My bias shouldn't matter, because it doesn't change the facts. But if I don't explain it clearly and first, people will call me names like racist, bigot, or nationalist. So to set the baseline:
If Trump is a racist, it would be pretty easy to see: it wouldn't be ambiguous quotes taken out of context, it would be seen in obvious contempt and avoidance of those of lesser races.
- He wouldn't be hiring minorities (including Haitians or El Salvarorians) in his resorts and Hotels (which he does).
- He wouldn't be hugging black babies during the campaign stops, or during Hurricane relief (he could avoid that if he found it detestable)
- or getting praised by Jesse Jackson for his work on behalf of minorities
- or the time he got the Ellis Island Medal of Honor (with Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks). 
- Would he brag about reducing African American and Hispanic unemployment to some of the lowest levels, ever?
- He wouldn't be supporting Doctors without borders kinds of activities to shithole countries when he didn't have to
- He wouldn't have Jews in his inner circle, or people of color in his cabinet
Real racists don't like other races, they think theirs is superior, and resent the over-breeding of others, and mixing. If he was a real racist and wanted to eliminate blacks and latino's, he'd be for Planned Parenthood, for the same reasons Margaret Sanger started it:
❝ "A farmer would rather produce a thousand thoroughbreds than a million runts. How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden of children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds." ❞
According to Dems, the moment you run on Republican ticket, is the moment you change your entire world view from avowed diversity guy, to instant sexist/homophobic/racist... and their gullible base buys in. Either the Democrat leadership are ignorant and know none of this, or they're willfully and intentionally lying to divide the nation, and sabotage Immigration reform, because politics is more important than the people they could help. Pick one.
- Trump was willing to trade amnesty for so-called "dreamers" in exchange for a merit-based immigration program (that would favor the easily integrated, funding for a border wall, an increase in E-verify, ending chain migration, and ending the so-called diversity visa lottery).
- The Democrats responded to the attempt at bipartisan immigration reform, by ignoring the premise, and increasing the anti-merit based quota system -- where if you come from a low education / low skilled / poorly functioning country like Africa or Haiti, then you get a special chance to come here. Not based on merit (as the President demanded) but based on victim identity politics, and the idea that since you come from a place of being low education, marxist, anti-democratic, corruptocracy that you'll somehow integrate better into Democrat controlled cities, or vote Democrat 
- The President allegedly said that people shouldn't get special privilege by virtue of coming from "shithole" countries.
- The Democrats break the confidence of negotiations, and leak that he said "shithole countries" about places that are, um, shitholes. (The dictionary defines that as synonymous with hellholes).
If the Dems played this as they want some compassion in immigration: fine. I agree. But they lied, and pretended they didn't know what he wanted, or that he's a racist for wanting to reward the best and brightest... as he campaigned on. All of that is a fraud, or a lie.
People can be offended, or not. I don't really care. There are those with legitimate grievances against the crassness. The problem is the 95% are making the rest look bad.
- WaPo was so offended that they use "shithole" in a headline in a purely inflammatory way, designed to provoke a reaction and elicit shock... and forgot to offer any important context about the topic. (How credible is the source, why was it used, was it true, who else has done the same: things we would call Journalism).
- CNN of course went into Shithole Tourette's, using it continuously. I If it was wrong for the President to say it, then it's wrong for the media to replay it, is it not? If we're supposed to feel shame for the President, then shouldn't we feel shame at our media doing it worse? (Especially if/when it later turns out to be untrue?)
- Anderson Cooper, one time reality TV host and ex-CIA intern, gleefully called conservatives "Tea Baggers" (testicle suckers) but gets offended when Alec Baldwin once used "cocksucker" about a gay friend. He once claimed Trump could 'take a dump on his desk..." and his interviewee would defend Trumps actions. He's a friend of Kathy Griffin (who beheads the President in effigy) and that's OK but he gets all quiver-lipped and choked up because a known liar claimed Trump said Haiti was a "shithole"? Really? When did being a Newsman earn Emmy's for hypocritically crying crocodile tears on cue?
- Virtually everyone I know with a complaint about this, has no problems with their side doing the same thing or worse. So actions like this can't impress the other side with their moral consistency or sincerity, because they own the moral low ground on both of those things.
- They're ignoring far more relevant stories that are going on, missing what's important about that very story, all for what? Most Americans instinctively know deep down, that Trump is right. There are shithole countries, and we virtually all talk like this in private -- the shitty thing to do was leak it, and make a stink out of it. And anyone who thinks deeper about why this was done, is not only unimpressed but outraged at why.
- And the Trumper's doing the exact same thing that their side is doing, means their attacks against them are going to fall on deaf ears -- so this is less than helpful.
People will usually then be outraged and proclaim, "A President should know better, who has said anything like this?"
- LBJ held meetings while he was on the toilet, and would berate people who looked uncomfortable while he was doing it. He pulled his penis out (who he often referred to as "Jumbo") and said, "this is why we're in Vietnam".
- Hilary with deplorables? Not to mention calling people "Fucking Jews", laughing about rapists she got off, and so on.
- Candidate Obama sounded a lot like Trump on the campaign trail (about securing the border), and if he'd done that, we wouldn't be having this fight today  But he was not above slurs with "clingers to Religion and Guns"... he called Romney a "bullshitter" and of course Rollingstone and others defended the vulgarity . Obama even said that Libya was a "shit show" and the media covered it up, and didn't make a stink. 
Now of course partisans trying to resolve their cognitive dissonance will ignore the point that the media is never offended at Democrat vulgarity, but always at Republicans softer and more appropriate ones. And they'll try to twist it into, "But he was calling their country a "shithole", instead of just insulting individuals or committing the crime of indecent exposure. And when you point out the historical double-standards, instead of getting the point, they'll say, "you're using whataboutism" to excuse your side. Which is another fallacy, as the point isn't excusing a high crime, it's about the morally acceptable standards by Democrats, that they won't apply to the other side.
Trump denies the claim, the only source they have is not credible, and the media makes that "everyone knows it's true" based on their own non-supported reporting of the fact, then the media takes it to the next level and claims the Ambassadors to Haiti and Panama resigned over this non-event (and later have to retract).  Is this really what Journalism has sunk to?
Trump denies the claim
Both Trump and the Republicans in the room, said that he did not say this.
The only people that claim otherwise are Dick Durbin and the Democrats, who needed to distract from what happened... and of course their propaganda rag, the Washington Post.
If you know anything about the source (Durbin), you know he's an inflamatory liar when it comes to topics like this.
- First he got himself in trouble when comparing U.S. troops to Nazi's (and had to apologize on the Senate Floor).
- Then he got caught making up a story about a GOP Leader told President Obama, "I can't even stand to look at you", that Obama and the other side both said never happened. 
- Now he's not only making this shit up (and was the source at WaPo), but he's claiming that even the term "Chain Migration" is racist -- and that's why he's breaking his 2010 promise to end it, in this deal 
So to the informed, Durbin is not a credible source in a he-said, she-said about the Republicans. But good enough for Democrats, CNN and WaPo, of course.
The fact that this whole stink can be made up by one Democrat, because it fits an anti-Trump narrative at CNN and WaPo, and that none of them will mention one of the times their side said worse and somehow THIS is what the immigration debate is about, is what the whole fight over FakeNews is about. The more you listen to CNN, the dumber, more hateful, and less informed you get.
Dems were about to get DACA... and give up things that are wildly unpopular (chain migration and the lottery), AND give Trump an immigration win that Democrats couldn't do when they controlled all 3 houses. The problem is while they need DACA, they need chain migration and lottery voters even more. They also need to use the lack of DACA as a way to get votes. So they (and their partisan mouthpiece media) did the only thing they could: sabotage'd the negotiation, and changed the topic to, "Trump said a mean thing". It plays better with their cult than the truth that they don't really want DACA -- they want to club the Republicans over not having DACA.
Are they shitholes?
Would you want your kids to grow up in those places? I would not wish their infrastructure, education and quality of government on anyone. Because it's a shithole.
The rice institute did a map of where the most open defecations happened -- and other than San Francisco, Africa is the shithole capital of the world.
So as usual, after the Democrats tried to torpedo another immigration opportunity by dishonestly spiking the goals, leaking a paraphrased quote out of context, then fanning the flames by trying to play it as "racist" for a President to say that some countries are inferior to others -- and we shouldn't favor people based on their victim cred.
Then they did the usual, and tried to make it about ignoring some facts for others. One fact is that immigrants from these poorer places often perform well in the U.S. I concede that. But that doesn't change the morality or fairness of prioritizing people from those countries, in larger amounts than ever before -- over countries that have higher educations, more cultural similarities, and don't have as many terrorists and deadbeats in their midst. Countries get to pick who they let in. The self-deluded can see color as the only motivation... the realists can see education, culture, income, and other things as well, as Trump's side has a point.
The Clinton's made hundreds of millions as public servants helping places like Haiti, and the results can be seen in the numbers:
- a life expectancy of 63 years old
- 2-3x our murder rate
- 39% are illiterate.
If you're a compassionate person, you wouldn't wish that on your enemies.
Trump referred to El Salvador as one of the shithole countries, and has been working to end TPS status (with enough time to give folks a chance to legalize).
- Salvadorians are so offended they're going to have to cut off all the foreign aid they give the U.S..... which amounts to $0. While the U.S. has given them about $4.4 Billion Dollars.
- In the Human Development Index, El Salvador is firmly in the bottom half. 
- The American left is so offended that they're going to cancel their vacation plans to Hawaii, and book to visit beautiful El Salvador instead. Just kidding, the vocal left will never lift a finger to help directly, but they'll lift a megaphone to tell everyone else how wrong they are not to.
