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.
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.