When Will Trump Standup Against Bigotry and Racism?

Logician Man said:

Personal attacks are also what makes Trump look so pathetic. I still remember when he disrespected Carly Fiorina's facial appearance for no other reason than to show what a misogynistic asshole he was, and is.

Click to expand...

Making fun of the way someone looks isn't new. But if it's some proof of misogyny, then a context for such misogyny is needed to make it so.

Throwing such descriptions as racist, misogynist, or homophobic. Onto things that other people do freely, without such implications put towards them in turn. Only makes it more apparent that someone is trying far too hard to prove something that they can't even begin to prove.

This also shows that you're willfully omitting the fact that she attacked him as well. Teaming up with Ted Cruz if memory serves.

Why so many poll choices?
A simple question of "Do you hate Trump?" with the option to choose Yes or No would suffice.

Oborosen said:

Then how are you finding a pattern of racism in which you can't prove one exist?

Click to expand...

Seems obvious to the rest of us. Can't help those who don't see it.

uptower said:

Seems obvious to teh rest of us. Can't help those who don't see it.

Click to expand...

Imagining and seeing are two very different things.

I've asked for you to actually supply evidence that the man is what you claim he is. Yet all you can do is supply allegations from others who can do more than claim racism, without actually showing it.

Like I said before. Pick one instance that you can find and we will address it, if not. Then you're obviously just making a vast majority of this up of your own accord.

This is your last chance uptower.

Oborosen said:

Imagining and seeing are two very different things.

I've asked for you to actually supply evidence that the man is what you claim he is. Yet all you can do is supply allegations from others who can do more than claim racism, without actually showing it.

Like I said before. Pick one instance that you can find and we will address it, if not. Then you're obviously just making a vast majority of this up of your own accord.

This is your last chance uptower.

Click to expand...

My last chance, that's cute.

I have listed and shown enough times already. I picked one excellent and relevant example in Charlottesville. The man is racist; what he said is racist and who he supports is racist. Sit there there, deny the obvious and demand 'proof'; but it's all right there and much of it filmed live on camera: all the things Trump has done in the last couple for years - pandering to white nationalists, painting Latinos with a broad brush, denigrating African American communities - all in the links I provided in his own words, not someone else's - show to any rational mind, a pattern of racism.

If you have convinced yourself he is not, or the bar is somehow higher for you, good luck with that. We all have our standards. But I've seen more than enough to convince me. And so have most on this thread according to the poll results.

I don't need another chance. Put it down to a difference of opinion if you please. But just as you and other Trump supporters may never be 'convinced' he is a racist, I am convinced and will remain so because he has done more than enough to warrant it.

The evidence I have already provided is ample. Take any line from the moron's 'greatest hits'. Take it or leave it.

Risky Thicket said:

Great job, Born Free! Your WHATABOUT post is in at number 3. You are a giant among DP posters. Walk proud.

Click to expand...

When will you acknowledge the left's own bigotry, hatred, and hypocrisy.

The democrats are just as bad as the Trumpster's.

uptower said:

My last chance, that's cute.

I have listed and shown enough times already. I picked one excellent and relevant example in Charlottesville. The man is racist; what he said is racist and who he supports is racist. Sit there there, deny the obvious and demand 'proof'; but it's all right there and much of it filmed live on camera: all the things Trump has done in the last couple for years - pandering to white nationalists, painting Latinos with a broad brush, denigrating African American communities - all in the links I provided in his own words, not someone else's - show to any rational mind, a pattern of racism.

If you have convinced yourself he is not, or the bar is somehow higher for you, good luck with that. We all have our standards. But I've seen more than enough to convince me. And so have most on this thread according to the poll results.

I don't need another chance. Put it down to a difference of opinion if you please. But just as you and other Trump supporters may never be 'convinced' he is a racist, I am convinced and will remain so because he has done more than enough to warrant it.

The evidence I have already provided is ample. Take any line from the moron's 'greatest hits'. Take it or leave it.

Click to expand...

Alright, right there.

How does him saying "good people on both sides" make him racist? Seeing as there is no racial connotation in his words, at all.

Oborosen said:

Alright, right there.

How does him saying "good people on both sides" make him racist? Seeing as there is no racial connotation in his words, at all.

Click to expand...

The context, not the words. Have you even read the links? It's all in there. They were marching for white supremacy. He hedges by saying some on the white supremacist side are 'good people'. That's pandering. Our grandfathers won a war against them. $#ithole countries? Pandering. Immigrants are rapists, blacks live in hell and Warren is Pocahontas - all pandering to the racist right.

