By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

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

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

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

2). >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?"

3). >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."

4). >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."

5). >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."

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

1). So he could say, "I hate all people from Africa" and because it doesn't say 'race', that makes it not racist?  What definition of racist are you using? You're not a skeptic, you're a denier. His own party is calling it racist.

2). He has a known disdain for 4 "progressive Democratic congresswomen".  They are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from NY, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.  He has a history of tweeting about them by name and associating them as "progressive Democratic congresswomen". Only Omar was born outside of the US as she emigrated here when she was 10.

3). Really?  You'd just assume someone was not born in the US simply based on their name?  Holy hell, man.  We aren't all Smith, Williams, Johnson and Davis. Further, this is a president making that kind of asinine assumption. Worse is that all 4 of those names I just listed are of foreign origin. Either way, it's racial discrimination.

4). See above.

5). No, he's both.  Specifically though, I'm referring to his history of racially charged language and actions. You can ignore them or deny them but it's all well documented.  Central Park 5 ad? Birtherism? They're rapists?  Shithole countries? US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel? Very fine people? We need immigrants from Norway? Muslim ban?  Citizenship census question? Religious test? The U.S. vs Fred Trump, Donald Trump and Trump management, Inc? Native American casinos? Ads he was fined for regarding said casinos? White vs Black episode of The Apprentice? Voter fraud commission? China? Cuba? Japan (in the 80s)? Ground Zero Mosque?  9/11 cheering? Retweeting known white nationalists? Pocahontas? Trail of Tears? The black vote appeal? NFL protests? Haiti? Nigeria?

What more do you want?  Each statement, comment or action unto themselves is minor but when viewed on the whole...it's pretty obvious he has derision for people of certain shades and origins.

6). That's the most inane determination of what constitutes as racist I've ever heard.

1) 'Africa' is not a race and people from Africa come in various ethnic and racial groups.

3) Please re-read: "I would question if someone was from the US if they had a name that didn't sound typical." Note there is a difference between "question" and "assume" which was used in "You'd just assume someone was not born in the US simply based on their name?". And to answer that question, no.

5) Tell me more about the "shithole countries" bit... I'm curious.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Well in that case you evidently set out to make an irrelevant point and you nailed it - well done.

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!



sundin13 said:

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

EricHiggin said:

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...



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 ;).



"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.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Oh, and if you can't see Trump's tweets for the racist, bigotry that it is...then you are part of the problem we still have in this country.

Or you do see it and you're intentionally spinning/defending it...which is even worse.

The tweet has racial weight attached to it yes.

There is still a difference between being openly racist and making a racial loaded dumb tweet and both are ofcourse not deffensible and the intention behind the tweet could have sprouted out of racism.

But again these are just silly things to lash out to eachother for,lets just all agree that tweet existence can't be defended.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 16 July 2019

jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

Come on Jason, really do you believe after all this time their race has absolutely nothing to do with that tweet from Trump.  He didn't even take the time to check to see who was born and raised in the US compared to coming from some other country and now a part of Congress.  Even to the average person they see right through that statement and Race had everything to do with it.  Either way, I am not here to convince you because I can tell you have never been on the other side of such comments so you will never understand the history.  People of color are use to people like you dismissing such things and ignoring the significance.  This is how prejudice continue to be a major player in the US society because you are willing to accept it and turn a blind eye.

You are right, the progressives could have been white and he would have tweeted something nasty but what Trump wouldn't have done is tweeted exactly what he did with this group.  This is the context you seem to be missing and tossing aside.  This isn't a bunch of white women and so this what if is just that BS.  It was this group and he was more than happy to show what he thought of them.

Also continuing to give Trump a pass when he make statements like this is what makes him more bold to continue to do it.  Each time everyone become less shocked when he ups the ante on another one of these statements and I wonder just what he has to do to show you who he is before you believe him.

1. You're assuming he made the comments because of their race. The comments are still pretty bad but to assume is racist is jumping to conclusions. Trump goes after anyone that criticizes him regardless of their race.

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.

2. I'm not turning a blind eye. If the comments were racist then i'd say they were racist. Also stop jumping to conclusions about my life experiences. I have experienced actually racism before so dont assume things.

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.

3. Of the progressives were white and born in another country ot had parents or grandparents that came from a poor country i'm sure he would have made similar comments.

Now you are assuming.  Since his wife was born to another country, I highly doubt he would make that statement but I am more than willing to agree to disagree on this point.  I await the day this happen but I suggest you do not hold your breath for it.

4. None is giving him a pass or agreeing with what he said. We're just disagreeing on whether the comments are racist.

Again, read what I wrote, never stated it was racist.  This is the card you want to play but its not the only point being made.  The prejudice comments are destructive on a huge level for a president who represent every American, not just the ones that have pale skin.



I wonder how Kanye West feels about this...

Just kidding, nobody cares what Kanye West thinks, lol.



Paperboy_J said:
I wonder how Kanye West feels about this...

Just kidding, nobody cares what Kanye West thinks, lol.

Ye is busy working on Yandi to care about this.



Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

1. You're assuming he made the comments because of their race. The comments are still pretty bad but to assume is racist is jumping to conclusions. Trump goes after anyone that criticizes him regardless of their race.

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.

2. I'm not turning a blind eye. If the comments were racist then i'd say they were racist. Also stop jumping to conclusions about my life experiences. I have experienced actually racism before so dont assume things.

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.

3. Of the progressives were white and born in another country ot had parents or grandparents that came from a poor country i'm sure he would have made similar comments.

Now you are assuming.  Since his wife was born to another country, I highly doubt he would make that statement but I am more than willing to agree to disagree on this point.  I await the day this happen but I suggest you do not hold your breath for it.

4. None is giving him a pass or agreeing with what he said. We're just disagreeing on whether the comments are racist.

Again, read what I wrote, never stated it was racist.  This is the card you want to play but its not the only point being made.  The prejudice comments are destructive on a huge level for a president who represent every American, not just the ones that have pale skin.

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.