activity in itself.
"Smuggling," on the other hand, is about illicitly moving goods to avoid taxes and tariffs. They could be illegal goods, but are more often goods that can be legally sold but are being sold in contravention of laws.
So by specifying women and children and using the term "smuggling," it sounds as though there might be a proper way to traffic in women and children.
And to be clear, I'm not saying Trump is alone in using the word "smuggling" to refer to human trafficking. He is not. "Child smuggling," and "women smuggling" are unfamiliar terms, though.
Unsurprisingly, if you look up "women smuggling," it usually appears in sentences in which "women" are the subjects actively doing the smuggling. "Child smuggling" is more often used as Trump used it.
Which makes a certain kind of sense, as we tend to implicitly see children as property of adults.
I would say, however, that the more common term to refer to the movement of people as goods is "trafficking." Google agrees with me on this one. Google search for Google search for Google search for
I'm harping so much on Trump's word choice because his word choices reflect his worldview. Women and children ARE property to this man.
Men are actors, women and children are acted upon. And women and children are primarily of use as a rhetorical device.
This is how you can claim that women and children are the primary victims of migration *and* insist that abuse is not a reason to offer asylum.
The problem is not that women and children are being abused. The problem is that they are being moved into the United States. If the men kept their property at home, it would be fine.
Again, use of the word "smuggling" here removes agency from women who come without men and unaccompanied minors. Men move women and children.
Sorry for the weirdness of the screenshot. This is the disadvantage in working from a PDF: there are some weird breaks. Since last year, child smugglers — who are very, very sophisticated — they’ve learned the loopholes in this horrible, rotten system that the Democrats have to help us fix because we need the votes. We could have the Republican votes,<br />
100 percent. We still don’t have enough votes. People don’t understand that.<br />
We need Democrat votes to get it fixed.
He again blames the Democrats. They created the "loopholes" (we haven't actually detailed what they are) that allow human trafficking, and they refuse to do anything about it while the Republican party, which controls every branch of government, is helpless.
The smugglers are all law prodigies. Note the sleight-of-hand shift from "child smuggling" and "women smuggling" to traffickers smuggling families. Again, these rhetoric moves are against parents fleeing violence. These smugglers know these rules and regulations better than the people that<br />
drew them. As a result, there’s been a 325 percent increase in minors, and a<br />
435 percent increase in the smuggling or attempted smuggling of families and<br />
minors into our country. We’re stopping them all the time by the thousands.<br />
But they still get through. We have no wall. We have no border security.<br />
Without a border, you don’t have a count
The smuggling of families removes agency but also creates a claim that they never wanted to leave in the first place. They were smuggled, you see. They aren't fleeing. They are stolen.
"Families," "women," and "children" have positive associations with whiteness and innocence (both strongly linked to one another) in American rhetoric, so the way to remove sympathy for their plight is to create sympathy for a different plight. Use their implied helplessness.
Violence at home is vanished in favor of the violence of forced migration, and the solution becomes not compassionate asylum for those displaced by U.S. policy in Latin America, but rapid deportation.
And then we shift from the plight of women and children and families to the plight of poor generous compassionate America. "Without a border, you don’t have a country. You don’t have a country."
The United States is another helpless exploited dame. No protection. No wall. We are about to lose our country because there's no wall to protect our poor helpless America.
Just look how compassionate the U.S. is! We don't want to put babies in cages! We either allow ourselves to be ravaged or behave in monstrous ways because the Democrats created only those two options. Under current law, we have only two policy options to respond to this massive<br />
crisis: We can either release all illegal immigrant families and minors who show<br />
up at the border from Central America, or we can arrest the adults for the<br />
federal crime of illegal entry. Those are the only two options. Totally open<br />
borders or criminal prosecution for law breaking. And you want to be able to<br />
do that. We don’t want people po
I'm going to break the next paragraph into two pieces to deal with two parts of what he is saying.
Just do it the right way! Only the right way is closed off. Asylum seekers are being turned away at the ports of entry. This started in late 2016, according to the Intercept, but went from being "sporadic" to "routine." theintercept.com/2018/06/16/imm… Keep in mind, those who apply for asylum, legally, at ports of entry, are not<br />
prosecuted. The fake news media back there doesn’t talk about that.
Next part. Having mentioned the news media, Trump needs to rant about them.
The claim here is that the news media is helping traffickers - intentionally - by reporting on the Trump administration's immigration policy.
"It should be stopped" is always a phrase you want to see applied to the press in a democracy, right? Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
That section also has the sloppy - but rhetorically useful - conflation of "theys." "They" initially refers to the news media, but shifts without marker to migrants who cross the border illegally. The news media and the migrants verbally become one in this section.
"They endanger their children in the process. And frankly, they endanger all of our children."
(By the way, do you remember that this is a speech marking the 75th anniversary celebration of the National Federation of Independent Businesses? I'm pretty sure Trump forgot pages ago.)
(Also of note: we are on page 8 of a 23 page transcript. I will probably not finish the whole transcript in one go. There's a reason I turned it into a PDF.)
He remembers all of a sudden in the middle of this section that he's supposed to be talking about business. You see what happens with MS-13, where your sons and daughters are<br />
attacked violently. Kids that never even heard of such a thing are being<br />
attacked violently, not with guns, but with knives because it’s much more<br />
painful. Inconceivable — here we are talking about business — inconceivable<br />
that we even have to talk about MS-13 and other gangs. They attack violently,<br />
the most painful way possible. And a bullet is too q
Rhetoric moves: they, the news media ➡️ they, the smugglers ➡️ their children ➡️ our children ➡️ YOUR children
YOUR children are being attacked! Not with guns--guns are good--but with the much more evil knives, which hurt more.
Note the rhetorical slippage of "we're taking them out by the thousands," underlined through repetition.
Are we taking them out or...taking them out?
And I want to back up a little. MS-13 commits heinous acts of violence, it is true, often with machetes. I'm trying to find estimates on the number of people MS-13 has killed in the United States.
I can't find a total, but it looks like dozens, which is certainly bad.
I am downloading Excel files from the Gun Violence Archive. gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps
I'm doing something wrong with the 2018 numbers, so I'll instead post some estimates of 2015 gun violence from early 2016.
"Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive...Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted." bbc.com/news/world-us-…
There have been over 100 school shootings this year alone (and it's June) and the president is telling people that the real danger to their kids is violent immigrants with knives.
I'll come back to this in a while. I need a break and a brain cleansing.
Remember when I said "child smugglers" meant parents?
I'm going to try to get further in the speech today. I left off at "We’re taking them out by the thousands." You can read the speech here: whitehouse.gov/briefings-stat…
I have the page downloaded as a PDF to make it easier for me to mark where I am at. I'm on page 8 of 23.
Events move quickly, so some of the things that were true at the beginning of this thread have already changed.
Here, though, we can see where the executive order is leading. He wants to have something overturning Flores so that children can be detained indefinitely with their parents. So what I’m asking Congress to do is to give us a third option, which we have<br />
been requesting since last year — the legal authority to detain and promptly<br />
remove families together as a unit. We have to be able to do this. This is the<br />
only solution to the border crisis. We have to stop child smuggling. This is the<br />
way to do it.
This is not to say we aren't already doing such things. They want more facilities, though, and they want to be legitimated in their cruelties.
This next section of the speech is pretty frightening even in context with everything else. Trump says we need a "real border — not judges."
I suspect this is not just in reference to Flores, but his experiences being deposed for his business practices, as well as the general idea of checks and balances. But the main thrust is, he wants to do away with the judicial branch.
This continues. The very practice of hiring judges is corrupt and the people who want to be judges are corrupt. As usual, taking advantage of actual existing problems to discredit something that could hinder him. No, what — seriously, what country does it? They said, “Sir, we’d like to hire<br />
about five or six-thousand more judges.” Five or six-thousand? Now, can you<br />
imagine the graft that must take place? You’re all small business owners, so I<br />
know you can imagine a thing like that would happen. But here’s a guy — they<br />
say, “Could you please be a judge? Come on, get it.” They line up to be a<br />
judge. It’s horrible.
And note the repetition of "what country does this?" I suspect this refers to the countries he's admired with dictators. He's very impressed with how they do things. No hindrance.
Then there's some more internal contradiction that, as I've noted in the past, is an important part of Trump's rhetorical style. We don’t want judges; we want security on the border. We don’t want people<br />
coming in. We want them to come in through a legal process like everybody<br />
else that’s waiting to come into our country. (Applause.)
I don't think it is planned, per se. I think it is a habit that has become automatic. He says things that contradict one another so that listeners can read either one as the correct statement. It works well when you're conning people.
If you read the one more favorable to you, great. If you read the one less favorable to you, he can point to the other statement.
So we get "we don't want judges," and "we don't want people coming in," together with "we want them to come in through a legal process."
A legal process, without judges, that also means people don't come in.
If you object to the first two sentences, well, we have the last sentence, which sounds reasonable-ish to many. "We want them to come in through a legal process like everybody else that’s waiting to come into our country."
But the first two sentences are the truth. ("We" with Trump is always the royal We.) He doesn't want judges. He doesn't want nonwhite people coming here. (Remember that he pined for Norwegian immigrants.)
Taken together, and with what we already know of Trump, we can read this section as a desire for new quotas and for the dissolution of the judicial branch. "Legal" will mean what Trump says goes in this better world he's imagining.
Judges release people, so judges are creating crime. Allowing a judicial process is bad. He says that "they never come back to the judge," but in fact the majority of families released through this process do. This is lying and scaremongering, his favorites. And it got so crazy that all of these thousands — we now have thousands of<br />
judges — border judges — thousands and thousands. And, by the way, when<br />
we release the people they never come back to the judge anyway. They’re<br />
gone. They’re in your system. That’s it. If they’re good, that’s great. And if<br />
they’re bad, you’ll have killings, you’ll have murders, you’ll have this, you’ll<br />
have that, and you’ll have crime. You’ll
"Judges" hark back to the "media" earlier in Trump's rhetoric around both. Both are essentially colluding with criminals to harm good Americans, all of whom are Trump supporters.
Remember when people said he'd have to tone down his rhetoric if he became the Republican candidate? And remember, these countries that we give tremendous foreign aid to in many<br />
cases, they send these people up and they’re not sending their finest. Does<br />
that sound familiar? (Laughter.) Remember I made that speech and I was<br />
badly criticized? “Oh it’s so terrible, what he said.” Turned out I was 100<br />
percent right. That’s why I got elected. (Laughter and applause.)
Keep in mind that when you are dealing with propagandists who do not care about the truth, winning AND losing are both justifications for what you do or say.
Winning means people agree with you, so you're right. Losing means you were unfairly undermined by unscrupulous enemies incited by the media and paid to pretend to oppose you, so you're right.
I haven't even mentioned the applause, but it's worth noting which lines get it.
And keep in mind that he always assumes crowds and motives are fake BECAUSE HE KNOWS HIS ARE. He hired actors to attend his campaign announcement. He stacked the crowd at the CIA speech with his staffers.
I'd imagine members of the National Federation of Independent Businesses who oppose him wouldn't attend in the first place, but he will be sure to have supporters sitting in the audience regardless.
This part is also a tell. He says people need to go through the process, but then he says they also need to know they can't get in. This fits with what is happening at the ports of entry. People are not being allowed to get to the only ways to legally enter. We want a great country. We want a country with heart. But when people<br />
come up, they have to know they can’t get in, otherwise it’s never going to<br />
stop. Whether it was President Bush, President Obama, President Clinton —<br />
same policies. They can’t get them changed because both sides are always<br />
fighting.
Some people are being arrested before they get to the ports of entry. Others are being turned away. People cannot get to the legal entry and then they are arrested for trying to enter illegally.
He reiterates both the major points in his next paragraph. Judicial process is bad, we must make sure people cannot come in. This is maybe a great chance to have a change. But one of them says we want<br />
to hire 5,000 more judges. I don’t want judges. I want border security. I don’t<br />
want to try people. I don’t want people coming in. Do you know, if a person<br />
comes in and puts one foot on our ground, it’s essentially “welcome to<br />
America, welcome to our country.” You never get them out, because they take<br />
their name, they bring the name down, the
The 3 percent number is wrong and is pulled out of his ass.
Take this with many, many grains of salt, but I read once that people are most convinced by percentages ending in 3 or 7, so fake percentages often use them. I don't remember my source, so this may have been wrong or itself made up.
But the idea is that round numbers ending in 0 or 5 sound fake because they're too clean, even numbers are not compelling, 1 and 9 are too close to a number that can be rounded off, but 3 and 7 are just right.
Anyway, the majority of families released do show up for future court dates.
HE IS STILL ON THE PROBLEMS WITH ALLOWING JUDICIAL PROCESS. We have moved on from judges to lawyers. The other thing they have is they have professional lawyers. Some are for<br />
good, others are do-gooders, and others are bad people. And they tell these<br />
people exactly what to say. They say, “Say the following:” — they write it down<br />
— “I am being harmed in my country. My country is extremely dangerous. I<br />
fear for my life.” “Say that. Congratulations. You’ll never be removed.” This is<br />
given to them by lawyers who are wai
It is "in a way" "cheating" to consult with a lawyer, and also, come on, people are not fleeing their homelands because they are being harmed in that country. I mean, they sometimes are, but they're coming here for other reasons. But, in a way, that’s cheating because they’re giving them statements. They’re<br />
not coming up for that reason. They’re coming up for many other reasons and<br />
sometimes for that reason.
Hoo boy, this section. It sounds a lot like how Jews have been demonized. Smart, but it's really cunning - underhanded knowledge used against others. There’s been a 1,700 percent increase in asylum claims over the last 10 years.<br />
Think of that. Think of that. We’re a great country but you can’t do that.<br />
Smugglers know how the system works. They game the system; they game it.<br />
It’s so easy for them. They’re smart. They didn’t go to the Wharton School of<br />
Finance. (Laughter.) But you know what? They’re really smart.
So the 1700% increase refers to an actual increase in asylum claims (rounded up, of course) between 2007 and 2016, but people who have examined the increase say that the majority of people are fleeing an increase of violence in Central America. politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
Gotta mention the Wharton School because he's not at all insecure about his perceived intelligence and worried that saying someone else is smart will reflect badly on him.
And again, to be clear, "smugglers" refers here to literally anyone coming to the border, and the intelligence he is ascribing to them is cunning. It is an old technique used to dehumanize a population, and has been used against Jews for millennia.
He repeats his lies about Germany. German crime is at its lowest rate in 26 years. politico.eu/article/german… The United States has just surpassed Germany as having the most asylum<br />
seekers of any nation on Earth. Can you image that? Can you image? And<br />
Germany — we talk about Germany — they allowed millions of people in. And,<br />
by the way, their crime, from the time they started, is up more than 10 percent.<br />
And that’s one of the reasons it’s at that level is because they don’t like<br />
reporting that kind of crime, so they put it d
Why Germany in particular? Oh, I think we can guess.
OK, here's the next thing that is a particular tell. Sorry to break up this paragraph, but my PDF changed pages there. I heard somebody said that Crooked Hillary Clinton was questioning that<br />
statistic. She said, “It’s not true. It’s not true.” Didn’t she already have her<br />
chance? I mean, I’ve — (laughter and applause). I’ll tell you what, when you<br />
read the IG report with these really dishonest people — and I was never a deepstate<br />
guy, but let me tell you, we got some bad people that are doing badthings. But when you read that IG report about how she got away with what<br />
she got away with, it’s a disgrace. It’s a total disgrace. (Applause.)
So, this part is a doozy. Hillary Clinton questions the (false) statistic, but she lost, so she does not control reality.
If Trump says it, it is right, because he won the election. I heard somebody said that Crooked Hillary Clinton was questioning that<br />
statistic. She said, “It’s not true. It’s not true.” Didn’t she already have her<br />
chance?And remember, these countries that we give tremendous foreign aid to in many<br />
cases, they send these people up and they’re not sending their finest. Does<br />
that sound familiar? (Laughter.) Remember I made that speech and I was<br />
badly criticized? “Oh it’s so terrible, what he said.” Turned out I was 100<br />
percent right. That’s why I got elected. (Laughter and applause.)
Also, he's bringing back the idea of prosecuting her, with the "what she got away with" comment.
Then there's a stream of consciousness transition to Comey, although he never names him or notes the change, which makes the next section confusing. And you ought to see the hearings that are right now on television but that<br />
folks are being — you know, they’re going on to the mainstream, fake news<br />
media. They want to focus on immigration because they want to keep the<br />
cameras away from the hearings because those hearings are not good for<br />
them. In fact, they’re a disaster for them. The whole thing is a scam. It’s a<br />
scam. And what’s happened is a disgrace.
You ought to see the Comey hearings on TV, but you don't, because the fake media wants you to care about children in cages out of self-interest, because the Comey hearings are not good for the media.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to women meme 🔥
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!