He's playing to the far right and if any understanding of his personal and, ahem...'business' history are taken into account we see that's the kind of person he is too.

A silly semantic game over whether the words 'good, people, both and sides' are racist on their own is a complete deflection. It's who he said it to, about and why.

And when he finally comes out to 'condemn' racism it's as usual a day late and a dollar short.

The man's a racist.

uptower said:

The context, not the words. Have you even read the links? It's all in there. They were marching for white supremacy. He hedges by saying some on the white supremacist side are 'good people'. That's pandering. Our grandfathers won a war against them. $#ithole countries? Pandering. Immigrants are rapists, blacks live in hell and Warren is Pocahontas - all pandering to the racist right.

He's playing to the far right and if any understanding of his personal and, ahem...'business' history are taken into account we see that's the kind of person he is too.

A silly semantic game over whether the words 'good, people, both and sides' are racist on their own is a complete deflection. It's who he said it to, about and why.

And when he finally comes out to 'condemn' racism it's as usual a day late and a dollar short.

The man's a racist.

Click to expand...

So once again, you're admitting that all of this is basically subjective. Not objective.

So playing by your own rules now. We can surmise that if you think he was wrong in saying that there were good people on both sides. Which was a correct statement. That you personally believe Heather Heyer deserved to die.

I'm not making this up. Going by what you've said, this is what we can see that you and those like you personally believe.

Am I incorrect and how?

Oborosen said:

So once again, you're admitting that all of this is basically subjective. Not objective.

So playing by your own rules now. We can surmise that if you think he was wrong in saying that there were good people on both sides. Which was a correct statement. That you personally believe Heather Heyer deserved to die.

I'm not making this up. Going by what you've said, this is what we can see that you and those like you personally believe.

Am I incorrect and how?

Click to expand...

I have not laid down any 'rules'. I most certainly do not believe Heyer deserved to die, save the personal attacks for someone who plays those games.

I believe Trump is objectively racist for a couple of reasons:

1. Most rational minds would take what he says and does and see it as offensive to minorities and/or pandering to white supremacists. I don't believe this is a knee jerk reaction because the words and contexts speak for themselves. Occam's razor - it's the simplest and most obvious explanation. And it works: look at most people at his rallies; the majority of people who support him as compared to those who decry him. He knows which side his bread is buttered even if some pretend it's a happy accident.

2. In order to argue that he is not racist one must cherry pick a deed or a statement and find some other less obvious excuse for it; less obvious because he had been doing this his entire career. However vast body the deeds and statements I have highlighted in links all start at the bigotry end of the scale and apparently need to be backtracked from there, so back to point one.

Now are we to argue over "what is racist?" That's a game of semantics to be played around Trump's statements that I will not play. It's racist when it offends or harms people of other races. Trump has undoubtedly done that in words and deeds. Do most racists even know they're doing it? Some maybe not, but it is indeed unfortunately just their 'subjective opinion' that it's 'not racist' when they have objectively belittled, demeaned, disenfranchised, discriminated against or oppressed others. If their excuse - and that's all it is - is, "I don't see it that way," it is nothing more than willful ignorance.

Now one might call that explanation in itself 'subjective' but that's just a circular argument. It's also a lame form of attack against the speaker, a weak logical fallacy. The school child's "Well what do you know?" retort. By that reasoning it is therefore highly a subjective that Trump is not a racist because of whatever back-breaking excuse is trucked out to avoid addressing the obvious. The fact is most people are convinced he's a bigot, because they've seen it with their own eyes and those who refuse to accept it are only ignoring the evidence. Evidence I have posted several times on this thread and has been roundly ignored.

So in the end is it honestly, Even after all the evidence I've shown has been steadfastly ignored in favor of continuing to repeat the same damn question that had been adequately answered over and over again, just a matter of opinion? . If so then why is mine the wrong one?

Damn I have noticed a increase of bigotry and racism on CNN and MSNBC when they are rejecting the idea of illegal aliens being sent to sanctuary cities and states. Seems the NIMBY is alive and well.

uptower said:

I have not laid down any 'rules'. I most certainly do not believe Heyer deserved to die, save the personal attacks for someone who plays those games.

