The US Politics |OT|

[Puppyroach]

KLAMarine said:

Biggerboat1 said:

I already said previously "If you think Trump donating a completely insignificant amount of money (relative to his wealth), which he actually promised to do on his campaign trail (if he was doing it out of benevolence, why tell anyone?) isn't self-serving then I don't know what to tell you..."

I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page... There's a difference between a skeptic & an ostrich! Anyway I'm gonna call it a day in regards to talking to you, but just so you know I actually appreciate your input to these topics as you argue your points so badly that you essentially advocate for the views you're opposing :)

It still doesn't explain why you go on to say the point about donating to a homeless person... But alas, I've officially given up on trying to make sense of your incoherent ramblings... Good day sir!

"I guess, for you, self-serving won't be proven until you have Trump's diary in your hands with the words "I am self-serving" written on every other page..."

>Something like that. I can't prove Trump gives to charity because he just wants the good PR.

I can't read minds.

Puppyroach said:

Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist? So, as long as he doesn´t use that specific word, even if he knows he is a racist, you cannot make that conclusion simply because he didn´t use that word?

If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary? You are incapable of drawing conclusions based on the evidence you have in front of you? In that case you have made it really easy for all the racists, fascists, anti-semites and bigots of the world. They simply just avoid certain words and they get a pass from you ;).

"Seriously? You call yourself a skeptic and need him to use the word "race" in order to call him a racist?"

>No, I need him to use someone's race as a means to insult them. Telling someone to go back to some country, fix its problems, and then return does not qualify.

"If you sat in a jury, you wouldn´t be able to convict a burglar of a crime unless the burglar specifically says that he/she committed a burglary?"

>A burglar can be found in possession of stolen property or caught in the act. Someone saying something without making any reference to race means they said something while never making any reference to race. As a skeptic, I need it to be there explicitly.

Paperboy_J said:
"The guy may be an asshole but that doesn't make him racist."

Does it really matter at this point? As if one is any better than the other? The guy is trash, plain and simple. I mean you're just splitting hairs at this point.

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

He was using his perception of their race (which doesn't have a clear definition) to assume they had another country other then the US and that they should leave "his" country and go to "their" country. He is not only assuming they have a different origin than him, he is also putting his own origin above theirs since he thinks they should leave "his" country. This is textbook racism where you divide people and assume different value to them.