• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump is a racist?

Mason66 said:
Did you see somewhere where somebody, anybody said Bill Clinton was running for President this election cycle?

Why can't you comment on the OP as it was asked and not veer off in your own direction?
Click to expand...

Bringing up Bill Clinton is a direct connection. After all, the OP is trying to draw a parallel between Trump and somebody who isn't even running for office.
 
Mason66 said:
Can you translate this into English?
Click to expand...

I believe it's, "JoG is supporting Trump enthusiastically, and I support Trump even more enthusiastically." If you say that real fast, it comes out like something in Hindi or Pashtu. The give away would have been the, "Tank you veddy much", at the end, but he left that out.
 
markjs said:
Oh look, more Trumplodyte derp!

Of course you ignore any evidence to the contrary.



Or perhaps this....





Oh well, Trumpsters derp, just what they do best.....
Click to expand...
So you are calling Jessie Jackson a liar? Got it. And I suppose he DIDNT fight to integrate the Palm Beach country clubs. Nah...you go ahead and cling to a suit filed in 1973...NINETEEN SEVENTY THREE...against his FATHERS firms.

:lamo


You are a crack up.
 
VanceMack said:
So you are calling Jessie Jackson a liar? Got it. And I suppose he DIDNT fight to integrate the Palm Beach country clubs. Nah...you go ahead and cling to a suit filed in 1973...NINETEEN SEVENTY THREE...against his FATHERS firms.

:lamo


You are a crack up.
Click to expand...

I believe he refers to himself in such instances as "derp".
 
humbolt said:
It's sad. You know, there was a time when Trump couldn't walk, just like Hillary now.
Click to expand...

Isn't the real question if Hillary could at one point in her life tell the truth? I kinda rather doubt it.
 
eohrnberger said:
Isn't the real question if Hillary could at one point in her life tell the truth? I kinda rather doubt it.
Click to expand...

There is scientific evidence now that the more one lies, the less one feels regret at doing so. I imagine Hillary is so well practiced she lies with no effort at all, and can't distinguish her lies from the truth. I think she actually believes she landed under sniper fire in spite of the fact that it has been soundly and widely refuted. We can see the same here from Clinton sycophants.
 
I guess welfare, or food stamps, or McDondalds employee checks our out and the methhead trailer trash Trump fans are partying hard....

Can't really come up with many other theories of the top of my head of cause for the stupidity and unworthiness for debate of these Trumptards.
 
Last edited:
humbolt said:
There is scientific evidence now that the more one lies, the less one feels regret at doing so. I imagine Hillary is so well practiced she lies with no effort at all, and can't distinguish her lies from the truth. I think she actually believes she landed under sniper fire in spite of the fact that it has been soundly and widely refuted. We can see the same here from Clinton sycophants.
Click to expand...

Isolated and secretive as a child, this per the Frontline special on her and Trump, I think she never developed this level of conscience and social relationships.
 
Mason66 said:
Read the quote you posted. He said some are drug dealer, some are rapists and some are good people.

No where did he say all like you imply.

Does it matter to you the fact that he was right in what he said? I bet not.
Click to expand...

That's not quite right. His comment:

They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Click to expand...

The "I assume" is the best part of the quote. There are millions of them here, but he can only "assume" that "some" are "good people." :roll:

And he probably meant "some" are rapists, etc. but he didn't say that. He said "they" are which is a pretty broad term.

BTW, it doesn't "matter" to me that he was right - of course he was. Take ANY population and "some" (although he said 'they') are rapists, murderers, drug dealers. I'm sure there are "some" of all those in the class of millionaires in this country, business owners, fundamentalists.
 
JasperL said:
That's not quite right. His comment:



The "I assume" is the best part of the quote. There are millions of them here, but he can only "assume" that "some" are "good people." :roll:

And he probably meant "some" are rapists, etc. but he didn't say that. He said "they" are which is a pretty broad term.

BTW, it doesn't "matter" to me that he was right - of course he was. Take ANY population and "some" (although he said 'they') are rapists, murderers, drug dealers. I'm sure there are "some" of all those in the class of millionaires in this country, business owners, fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

The fact that he is right ends the conversation. You have nothing more to complain about.
 
Mason66 said:
The fact that he is right ends the conversation. You have nothing more to complain about.
Click to expand...

And I'd be "right" if I said, "The republicans/conservatives aren't the best in this country. They're rapists. They're drug dealers. They're pedophiles. They are liars and murderers. They are crooks, embezzlers, wife beaters and child abusers. Some, I assume, are good people. So we need to build a wall to prevent republicans or republican sympathizers from coming to this country!!!"
 
Mason66 said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Voting demographics for one. Latinos make up a larger percentage of voters than they did 20 years ago.

Also, the 2012 GOP election "autopsy" cited Latinos as a group that the GOP needed to do better with.

Terrorists took the place of Latinos as the brown people we should be most worried about.
 