I believe Trump is objectively racist for a couple of reasons:

1. Most rational minds would take what he says and does and see it as offensive to minorities and/or pandering to white supremacists. I don't believe this is a knee jerk reaction because the words and contexts speak for themselves. Occam's razor - it's the simplest and most obvious explanation. And it works: look at most people at his rallies; the majority of people who support him as compared to those who decry him. He knows which side his bread is buttered even if some pretend it's a happy accident.

2. In order to argue that he is not racist one must cherry pick a deed or a statement and find some other less obvious excuse for it; less obvious because he had been doing this his entire career. However vast body the deeds and statements I have highlighted in links all start at the bigotry end of the scale and apparently need to be backtracked from there, so back to point one.

Now are we to argue over "what is racist?" That's a game of semantics to be played around Trump's statements that I will not play. It's racist when it offends or harms people of other races. Trump has undoubtedly done that in words and deeds. Do most racists even know they're doing it? Some maybe not, but it is indeed unfortunately just their 'subjective opinion' that it's 'not racist' when they have objectively belittled, demeaned, disenfranchised, discriminated against or oppressed others. If their excuse - and that's all it is - is, "I don't see it that way," it is nothing more than willful ignorance.

Now one might call that explanation in itself 'subjective' but that's just a circular argument. It's also a lame form of attack against the speaker, a weak logical fallacy. The school child's "Well what do you know?" retort. By that reasoning it is therefore highly a subjective that Trump is not a racist because of whatever back-breaking excuse is trucked out to avoid addressing the obvious. The fact is most people are convinced he's a bigot, because they've seen it with their own eyes and those who refuse to accept it are only ignoring the evidence. Evidence I have posted several times on this thread and has been roundly ignored.

So in the end is it honestly, Even after all the evidence I've shown has been steadfastly ignored in favor of continuing to repeat the same damn question that had been adequately answered over and over again, just a matter of opinion? . If so then why is mine the wrong one?

Click to expand...

You do realize I've given you more than enough chance to explain why his actions are racist and you've just shirked away, correct.

Now, you've just admitted to your own argument being up to willful ignorance as well.

You cannot take something that doesn't have a racial context and claim that it's racist. Which is why I've asked you to at least pick one thing he's said, or done to discuss and you keep running from it like it's the plague. Because I think you honestly know that you're argument wont hold water if given half a chance. With all the answers and sources I've been given that don't even address the issue at hand and just skirt it with their own vague reasoning. It's no wonder to see where you managed to get such a stance.

You've even taken the stance that he's racist, but he most likely doesn't know it.
Then what stops you from being racist and not knowing it?

You should've just confronted the issue from the start. Instead of running from it.

Oborosen said:

You do realize I've given you more than enough chance to explain why his actions are racist and you've just shirked away, correct.

Now, you've just admitted to your own argument being up to willful ignorance as well.

You cannot take something that doesn't have a racial context and claim that it's racist. Which is why I've asked you to at least pick one thing he's said, or done to discuss and you keep running from it like it's the plague. Because I think you honestly know that you're argument wont hold water if given half a chance. With all the answers and sources I've been given that don't even address the issue at hand and just skirt it with their own vague reasoning. It's no wonder to see where you managed to get such a stance.

You've even taken the stance that he's racist, but he most likely doesn't know it.
Then what stops you from being racist and not knowing it?

You should've just confronted the issue from the start. Instead of running from it.

Click to expand...

'You' don't give me 'chances' to do anything. Unlike you I never saw this as a personal contest of wits. To me it is a simple presentation of facts, which unfortunately you seem happy to ignore.

I think the problem is willfully denying the evidence at hand. I would not call the many examples I have cited and my own steadfast insistence that these constitute racism, 'shirking' - that's just you projecting a struggle that exists only in your imagination. I believe they add up to a racism persona and I feel I have amply explained why.

You seem think the object here is to discredit me personally. From the very first post in your response the focus as been on shooting the messenger. You have failed to explain in any reasonable manner why Trump's various outrages are not racist, and at the same time you have chosen to ignore all the other instances of bigoted talk and behavior from both his political and private life - many of which I linked to in video format.

Trump has attacked people of different color, religion, ethnicity and their countries publicly and incessantly since day one of his candidacy. He's gone after Latinos, the disabled, African Americans and even a Muslim Gold Star family - with gusto. Every one of these attacks was racially motivated. The sum of them all paints a clear pattern of bigotry. Constantly insisting that's 'just an opinion' is laughably trite.

Yet you want to make this all about me: ignore the evidence, deflect to minor asides and attack the poster with strawman arguments and ad-hominem accusations.

