Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a "racist".

The astonishing thing is that you could have this debate with the condition "PRO can only use examples of Trump's racism documented in the last 24 hours" and still have more evidence than would fit in a 10,000 character debate

> take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible

The horror of taking him at his word, rather than assuming he means the opposite of what he says... And no, not taken to be the worst context possible. I haven't even accused him of being nazi-lite, even while according to you he would say anything at all to get such racists to vote for him.

> especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.

Thank you for clarifying that he's intentionally endorsing racist beliefs to try to get racists to vote for him.

Please explain how your standard on Trump, if applied to Hitler, would allow the Literal Hitler to be racist?

> He never said they were better than any other's

They are apparently racehorses compared to others. If you don't think that's better, please bet all your money on a mule instead of a thoroughbred at the tracks. If Trump is not spouting off racist rhetoric (which at this point you've admitted he is, you just keep flip flopping on it), you have no reason to hesitate against doing this.

He also never mentioned superiority. He said "you have good genes in Minnesota." He never said they were better than any other's, he just said they were good. I overlooked that this whole time.

And so what if its true? Thank you for telling me I'm racist towards myself, lol. It's just a huge over-exaggeration. I think this just comes down to intentions. You don't like Trump, probably barely watch his speeches, and take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible. I, on the other hand, have been following him for 5 years, watched a lot of his speeches and style, and can easily tell his level of seriousness and not to take his comments in the worst context possible, especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.

> just silly pandering

By that absurd standard, Adolf Hitler himself couldn't be proven to be a racist, since he might have just been doing silly pandering to racists...

> doesn't say much about your moral character

A racist can be an upstanding citizen. That does not change the qualifier that they are a racist. Depending on the degree of their racism, I wouldn't want them in certain jobs, but again, they may still be an upstanding citizen. ... Bare in mind the accusation is just "racist" not either "Neo Nazi" or "Literally Hitler."

> Californians got lazy genes

Thank you for outing yourself as a racist, via your belief that genes (as opposed to culture) make Californians different and worse than Minnesotans.

The fact that he supposedly thinks Minnesotans are better than Californians, given I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it wasn't just silly pandering, which it was, but lets pretend it wasn't. My point being that preferring people from a particular state doesn't say much about your moral character, in fact anything. I can say people in the midwest have better genes than Californians because they are hard-workers out on the farm and Californians got lazy genes, but it has nothing to do with my moral character. I have trouble believing you actually think Trump thought that the Minnesotans at that event are actually better than other states. We might have to disagree on this one, but I think it's a very shallow accusation of racism, a term that has been thrown around like nothing and lost meaning in the recent years.

As previously stated: He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.

That you or I do not believe them to be a distinct race, does not change Trump's statements that they are (and a superior one at that). While not accusing Trump of genocide, you can observe the same pattern of belief in many genocides throughout history. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples routinely intermarried, were indistinguishable to outsiders (and insiders for that matter), with the only thing marking them as separate races was... *drumroll* ...pure belief in their superior genes!

I think his point is that he designates them as a race that Ragnar himself wouldn’t apply. What that race is seems entirely beside the point because we can’t peer into Trump’s head and determine how he thinks about this particular issue, and I sincerely doubt that Trump has specified in these speeches. If you want to argue that this isn’t racism from your view because you don’t agree with Trump on this designation, then that’s fine, but Trump himself has levied both that claim and the associated one about them having superior genes. That’s a link Trump himself made very clearly, so I have a hard time understanding how that view isn’t inherently racist, given the connections he’s making rather than your own views.

And which race is that?

As previously stated: According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.

You keep the dodging the question. Is Minnesota a race?

He was "casually talking" using well known racist rhetoric of eugenics, specifically identifying the people of Minnesota as inherently superior to others due to their inherited genes.

Since when was Minnesota a race? I think we both know this isn't an example of racism. Saying people have good genes isn't racist. You're taking it way too literally, he was at a rally casually talking to his base. This is a human being speaking, it's just an expression, take it with a grain of salt.

He didn't claim they were better educated than everyone else, he pointed to their genetics.

Ragnar, your really stretching it here. You know he mentioned nothing about race and was calling his audience intellectuals essentially. Minnesota is not a race, you're on a long leash here.

> So Minnesota is a race now?

According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.

Also unrelated, but when I came back on here after awhile, most of the debates seemed oddly philosophical and like regarding debating itself? Lol, didn't know if that was the knew "thing," I'm used to mostly political debates.

You too! I don't really debate anymore because it turned into more of a burden than something fun, also because I like having discussions with open-minded people and not people just trying to "win" a debate. I'll keep perusing through debates and commenting with people, though!

Long time no see, Boat! Hope you can stay a while.

I'm not denying there's also physical traits.

>He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
So Minnesota is a race now?

He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.

As for your belief that personality traits are genetic, if correct that would mean there are quantifiable physical differences (otherwise genetic tests would just say we'll all the same person), therefore still physical traits.

When did he ever mention race? He never said only white people in Minnesota have these superior genes, only blacks or Latinos in Minnesota have these superior genes, he said "you have good genes in Minnesota." Never mentioned race at all. You do realize genes are also personality characteristics and not just inherited physical traits?

> I don't understand how this had anything to do with race.

Calling back to the definition:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”

Proclaiming the people of Minnesota are better than others due to their genes and successful eugenics programs, is declaring that they are better than others due to their shared ancestry (AKA, race). It doesn't matter if it's at a state level, it's still clearly endorsing racist beliefs.
To you or I the Rwandan genocide was carried out by people of the same race; yet their belief in their racial superiority, drove them to genocide against their neighbors all the same. (this is not to say Minnesota is going to try to kill the rest of us)

> What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.

It was indeed pandering, but using racist rhetoric to do it. Hence, I call it out. If he went to Harlem and gave the same basic speech, I would likewise call that out for endorsing racism in the locals.

As for the racism definition, I think stereotyping, perceived bias, etc. doesn't make you a racist at heart. Some people say ignorant things sometimes, but it doesn't mean that they truly believe they're better just because their race is better. However, I acknowledge that saying racist things is still racist, and thus I give people the benefit of the doubt that the people are racist as a result, to some extent or another.

Death penalty- So you can concede a bit on my point, and I can concede a bit to your point that bias may play an effect. However, I just don't see any evidence evidence that his position was racist. You can say that he has a racial bias, but there's just no way to prove that.

Good genes- So, to my understanding, racehorse theory= superior genes+superior genes= more superior genes, as a basic point. I don't understand how this had anything to do with race. He was saying it about the state of Minnesota, so a superior state? Maybe he is a stateist. What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.

> I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.

Yeah, that we disagree on an issue, doesn't mean anything bad about either one of us. As I think I identified, our differing educations caused us to fall back to very different definitions of what it takes for someone/something to be a racist.