Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

jason1637 said:

1. This is the first time he's publicly said it though so honestly we wouldn't know. Also I'm not sure how far Trumps beef with the terminator goes but he's currently not serving in office so what Trump said to the congresswoman can't really be said to him.

2. He never said they have no place in America. He literally said they should come back to show us how it's done if they fix their country. Yeah he doesnt like them but a lot of people dont like them and I wouldn't call someone prejudice for not liking someone else.

3.I hope it doesn't happen because that would be a bad thing to say to anyone.

4. I don't think prejudice. Look at point 2 for why.

2/4.  He made an assumption that they aren't from America.  And told them to go back where they came from.  

Bringing up the part of "they should come back" misses the point.  



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

1. This is the first time he's publicly said it though so honestly we wouldn't know. Also I'm not sure how far Trumps beef with the terminator goes but he's currently not serving in office so what Trump said to the congresswoman can't really be said to him.

2. He never said they have no place in America. He literally said they should come back to show us how it's done if they fix their country. Yeah he doesnt like them but a lot of people dont like them and I wouldn't call someone prejudice for not liking someone else.

3.I hope it doesn't happen because that would be a bad thing to say to anyone.

4. I don't think prejudice. Look at point 2 for why.

2. Lol, but their country is the US so I guess they are doing exactly that.  This is where your defense goes out the window.  They are US citizens so there is no country to go to but here.  Trump is 70+ years old.  Do you think he doesn't know the history of those words.  He chose those words because its what every prejudice person in America have said for decades to people of color.  He knows his base think those very same words every day when they look at a person of color in office, protest or defending their rights. The reason you do not believe its prejudice is because you have never been on the other end of people telling you those words.  You have no clue of the history and you dismiss it believing that Trump just said that because he dislike these 4 women.

Its the same way he always like to call women who disagree with him or have issues nasty.  His choice of words shows his true feelings and how he thinks but I guess you would defend those choice of words as well.



Biggerboat1 said:
KLAMarine said:

The onus is on you to show that his donations are self-serving.

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:
KLAMarine said:

"No, they still have to pay him.  That's the law.  He still gets the money deposited into his account 4 times per year.  But if you mean the government regains the $400k, then you could say he's trying to save the government that much each year but then he also cut hundreds of billions from the tax revenue."

>And also cut from spending, yes?

"You don't have to mention race itself to be racist."

>As a skeptic, I need him to mention race.

"He told 4 people of color to go back to the country they came from."

>Did he name names?

"Despite 3 of them having been born here. What facet of these 4 women elicits a suggestion that they go back to their home country?  Could it be that they look like they came from a foreign country?  Otherwise, where does thought even originate from?"

>Could stem from foreign-sounding names. I would question if someone was from the US if they had a name that didn't sound typical.

"If they were 4 white looking women, do you seriously think he would have made the same comment?  Probably not.  Therefore he only said what he said because of their race/ethnicity. Hence...racist."

>Or because of their names, whoever these individuals are...

"But it's more than just that.  He has a history of derogatory language that follows a similar thought process. You can't just put everything he says in a vacuum and ignore his previous inflammatory remarks."

>The guy may be an asshole but that doesn't make him racist.

"But let's flip the table.  Tell me why it wasn't racist."

>Allow me to copy-paste: Trump's tweets made zero mention of race hence I don't consider them racist.

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.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Wow, in 2008, Epstein donated $46million to charity. What a hero. What a saint.

Donating to charity does not make up for every shitty thing someone has ever done... Implying that Trump has given his opponents everything they ask for is inherently ridiculous.

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

KLAMarine said:

Being a skeptic means I have to split hairs.

You are not being a skeptic through this conversation. One of the key attributes of a skeptic is thinking and making well reasoned conclusions using the evidence that has been presented. Your entire argument rests upon the insistence that you do not believe you should be able to use your mind to make any conclusions that aren't laid out for you like a children's book.

That isn't being a skeptic, that is called being willfully ignorant.

If denying yourself the use of your mind is what it takes in order for you to justify Trump's words, I think that says all that needs to be said.



jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

Yes Trump attacks everyone but how many of those people who skin is not white does he tell them to go back to their country.  He has a beef with Arnold Schwarzenegger but never told him to go back to his country.  The thing is, on race Trump doesn't have a great track record but even if he did, he used the most classic hate group saying so why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt.

Never said the comments were racist, I said they they were prejudice.  There is a difference between the 2 meanings and Prejudice is just as bad.  Trump believes these women are no good people from shit hold countries who has no place in America.  While you try to fight the racist talk, you ignore how his comments and previous comments shows how he thinks concerning people of color.  This isn't Trump first rodeo along these lines but I am sure you have no clue of his history because it's not important to you.

1. This is the first time he's publicly said it though so honestly we wouldn't know. Also I'm not sure how far Trumps beef with the terminator goes but he's currently not serving in office so what Trump said to the congresswoman can't really be said to him.

2. He never said they have no place in America. He literally said they should come back to show us how it's done if they fix their country. Yeah he doesnt like them but a lot of people dont like them and I wouldn't call someone prejudice for not liking someone else.

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.

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.

Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

Ok this is pure comedic gold.  Are you making the defense that people should praise someone for doing a generous act out of self interest because if not they would get discouraged and not do it.  

You would be that person who gives 10 bucks to a homeless person and go around telling everyone looking for praise.  

What you just described is the difference between someone who is generous and someone who looks to appear generous.  Keep going down this line, it should be interesting where you take it.  I am sure you have one of your famous analogies to bring it all home.

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?

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?

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.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

Generosity is indifferent of praise for said generosity.  That's ego.

Generosity is giving to charity because you have an altruistic drive to do so irrespective of external motivating factors (praise, tax write off, etc...)

Ego is donating to charity and then bragging about it or complaining when you aren't recognized for it.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?

"Allowed"? I haven't spoken a single word about being "allowed" to donate to charity. Why are you going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand? The conversation isn't about who is allowed to donate to charity. That doesn't even make sense. The conversation is about what it means for someone to donate to charity selfishly, something which you have provided several examples of.

As for whether it is worth respect, I'll respect Trump for donating to the National Park Services when he stops actively going against the mission statement of the National Park Services in every other move that he makes. I'm not going to praise someone for taking one tiny step forward when the rest of the year they have been sprinting backwards at full speed...



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

If you are giving to charity because you want respect, you aren't being altruistic, you are being selfish. You are essentially paying for an advertisement about how good of a person you are. The motivation behind giving to charity for an altruistic individual is the knowledge you are helping others. These argument that you are putting forward are simply reinforcing the arguments I was making by listing several selfish reasons that one could use to donate to charity.

1). Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

2). You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?

1). Charity.

2). Ego.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?

"Allowed"? I haven't spoken a single word about being "allowed" to donate to charity. Why are you going off on random tangents that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand? The conversation isn't about who is allowed to donate to charity. That doesn't even make sense. The conversation is about what it means for someone to donate to charity selfishly, something which you have provided several examples of.

As for whether it is worth respect, I'll respect Trump for donating to the National Park Services when he stops actively going against the mission statement of the National Park Services in every other move that he makes. I'm not going to praise someone for taking one tiny step forward when the rest of the year they have been sprinting backwards at full speed...

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.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Yet you wonder why some people are the way they are? Ever think that some people were reasonably or highly generous, only to have it thrown back in their face anyway because of whatever faults they may have? Ever feel yourself like you're not getting what you want out of something, so you stop caring as much or quit altogether? Why bother being generous if all you're going to get is hatred thrown at you for doing so, when all you may want is a little respect? Why bother acting the way people expect you to if you're never going to please them anyway? Why not just do whatever is best for you in that case?

Maybe Epstein did it out of guilt. Would that make it better? Knowing the good cause that money has helped, would you rather that money not have been accepted and let those who could have had better, suffer instead? Should the British have given back NA to the natives, or is the situation better off the way it is now? What saints we all are...

Generosity is indifferent of praise for said generosity.  That's ego.

Generosity is giving to charity because you have an altruistic drive to do so irrespective of external motivating factors (praise, tax write off, etc...)

Ego is donating to charity and then bragging about it or complaining when you aren't recognized for it.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

1). Charity - An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need, or, the voluntary giving of help typically in the form of money to those in need.

2). You're only allowed to give away help if you want absolutely nothing in return? Even a simple thanks as a pat on the back? You realize without having done what people have to do to earn that money, they wouldn't have the money to give away in the first place right? Money that in no way do they have to give away. That's not worth one word to show the smallest amount of appreciation and respect for their contribution?

1). Charity.

2). Ego.

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.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.