I do not have a duty to impress anyone with an ability to semantically argue about what is patently obvious. I'm no longer interested. I have said my piece, provided ample evidence and if you choose to ignore what is in front of your own eyes, well, that is unfortunately just an opinion. The evidence speaks for itself.

Go on denying - the rest of us know Trump is a racist.

uptower said:

I think the problem is willfully denying the evidence at hand. I would not call the many examples I have cited and my own steadfast insistence that these constitute racism, 'shirking'. I believe they add up to a racism persona and I feel I have amply explained why.

You seem think the object here is to discredit me personally. From the very first post in your response the focus as been on shooting the messenger. You have failed to explain in any reasonable manner why Trump's various outrages are not racist, and at the same time you have chosen to ignore all the other instances of bigoted talk and behavior from both his political and private life - many of which I linked to in video format.

Trump has attacked people of different color, religion, ethnicity and their countries publicly and incessantly since day one of his candidacy. He's gone after Latinos, the disabled, African Americans and even a Muslim Gold Star family - with gusto. Every one of these attacks was racially motivated. The sum of them all paints a clear pattern of bigotry. Constantly insisting that's 'just an opinion' is laughably trite.

Yet you want to make this all about me: ignore the evidence, deflect to minor asides and attack the poster with strawman arguments and ad-hominem accusations.

I do not have a duty to impress anyone with an ability to semantically argue about what is patently obvious. I'm no longer interested.

Click to expand...

Then go ahead and run, continue to do so for all I care. But I'll have you know that it was never my intention to discredit you in any way. However you've proceeded to do so to yourself willingly and with a simple disregard for facts that I've possibly never seen on this site, ever.

You continue to base every choice you make on subjective reasoning and resist common sense to everything. I hold no illusion that Trump is an ass and I don't deny that he can be crass and disgusting when the time comes. But for someone to just say that someone is racist with no actual evidence to back it up, other then "Because I believe so". Is factually and morally egregious in my opinion.

You're stating that his words and his actions. Were based on facts and variables that you possibly couldn't even know, unless you were a mind reader.

I've asked question after question to only be met with you running from giving an answer. So it's obvious why you're bowing out now and it's because you can't face up to an actual discussion that you can't get away with on a lie alone.

Oborosen said:

You continue to base every choice you make on subjective reasoning and resist common sense to everything. I hold no illusion that Trump is an ass and I don't deny that he can be crass and disgusting when the time comes. But for someone to just say that someone is racist with no actual evidence to back it up, other then "Because I believe so". Is factually and morally egregious in my opinion.

You're stating that his words and his actions. Were based on facts and variables that you possibly couldn't even know, unless you were a mind reader.

Click to expand...

Look I am willing to continue discussing this issue on its merits alone. We don't mention one another personally again and we have a discussion. I can do that, so the ball is in your court.

1. It is clear to me that Trump's 'good people' gaffe was pandering to the white nationalists side. He should have come out and condemned the march before anyone was run over or was shot at. If it was just about the pro-confederate statue crowd he was referring to (for which no evidence has been provided and I consider to be a stretch of the imagination), it's still racist because confederate statues are just monuments to white supremacy.

2. That was just one example we discussed, not the entirety of the argument and we mustn't get bogged down on that one case alone: I posted and have mentioned dozens more. These in aggregate tell much the same story - that of a man who has problems with people of color.

3. There is no scientific diagnosis of racism. Like all matters of offense it is a social construct. Asking for greater proof than the man himself has already provided in his own inflammatory statements as 'objective evidence' actually dodges the point. As it is a social litmus test, the more people are offended, the more offensive it is. Yes it is based on opinions, the opinion of the majority based on what they've seen and heard from the man himself, but that does not make it 'subjective' because its very nature is determined by societal norms. These are norms Trump has breached time and again and on camera, which is undeniable. That is objectively abnormal.

4. Therefore, since the majority both in these forums (see poll) and the wider world find Trump's attacks on minorities offensive that is objectively offensive behavior. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume his motive is racial when he continues to attack people of color on the basis of their creed, religion, culture or their nationality.

5. We are all adults and we are all human. We are all more or less masters of communication by the time we are teenagers. We understand nuance and intent. Im nearly 46 and have been to almost as many countries and communications is one of the areas I work in. I consider myself better equipped than average to understand someone's meaning and intent from their words. I train others to do this. Trump's intent is made abundantly clear. He has a problem with people of color.

I pass the ball - make it a nice clean serve.

uptower said:

I pass the ball - make it a nice clean serve.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

1: There was no gaffe, if one could even call it that. There was no meaning behind him saying good people on both sides, aside from it being a fact. He'd already decried the alt-right groups that took part in the Charlottesville riot and did so on several occasions. Good people were actually in attendance at the riot. Journalist, protestors and even counter-protestors that had arrived and not intended to start a conflict. Were all dragged into the fighting against their will. For someone to believe his statement of "good people on both sides" favored the white-nationalist. Means that they would need to believe that there were only white-nationalist in attendance.

2: They say nothing of the sort. Because on every occasion that I've been shown here, context has been ignored time and time again. Even going as far as to outright lie about what is being said, in order to push the racism narrative. The same that happened when Trump called members of MS13 animals and news media across the country tried to push the narrative. That he was saying such about all immigrants. This same point exist for saying a country is a ****hole country, when such a statement has no meaning of race in it and the same goes with a discussion of religion as well. As such a construct has no indicative race.

3: We have a definition for the word racism. It's a simple cornerstone of our language to understand and to that end Trump has not provided such evidence. Aside from the fact that he can and will in most cases act like a dick, which is something that we knew well that he could be. It shows nothing, save for the fact that he has the capacity to hurt other peoples feelings. This is save for some of the more thin skinned elements of our society, who call him out for being racist as they claim. These same people are the ones who called a wall racist and immoral, or they are the same people who find the American flag offensive. It seems more like they are intent on being offended at everything, rather then taking offense to things that are actually offensive.
That is why I ask for citations, proof, quotes. Something other then a report of someone pointing their finger, acting like they're disgusted and yelling the word racist. In almost everything and everyone that offends them, simply for that merit alone.

4: You're ignoring the fact that there are people on this site that would willingly take a bite of dog-****, if they thought Trump would have to taste it as well. I could easily find just as much consensus that Obama was a murdering pedophile, given the time and knowing where to look. You have people fighting against whatever the man does no matter what it actually means to accomplish, just because it resist him. He could propose a bill to begin housing projects, to get the homeless off the streets and into better living conditions. Yet people would still fight him on it, just because they can.
This is also ignoring the fact that your argument of everyone else believing in it, must make it true. Is one of the oldest fallacies that one can use.

5: If his problem with people of color is so abundantly clear. Then why did so many vote for him, why did they support him all through his election and why do they still support him?
If such a prospect for you is so clear and so easy for everyone to understand, by your own admittance. Why can't they see it too?

I'm a psychologist for crying out loud. I know the man has issues and I know full were that there are things about him that I don't like, at all. However him being a verdant racist is something that just isn't in the cards for me to say. Narcissist, yes. But not a racist.

Oborosen said:

This is also ignoring the fact that your argument of everyone else believing in it, must make it true. Is one of the oldest fallacies that one can use.

Click to expand...

I demonstrated in this instance how 'everyone agrees' is not a fallacy. There is no psychological condition called 'racism'. It is a set of social values that the unwise express in their actions and words. Trump is unwise. He demonstrates racist tendencies. As stated earlier when everyone is offended a social norm is broken. This is the case with Trump's bigotry. It stands out as a broken social norm. If everyone agrees that norm is broken, that is the defining word. Because there is no higher power (God or science take your pick) to determine that. it is what society has decided is right or wrong. On this Trump has demonstrably shown he is wrong on many occasions. Because this is the only measure available - till they find the racist gene - it is indeed an objective assessment.

uptower said:

I demonstrated in this instance how 'everyone agrees' is not a fallacy. There is no psychological condition called 'racism'. It is a set of social values that the unwise express in their actions and words. Trump is unwise. He demonstrates racist tendencies. As stated earlier when everyone is offended a social norm is broken. This is the case with Trump's bigotry. It stands out as a broken social norm. If everyone agrees that norm is broken, that is the defining word. Because there is no higher power (God or science take your pick) to determine that. it is what society has decided is right or wrong. On this Trump has demonstrably shown he is wrong on many occasions. Because this is the only measure available - till they find the racist gene - it is indeed an objective assessment.

Click to expand...

So what does it mean when no social norm is broken and people still not only take offense. But take it to such a degree that it's nearly satirical version of being offended?

So if all of these people who also take this stance, somehow believe that he should be burned at the stake. Are they right for doing so and should he be burned at the stake for that reason alone?

When does such a ruling go too far?
Because such a standard can and will easily be exploited if it ever became the correct way of doing things.