The left wants to deny that some places are shitholes, and simultaneously vilify Trump for sending people back to those shitholes. Which is it?
How dare the evil, vile Trump, send people back to places like El Salvador? Which are lovely, well managed countries. Other than the corruption, crime and rape culture. 
In 2001 there was an earthquake and so El Salvadorians were granted TPS (TEMPORARY Protected Status) while their country was in turmoil. That status was extended for 18 months at a time, ever since. At some point, this became a sham -- it was no longer temporary status, but subverting the spirit of immigration law.
So the Trump administration gave them another extension but also said they must legitimize: get a real green card, or legalize their stay in ways other than just abusing the TPS system, which was designed for temporary status, not forever refugee status. And for that, the left has lost their nut (as usual). How dare that callous Nazi bastard obey the rule of law like that, and stop abusing it like prior administrations did.  I think the left stopped trying to make sense, because it's unnecessary for their base: just tug a heart string, and their brains shut off.
NOTE: Again, I personally think that there should be a way to help people who have lived here 17 years, as long as they can show that they're contributing members of society. But I think it's retarded to pretend that ending a temporary status, and obeying the rule of law, after 18 years, is some vile abuse of power. This should have never gone on so long. If the Democrats really cared about this for anything than histrionics, then they had 10 years (8 with the last President and 2 before that where they controlled congress/senate) where they could have done something about it. So if the Salvador-Americans are getting fucked over, the Dems own it every bit as much as the Republicans, if not more (they had more time in control to fix it). Trump would use this as a bargaining chip in immigration reform in a heartbeat. It's the Democrats that won't expend any political capital to save the Salvadorians, because if they did, they couldn't vilify Trump for obeying the law. So they have zero moral high ground here.
The far left is making a stink about how much better things are in Scandinavian Countries, and why they don't come here from there?
And they ran some articles in their far left rags about how great it is over there omitting the 86% tax burden, or all the negatives of the Law of Jante (herd think), and how small their living spaces are, their weather, and so on... and focused all the social benefits. Please don't notice that about 4.5% of the U.S. population (nearly 12M) came from there and integrated quite well. Just notice that in the past few years the flow has been loosely equal -- with the U.S. giving them our naive pseudo socialists, and them giving us their entrepreneurs and people who wanted a little more liberty in their daily lives. Like the right to buy Ovaltine (something that is outlawed over there).
A friend summed up my views, "The man is a crass egocentric billionaire; not a racist megalomaniac."
The evidence of Trump being a racist just proves to me that 40 years of not teaching critical thinking, logic and reason in our schools has taken it's toll, when people can't tell the difference between their emotions and an unsupported opinion, and what we know.
The points are:
- (a) it's not racist to say some countries are shitholes. It's crass -- but he was crass before he was elected, and it's not nearly as crass as many celebrated democrats. Pretending this is a shock, just shows you're a slow learner, or a dishonest drama queen trying to sabotage a negotiation.
- (b) saying a country is a shithole is not the same as saying anything about the people who live there. Those trying to stretch that into racism are just letting their bias and hate show. In a meritocracy, you don't reward people for being on the bottom. That kind of participation trophy thinking was never going to fly. The Democrats were either idiots to think it would, or they did this to intentionally spike an opportunity to get DACA passed, because the political opportunity of ruining the deal (but blaming the President for it) meant more to them, than the opportunity to help people. <- and if that's true, that's far worse to me than a President that says "shithole" about a place I wouldn't want to send my enemies to live.
- (c) trying to make immigration about Social Justice and not Merit, is a very Democrat thing to do. (Shitholes get preferences over 1st World Countries). But let's be honest... do you think someone from a 1st world country (with a 1st world education, and functioning democracy) is going to have an easier time integrating over someone who lived their whole lives bribing officials, and killing who ever their warlord told them to?
So you can claim Trump is wrong, to NOT make our immigration into the social justice program that the left wants. Fine. I get that. And I'd try to mix more humanitarianism than he would. I could have been more on the Democrats side, if they'd just been honest about what this is about. But you're a liar or a fool, if you claim you didn't know what he wanted, or pretend that he's a racist for getting mad because they didn't come to the table with a sincere effort to create a meritocracy.
And if you're dumb enough to scream "racism", I'm going to point out that racism looks more like what the "Diversity Lottery" than a meritocracy. Saying that you deserve special immigration status because you're black is more racist than saying we should try to skim from the highest education countries in the world. Being a victim of a corrupt and failing government, is not a merit.
So I'm more offended by a dishonest (or incompetent) Democrat/Media ploy, than Trump being Trump. Even when I don't agree with Trump. And the more hand-waiving distractions the left/media does to get the gullible outraged, the more I go to Trumps side, than if they just laid out the facts and let people make up their own minds.