"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

In this particular instance, I am speaking about Trump's words and the history and context behind them, however this discussion is about your worldview more than any one example.

You refuse to use your brain to interpret the information before you beyond face value. As such, you are utterly incapable of making reasoned judgements unless someone directly states something as would be seen in a children's book. Unless someone is rubbing their hands together, cackling and yelling "I am evil", you will refuse to make any negative judgements. This is called ignorance.

In a court of law, a jury is assigned the task of fact finder. They are to receive the information that is presented and make a reasoned decision stemming from that information. More often than not, the jury is not presented a confession from the defendant, or video evidence showing clearly that they are the criminal. They are presented with pieces of evidence, often circumstantial, which are used to construct a conclusion. Without the fundamental principle of reasoned inference, all ability to draw conclusions would crumble to nothingness. It is not irrational or overzealous to draw conclusions from available information despite the absence of a cartoonish caricature, it is foundational to logic itself.

As stated earlier, if going to these lengths to utterly abandon logic is what is required to justify Trump's words and actions, that is perhaps the greatest condemnation of all.

Call me a juror who is not convinced by the current, scant amounts of evidence presented to him.

Biggerboat: 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...

You: Something like that [...] I can't read minds

I'll be sure to tell my lawyer to grab you for jury duty if I ever find myself in such dire straights.

"using the evidence that has been presented"

>What evidence has been presented?

"He was using his perception of their race"

>How do you know this? What if he was using their names?

"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."

>And he was also asking them to return at some point. "Then come back and show us how it is done."

You saying this is almost as strong of a condemnation of that slogan as I would have made, so I have nothing further to add.

These are strange conversations indeed, when you seem to repeatedly agree with me under the facade of argument.

1). You don't understand what an implication is, do you?  It's implied.  If you are giving but only doing so out of motivation that you will benefit, that's not now, ever has been, nor ever will be accepted as a defining facet of charity. The altruistic nature of giving for the sake of giving is implied in the concept of charity.  Why the hell I just had to explain that I'll never understand.

2). Did you just suggest that people only give to charity because it strokes their ego? Holy hell. 

He'll respect the National Parks service when people accept and abide by his mission statement?

So....our National Parks (among other things) are being held hostage by Trump's ego? I'm glad you've finally seen the truth.

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...

Why does it matter whether or not he used their name? It is equally bad to use a person´s name as a measurement of whether or not the person is an equal citizens to you or not.

Exactly, he dictates whether or not they should be in the US, therefore he is putting himself as the arbiter of who can stay, leave and return. He doesn´t understand that, as citizens, everyone is equal regardless of ethnicity, name, political affiliation and so on. The president, even a racist one, is not elevated in any way as a citizen.

Let´s look at some of his histories:

- He settled a case in the '70s where he was sued for discrimination against black Americans in a housing case.

- The Central Park 5 case where he insisted on the guilt of the black Americans, along with on Hispanic, even after a confession and conviction of a serial rapist.

- He pushed the agenda that Obama wasn´t legitimate as president based on the false assumption that he wasn´t born in the US. He has never made that assumption against a white president (not even Hillary which he loathes as a person).

- He accused the judge with a hispanic heritage of bias against him because Trump had been so hard on Mexico.

- He made this comment on immigrants from Mexico: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

- He called Warren "Pocahontas" (a racist slur traditionally used against native-Americans) when she claimed (right or wrong) native-American heritage.

These are just some examples of his history with ethnicities and what he seem to view as different races (race is a difficult term to use since it has no clear definition but it is used primarily to address different ethnicities or people of a different color).

"Why does it matter whether or not he used their name?"

>Because the accusation is that he used the race of the supposed four congresswomen (which he never named in his tweets btw) to determined they didn't come from the US. I see Tlaib and I see Ilhan and I think "hmm, I wonder if they were born here in the states?"

Nothing racist about it, it's simple logic.

"It is equally bad to use a person´s name as a measurement of whether or not the person is an equal citizens to you or not."

>I don't recall Trump making any such measurement in his tweets. He said "go back, fix those problems, then return to the US."