Your stance also takes into account his supporters and those in the middle. All of the people who don't voice such opposition, because it simply doesn't bother them, or their ideal of a social norm?

Do their judgment not carry the same weight as those that dislike Trump?

These are mind you. The same supporters who're called Nazis, fascist, bigots, racist and a whole slew of other derogatory worlds. A good amount being aimed from minorities, to minorities, in connotations that harm minorities.
All because they dare support Trump.

Oborosen said:

So what does it mean when no social norm is broken and people still not only take offense. But take it to such a degree that it's nearly satirical version of being offended?

When does such a ruling go too far?
Because such a standard can and will easily be exploited if it ever became the correct way of doing things.

Your stance also takes into account his supporters and those in the middle. All of the people who don't voice such opposition, because it simply doesn't bother them, or their ideal of a social norm?

Do their judgment not carry the same weight as those that dislike Trump?

Click to expand...

That's perhaps a question for another or a more philosophical thread. How high should the bar for racism be set? Must he scream the N-word at his rallies? Would that even be enough for his supporters. I suspect if he did that much the defence would then be 'He hasn't burned any crosses.' If he burned a cross they'd say, 'he hasn't lynched anyone.'

Rather I think he has made enough public transgressions against our norms to have earned the label racist as it is.

He gives us a body of evidence, frequently updated, showing support for white supremacists, retweeting white nationalist leaders and spokesmen, attacking a gold star family for their culture and religion, native American slurs, insulting developing countries, demonstrating disdain and derision for people of color (and other minorities, he's a fairly equal-opportunity bigot in that respect) that all break the social norms to enough of an extent that most people (who do not support him) consider it deeply racist. Then we have all the private anecdotes from his career of personal comments and such that also add weight to what we can see publicly. Then we have all the racist and white supremacist groups themselves who seem to have got the memo and have come out endorsing the man as a result.

I often hear the argument that 'they always say that about republican leaders,' and in some cases its deserved, in others its just that their policies and promises seem to exclude minorities. But trump from day one of his political career took a race-related issue (birtherism) and ran with it. It is one of the keystone of his candidacy and his presidency.There should be no argument that such a body of evidence - that if he outwardly demonstrates such disdain, that he inwardly feels the same.

As for his supporters who don't see it as racism and don't like being called Nazis because, well I'm sure there are 'good people on both sides'. Their feelings are rather tangential to this argument as far as I'm concerned. The poll is about Trump, I'll stick to him.

uptower said:

That's perhaps a question for another or a more philosophical thread. How high should the bar for racism be set? Must he scream the N-word at his rallies? Would that even be enough for his supporters. I suspect if he did that much the defence would then be 'He hasn't burned any crosses.' If he burned a cross they'd say, 'he hasn't lynched anyone.'

Rather I think he has made enough public transgressions against our norms to have earned the label racist as it is.

He gives us a body of evidence, frequently updated, showing support for white supremacists, retweeting white nationalist leaders and spokesmen, attacking a gold star family for their culture and religion, native American slurs, insulting developing countries, demonstrating disdain and derision for people of color (and other minorities, he's a fairly equal-opportunity bigot in that respect) that all break the social norms to enough of an extent that most people (who do not support him) consider it deeply racist. Then we have all the private anecdotes from his career of personal comments and such that also add weight to what we can see publicly. Then we have all the racist and white supremacist groups themselves who seem to have got the memo and have come out endorsing the man as a result.

I often hear the argument that 'they always say that about republican leaders,' and in some cases its deserved, in others its just that their policies and promises seem to exclude minorities. But trump from day one of his political career took a race-related issue (birtherism) and ran with it. It is one of the keystone of his candidacy and his presidency.There should be no argument that such a body of evidence - that if he outwardly demonstrates such disdain, that he inwardly feels the same.

As for his supporters who don't see it as racism and don't like being called Nazis because, well I'm sure there are 'good people on both sides'. Their feelings are rather tangential to this argument as far as I'm concerned. The poll is about Trump, I'll stick to him.

Click to expand...

Okay, fist of all. Suggesting that his supporters would actually be fine and make excuses for actually recognized, racist activities. Is as low as I'm willing to let you drag the conversation. Aside from using the N-word in context of an explanation in the very least.

We do have a standard for racism and seeing as the last few times I've asked for proof of his transgressions. I've been given the same bland, filler links that don't even offer proof to claims being made and even toss the same lies around as they did before. Even after such people got caught in those lies.