JasperL said:
And I'd be "right" if I said, "The republicans/conservatives aren't the best in this country. They're rapists. They're drug dealers. They're pedophiles. They are liars and murderers. They are crooks, embezzlers, wife beaters and child abusers. Some, I assume, are good people. So we need to build a wall to prevent republicans or republican sympathizers from coming to this country!!!"
Click to expand...

*ouch*
 
JasperL said:
And I'd be "right" if I said, "The republicans/conservatives aren't the best in this country. They're rapists. They're drug dealers. They're pedophiles. They are liars and murderers. They are crooks, embezzlers, wife beaters and child abusers. Some, I assume, are good people. So we need to build a wall to prevent republicans or republican sympathizers from coming to this country!!!"
Click to expand...

When you go to crazy town don't expect anybody to follow you.
 
Last time I checked, a country isn't a race. A religion also isn't a race. And confusing either as a race is what racism is all about. hillbillary supporters are bigots. That they're notible for the soft bigotry of low expectations means little to nothing to the contrary of them being a bag of bigots.

She can't even manage to use a desktop computer and she thinks she's qualified to be president. This is the definition of Dunning-Kruger effect.

Vote for trump because he's competent enough not to appoint a Secretary of State who can't even fathom how to use a desktop computer. Where as hillary.....

Why vote for an incompetent who either 'is' or routinely 'plays' stupid? Because of the soft bigotry of low expectations for her because she's a woman? hillary supporters are bigots.

Who would deprive their own daughters of the chance to be the first woman president by voting for a honey trap hillbillary?

Our foreign policy cannot be seen supporting the practise or those who abide/participate-in: honey-trapping and castrating bacha-bazi rape slaves, or bacha-bazi connected heroin production/distribution.

 
markjs said:
My statement was more provable,with actual evidence than most of the derp you've posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

Then, by all means do so. I promise, I will read it.
 
JasperL said:
LMAO - my undergrad was in....economics and for reasons I don't need to explain read many PhD level economics and public policy papers per year, and have for a couple of decades. My day job is as a tax accountant, which is closer to economics and the social sciences than engineering. You might consider the possibility that it's possible to be informed and disagree with right wing ideology. Doesn't mean my views are correct, but the problem isn't a lack of ability to analyse economics or social sciences since those with careers in both fields and all of them incredibly well informed often have legitimate differences of opinion. It is the nature of the social sciences, including economics.



Cite please? And of course you're jumping from the conclusion that "liberal programs" (who knows what you mean by that - is SS a liberal program? Medicare?) contribute to poor economics outcomes for blacks. Let's say for the sake of argument that's true - it doesn't follow, therefore, that liberals or democrats are "racists" or "despise (blacks) behind their back" which is the claim I challenged, or that 'liberals' pushed those policies with any kind of racist intent. The other obvious alternative is they are not racists, just wrong. So you're lecturing me on inability to comprehend your supposedly informed social sciences argument, while engaging in obvious logical fallacies in your response (which is still of course evidence free), and then jumping to a conclusion (racists!) that even your own argument fails to support in any way whatsoever.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any 'liberal' programs that are limited to blacks (except for affirmative action programs which are declining and wouldn't explain the issues anyway). And if you've read any social science at all, you know that a lot of the problems are poverty based and not race based, and with the loss of decent jobs for unskilled whites, the same problems we've seen in the black community are spreading to poor whites, especially in rural areas like the mountain regions in my part of the world. Racism cannot explain that. Maybe something else is at work.



That's just a series of baseless right wing talking points, aka drivel or derp. If you have any evidence "Democrats" ruthlessly disregard the "Black population" and prolong failed programs with the intent to keep blacks down (and now, increasingly, poor whites) then present it.

Bottom line is you're taking an incredibly simplistic approach to a number of serious social problems affecting the poor of all races and backgrounds, reducing complex problems to one or two causes while ignoring a vast number of at least potentially contributing causes, and making scurrilous and in fact baseless accusations based on that simplistic analysis.
Click to expand...

I must excuse myself for overestimating you. I would never have thought you had had anything to do with economics from the way you argued. But the accountant bit does make it more understandable. You see, your approach it rather mechanistic for this type of analysis. It is fine, when you are doing a model. It gets nowhere, when you are looking for patterns in piles of data.
 
joG said:
Then, by all means do so. I promise, I will read it.
Click to expand...

When you can back up your notions of democrats being racist, with something other than anecdotes or your own personal hair brain theories, I'll consider it.
 
joG said:
I must excuse myself for overestimating you. I would never have thought you had had anything to do with economics from the way you argued. But the accountant bit does make it more understandable. You see, your approach it rather mechanistic for this type of analysis. It is fine, when you are doing a model. It gets nowhere, when you are looking for patterns in piles of data.
Click to expand...

If you want to pretend you've got a superior analytical mind, I'd think you could debate coherently on the subject, but you obviously can't so I am not sure who think you're fooling.

And even what you do say is nonsense. Obviously "models" are one way to look for patterns in piles of data - that's the point of them. And please tell me how economists or social scientists find patterns in "piles of data" without using "models"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom