Go back where??? They are Americans! 

The definition says nothing about the giver.

Well there you go, another way in which to point out something bad so you don't have to acknowledge the good.

The definition of charity says nothing about the giver.

Why should anyone give to charity? Because in one way or another it stokes their ego. It just depends whether or not that form of ego is seen as acceptable to some people. Other people couldn't care less where the money comes from, within reason.

Go back where??? They are Americans! 

I honestly wouldn't bother interacting with this guy - he has no interest in actually discussing anything - his only goal is to bore the other person into submission by repeating the same inane nonsense over & over. I'm guessing he sees that as some kind of pathetic victory...

I concur that he is wrong. You never struck me as someone who is acting deliberate, but rather as someone who is honestly very slow on the uptake.

This is what you don't understand.  This is the whole problem: 

-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else. 

-You can't suggest they go back there.  

I don't even care at this point if you disagree that it's a problem.  But understand that those two points are in general considered to be a no-no for most people.  Especially people that were born in America and get continuously get asked where they are from, and even worse told to go back there.  

It doesn't matter if he said "come back when you've fixed those problems".  Because for him, he might as well have said "come back when hell freezes over."  And it basically would have had the same meaning to him.

Gotta disagree. They are clearly just copy/pasting others thoughts. They are being quite deliberate in their lack of an argument. They aren't trying to learn or understand which would be what you expect from someone being very slow on the uptake

Actually I guess there is a compromise. They are being deliberate in copy/pasting others though, and still be very slow to understand even what those thoughts are.

"but you can come back later" is the talking point trumps PR team came up when called out on the BS.

Oh and I'll add this since no one else has and I find it hilarious.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/immigrants-facts.cfm

• The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  • Immigrants' Employment Rights Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws
    
    • Harassment Based on National Origin
    • Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from, " whether made by supervisors or by co-workers.

Go back to where you came from is so offensive, and been around for so long - it actually got added as an example of discriminating against Immigrants.

And I will let the sad attempt at semantics continue.

More like others just get ahead of themselves.

"-You can't assume someone was from somewhere else."

>Sure you can: at the risk of being wrong.

"-You can't suggest they go back there."

>Why the hell not? It's a suggestion, not a command. No one is forcing anyone to go somewhere against their will.

Depends on what the person hates about America. If they hate something like the existing tax system, that's something that can be changed to some degree without much issue, but if you hate the existence of another country and it's people and wish they would just 'go away', then that's a problem America won't be participating in unless they become an enemy, so you might as well go elsewhere if that's a problem you want to fix. The types of complaints and the type of person doing the complaining would be taken into account when determining the type of response.

What????

If you're told to go do a job somewhere else and then expected to return when finished, with a full report and the job completed, is that racist or prejudice? By Trump saying go to your home country and fix it and come back here and show us how you did it, how is that necessarily seen as a bad thing, unless those other countries are that horrible, or those individuals couldn't complete the task? It's as if people are taking it like Trump would basically be sending them to jail, which doesn't say good things about those countries, by the same people who seem to be defending them. I also don't see how it could be looked at as racist or prejudice, as those countries are not all single race countries, and if by chance they were, then you couldn't help but wonder if those countries are racist or prejudice themselves, or just so horrible no other race wants to live there, even some of their own.

You do know context means a lot right.  So using your analogy.  If you are a mexican immigrant and someone told you to go back to mexico and work there instead of what you are doing in the US then yes that would be considered prejudice. If you are a black man doing work within a white neighborhood and a white person walks up to you and say why don't you go to your own neighborhood and do work there, that would be considered prejudice.  You see your analogy as always comes up short because you leave out context trying to make a weak point.

As to what Trump said, well we still come back to the point that they are AMERICANs not immigrants, not illegal aliens but US citizens.  Does this very context escape you.  You cannot tell someone who is an American to go back to their place of ancestry and fix something since they are now US citizens.  The majority of US citizens in America have ancestry in other Countries INCLUDING TRUMP.  So trying to tell someone to go fix where their ancestry is from before trying to do the job they were elected to do in the US is disingenuous based on his OWN ancestry.  You cannot escape or explain this point because we can all agree, what Trump stated was stupid.  But please continue to try to make what he said right.

Everyone just keeps strengthening the point.

Are you saying that because both you and I have been wrong in the past and admitted it, that means we're both stupid and aren't worthy of being conversed with no matter how correct or useful our other comments may be? Just because we've made mistakes before, that means we have nothing else to offer?

If we continue to make the same mistakes and not improve ourselves then yes.  Are you a person who would open the refrig, take a bottle of milk drink it and notice its gone bad, put the milk back in the refrig and come back the next day and drink it again.  If people notice you doing the same failure you did before, why would they believe you are worthy of anything but continued failure.

Just because someone like Epstein may be a POS when it comes to woman, who may deserve to spend a lot of time behind bars, doesn't mean a blind eye should be turned to any good deeds he's done. That's not to say he should be praised for it, but like in my example, you can't even give him the smallest amount of respect or anything for that matter, just because he did something else unacceptable. When it comes to being wrong, where do you draw the line? At what age and at what level of bad deeds are your good deeds from then on inadmissible?

If his good deeds are done as self interest then why should anyone praise him for doing it.  If the good deed is there to offset all the bad why would anyone fall victim to such a scheming person.  If a murderer kills someone but gives to the poor we are suppose to show this person respect.  In your example you totally ignore motives which is a huge point to dismiss.  You cannot wipe away the bad crap you do by doing something charitable since it then isn't charity.

It's like trying to say Bill Cosby was never funny. The guy was hilarious, but apparently was also a scumbag. That doesn't change the fact he was funny when it came to his comedy though. Do I look at him in the same light as I used to? No, but I couldn't logically say he wasn't a funny guy.

I also wasn't the one who brought up Epstein's charitable donations, and for good reason.