I'm really interested now to see what these transgressions might be in your eyes. One being enough, if you could keep to that dynamic alone.

Do you even know of the events that you're speaking of at this point, or are you just reading from a list that someone else is providing?

As for his supporters who don't see it as racism and don't like being called Nazis because, well I'm sure there are 'good people on both sides'. Their feelings are rather tangential to this argument as far as I'm concerned. The poll is about Trump, I'll stick to him.

Click to expand...

So when it comes to other people just saying that he's racist and not having the proof to back it up, that's completely fine for you. But if those voices belong to his supporters, then they can just screw themselves, correct?

Oborosen said:

So when it comes to other people just saying that he's racist and not having the proof to back it up, that's completely fine for you. But if those voices belong to his supporters, then they can just screw themselves, correct?

Click to expand...

Once again the 'no proof' claim flies in the face of all the clear, documented, taped and circulated evidence out there. We've all heard it from the man's own mouth. At this stage just pretending not to hear it is willful ignorance - not stupidity, as many misinterpret the term - but literally ignoring obvious evidence. Pure denial.

uptower said:

Once again the 'no proof' claim flies in the face of all the clear, documented, taped and circulated evidence out there. We've all heard it from the man's own mouth. At this stage just pretending not to hear it is willful ignorance - not stupidity, as many misinterpret the term - but literally ignoring obvious evidence. Pure denial.

Click to expand...

Okay, once again. I say no proof, because all you're putting up on the page are claims and I'm asking that you address just one event.

One, that you claim proves he's a racist and look at it. See what was said and what was done. But you've fought against doing so all this time.

Why?

Oborosen said:

Okay, once again. I say no proof, because all you're putting up on the page are claims and I'm asking that you address just one event.

One, that you claim proves he's a racist and look at it. See what was said and what was done. But you've fought against doing so all this time.

Why?

Click to expand...

I provided one, 'Good people' and a weak denial was offered. It was obviously meant to pander to white supremacists, but apparently just saying 'no it isn't' is enough. No, we all know what we heard.

You keep asking for 'just one', but I have mentioned and linked to all of the below several times already.

His embrace of birtherism was racially motivated
His attack on the Khan Family: bigotry at its finest.
His attacks on asylum seekers - targeting Hispanics
$hithole countries (was it Haiti that time)- what makes a country if not its people? They're his target.
Pocahontas, for Christ's sake.
Lies about cheering Muslims
African Americans are living in hell? Gimme a break.
Look at 'my' African American
Nigerians living in 'huts'
Everyone around him, business associates, his lawyers, cabinet members, leaking the remarks they've heard: 'I don't want those people touching my money'.

Very few public figures in recent history and certainly no presidents have racked up such a rap sheet in so short a time. The evidence is overwhelming to all but those who refuse to listen.

I've never seen someone so exacerbated by merely seeing the obvious pointed out to them. Is this attempt at gaslighting supposed to be cute?

And once again what is offensive is decided by society. The more people who are offended, the more offensive it is. That is the proof. There is no other in this case because it is neither a scientifing finding nor a clinical condition. it is a social quality (or lack thereof) and Trump has demonstrated it amply. We have polled it and most agree. That is how it works in this case. That makes it an objective assessment.

I did suggest we were to leave one another out of this but not only are your posts all peppered with 'you, you, you,' when it is not about 'me'; but you insist on casting this as some sort of challenge where I am running in fear from your superior intellect and righteous wrath. I am not. I have come back time and again with countless links that prove my point and each one has been ignored. Denial is not debate.

I am frankly tired of repeating myself. You may tell yourself you have 'won' if it pleases you. Add my name to the list below of people who have grown tired of dealing with sheer stubbornness. I have literally said all I can on the matter and provided all the available evidence, till next time Trump says something racist. I will weigh in when that happens too.

In any case since all it takes to define racism - like most offensive behavior - is consensus, this thread has already been decided by the poll.

uptower said:

I provided one, 'Good people' and a weak denial was offered. It was obviously meant to pander to white supremacists, but apparently just saying 'no it isn't' is enough. No, we all know what we heard.

.

Click to expand...

Yet you still ignore context and just go on the offense about it's because other people say so.


:There was nothing racist, or wrong about the "good people comment" he even came out against the alt-right several times before making that statement. A statement that he ended with because everyone was upset that he disavowed the left & alt-right before that.
:You saying that his run with the birther crap was racially motivated, even though you can't prove it. Is an already absurd claim. Not to mention the fact that he actually dropped it in 2010. With the only people bringing it back in regards to him, being the left after he started running for president.
:Would you even know what his "attack' of the Khan family was about?
:What attacks on asylum seekers?
:**** hole countries, has no racial connotations whatsoever. So pushing another lie that he said so without proof of any racial animus is not helping anything.
ocahontas was a joke at Warren. Something that she created all on her own and repeatedly pushed into and it still bit her in the ass. A white person, making fun of another white person. Isn't new in this country in the least.
:It is already know that some Jersey police and other residents did see Muslim groups celebrating. However it was in small pockets and the authorities did break them up. I don't care for Trump embellishing on something that he might've heard and spoke out on before getting all of the information. Which has never stopped anyone from doing so in the past.
:"African Americans are living in hell" What context are you pulling this out of?
:Look at my African American friend? Should I care that a politician is pointing out to one of their own supporters. Should I now call Warren a racist now when she claims that she has the support of local Indian groups?
How about calling Obama racist if he claims just how much of his voter base was white, or black?
You do realize that a majority of the people who hate Donald Trump, routinely point out that his base is majority white... so are they all racist for just pointing out something that is observable?
:"Nigerians living in huts" What context are you pulling this from and yes, they're are Nigerians that do live in huts.

Do you not get how silly some of this looks?

I'm not going to say I won. You're the one doing all of this yourself. You don't face up to fact and you just keep running in circles, every time I ask you to look at what you're trying to prove.

When you look at these instances with any kind of scrutiny, they just don't hold up. Do I even have to point out how you basically ditched the same talking points of both the wiki and the Nation article. Because I believe you've just gone back and looked at them yourself and realized that I was correct in the matter. You realized that they were lies and had to find other "new" in which I use that term loosely here. Angles to come back with, that are just as bland and unsubstantiated. That they're just as relevant to being subjective as the last batch.

It's still no better than someone pointing a finger and screaming "racist" then not accounting for it.

Oborosen said:

Yet you still ignore context and just go on the offense about it's because other people say so.


:There was nothing racist, or wrong about the "good people comment" he even came out against the alt-right several times before making that statement. A statement that he ended with because everyone was upset that he disavowed the left & alt-right before that.
:You saying that his run with the birther crap was racially motivated, even though you can't prove it. Is an already absurd claim. Not to mention the fact that he actually dropped it in 2010. With the only people bringing it back in regards to him, being the left after he started running for president.
:Would you even know what his "attack' of the Khan family was about?
:What attacks on asylum seekers?
:**** hole countries, has no racial connotations whatsoever. So pushing another lie that he said so without proof of any racial animus is not helping anything.
ocahontas was a joke at Warren. Something that she created all on her own and repeatedly pushed into and it still bit her in the ass. A white person, making fun of another white person. Isn't new in this country in the least.
:It is already know that some Jersey police and other residents did see Muslim groups celebrating. However it was in small pockets and the authorities did break them up. I don't care for Trump embellishing on something that he might've heard and spoke out on before getting all of the information. Which has never stopped anyone from doing so in the past.
:"African Americans are living in hell" What context are you pulling this out of?
:Look at my African American friend? Should I care that a politician is pointing out to one of their own supporters. Should I now call Warren a racist now when she claims that she has the support of local Indian groups?
How about calling Obama racist if he claims just how much of his voter base was white, or black?
You do realize that a majority of the people who hate Donald Trump, routinely point out that his base is majority white... so are they all racist for just pointing out something that is observable?
:"Nigerians living in huts" What context are you pulling this from and yes, they're are Nigerians that do live in huts.

Click to expand...

No, every one of these comments he made was either racist or pandering to racists. We all saw it. In the context it is obviously racist. Birtherism was a racist concept from the start - there is no defending it: how could 'he' be one of 'us'? Good people on both sides in a march based on bigotry from the start? Racist. Pocahontas? Victim blaming and insulting to native Americans, not just Warren. Most Nigerians do not live in huts: it is a stereotype to appeal to the racists in his base. Their only defense for that and $hithole countries' is that 'it's true: a symptom of the same disease and the weakest and most self defeating of excuses.The catch-call of the fellow traveller.

Every other time he gets up there he gets racist, and the only defense of the denier is to pretend they didn't hear it and the rest of us - the majority of us - are 'imagining things'.

Trump is a racist. He's a nationalist and he's said it himself. There is no debate. He is a racist and everybody knows. Stop demanding 'Pwoof, now! TM' for what is already established fact.