Trump being racist

Author: RemyBrown

Posts

Total: 36
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
Trump is a racist (and nobody in MAGA will call it that and denounce Trump being a racist even though it's true)


If White South African refugees can come here, then so can refugees from the Congo and Gaza.

And BTW, this is the bad type of racism.  The good type of racism is family guy and south park; but ICE should be abolished with darker immigrants just like it is for white Afrikanners.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I think this might be subconscious racism of the left at play. The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide. Wealthy people by the way who are skilled and will contribute to the economy and make America stronger not just freeloaders who need saved.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,975
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown

But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,072
3
3
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
8
-->
@FLRW
True.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@FLRW
Donald Trump is a racist
But catholics and christians mostly voted for Trump. Are they racist too?
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
I think this might be subconscious racism of the left at play. The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide. 
Those people deported who are criminals are deported for no worse of a crime than these whites were (ie being undocumented).  How about lets have Gazan and DRC refugees come in the country the same way the white South Africans did?  Legally, and impossible to come illegally due to a consistent open border for everyone of any race.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
Those people deported who are criminals are deported for no worse of a crime than these whites were (ie being undocumented)
Do you think open borders would harm safety?

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,072
3
3
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
8
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The Catholics reasons to vote Trump over Kamala were:
  • Abortion (all Catholics are doctrinally obligated to be prolife)
  • Trans and Gay stuff being shown way too often to kids and being taken too far.
  • Kamala is a woman (this is a Paulist literalist take, there is room for feminism in Catholic ideology but a political apex leader as a woman becomes an issue akin to having a female Pope)
  • He had not yet disparaged and ridiculed the Catholic faith and Pope other than living out life as a sexual degenerate and inciting domestic terrorism for no real reason othee than being butthurt over an election
There were many reasons to vote Kamala over Trump for Catholics but I listed 4 reasons why back at the vote, they voted Trump more often.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Remy do you really think rape isn't a serious crime like you insinuate in your response to me?
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
Abortion (all Catholics are doctrinally obligated to be prolife)
Because Trump saves lives.

Trans and Gay stuff being shown way too often to kids and being taken too far.
So much for Christians being tolerant.

Kamala is a woman
I agree.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
He had not yet disparaged and ridiculed the Catholic faith and Pope
While Kamala did by being a woman.

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 1,072
3
3
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
8
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Kamala has not directly disparaged the Catholic faith. Stop trolling please.
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
Kamala has not directly disparaged the Catholic faith. Stop trolling please.
So why list it as a reason to prefer Trump then?
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
The Catholics reasons to vote Trump over Kamala were:

He had not yet disparaged and ridiculed the Catholic faith and Pope
So Kamala did then?
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Do you think open borders would harm safety?
Probably not significantly, but if they r@pe or murder, then just chop off their head (same standard regardless of race) and use their organs to save people.
RemyBrown
RemyBrown's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 860
3
2
6
RemyBrown's avatar
RemyBrown
3
2
6
-->
@WyIted
Remy do you really think rape isn't a serious crime like you insinuate in your response to me?
Incorrect.  If you r@pe or murder, then we should chop off your head without painkillers and use your organs to save the lives of American PATRIOTS!  But the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't r@pe or murder (just like Catholic Priests, drag queens, or AR 15 owners).

Collective punishment is a consistent bad whether it's done by the left or the right.

But merely being here without papers is like speeding; I don't care if you break the law to this minor extent (but there is a massive difference between being a criminal via speeding or driving without insurance vs being a criminal via r@pe or murder).
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 1,395
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@RemyBrown
Probably not significantly, but if they r@pe or murder, then just chop off their head
What about drugs then? Open borders would mean people bring much more drugs in. Take example of North Korea there. Strongest borders in the world, much less drugs there. Well, weed is legal, but other types arent.
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 437
Posts: 2,432
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@RemyBrown
"bad type of racism"

There's "racism" and "racial" humor.

No good or bad types of "racism" .
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Incorrect.  If you r@pe or murder, then we should chop off your head without painkillers and use your organs to save the lives of American PATRIOTS!  But the vast majority of undocumented immigrants don't r@pe or murder (just like Catholic Priests, drag queens, or AR 15 owners).
But you know that Trump is mainly going after these types  criminals first so why are you claiming that rape isn't a serious crime?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,826
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide.
This is what being wrong yet insisting on holding onto your wrongheaded worldview looks like. You are incapable of addressing your opposition's viewpoints for what they are, so you have to make them up instead. It never fails.

The left isn't outraged about the deportation of criminals, they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.

No one is complaining about people being saved from genocide, they're complaining about how overt Trump's racism is which this being just the latest example.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The left isn't outraged about the deportation of criminals, they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.
That's not coming across in the messaging when I watch CNN or see appeals to emotion about how awesome certain individuals.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.
This is actually an unbelievably stupid argument. Can you imagine? Like if illegal immigrants actually had rights in the United States, then technically if you think about it, like the Chinese can send a bunch of people on the border to literally invade the country and then instead of like shooting them and repelling them, we would have to arrest each one individually, give them a trial and then deport them through like some whole process. So the whole argument that anybody can just cross the border and automatically they get the rights of a US citizen. Is is really stupid and you know it's stupid and you're being just you're being dishonest when you act like you believe that actual illegal immigrants should get the same rights as US citizens
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,826
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
The left isn't outraged about the deportation of criminals, they're outraged at the flagrant dismissal by this administration of the constitution.
That's not coming across in the messaging when I watch CNN or see appeals to emotion about how awesome certain individuals.
Because you aren't listening. You've made clear that you are incapable or at the very least unwilling to understand left wing viewpoints. Here's yet another example:

Is is really stupid and you know it's stupid and you're being just you're being dishonest when you act like you believe that actual illegal immigrants should get the same rights as US citizens
No one is arguing this. No one is claiming they get the same rights as citizens. Listen to what those who disagree with you are actually saying.

Can you imagine? Like if illegal immigrants actually had rights in the United States
We don't have to. It's spelled out explicitly in the fifth amendment of the constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Last time I checked, illegal aliens were people.

Also notice that all it says is that each person in the situations described above are entitled to "due process", it does not say what that due process is. That would be for Congress to decide, and no it's not the same for citizens as it is for illegal aliens. Due process is whatever is codified into law, and that's what the Trump administration ignored when they pulled all these persons onto a plane with no hearing and just flew them out of the country without being reviewed by anyone. That's not how the rule of law in a democracy works, and the supreme court with it's 6-3 conservative majority, a third of which Trump appointed himself, agreed 9-0.

Since that ruling they have thrown every non-sequitur in the book out there to make this about everything except what it's actually about, and MAGA just eats up all of it.

technically if you think about it, like the Chinese can send a bunch of people on the border to literally invade the country and then instead of like shooting them and repelling them, we would have to arrest each one individually, give them a trial and then deport them through like some whole process.
That's why the constitution specifically carved out such situations, and that's what the alien and enemies act was actually written for. That would be the law that Trump is trying use to justify these unlawful deportations, the same law his administration's own attorneys admitted in court fillings doesn't apply here and which every judge that has ruled on this has called out for being facially absurd.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 3,782
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
I think this might be subconscious racism of the left at play. The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide. Wealthy people by the way who are skilled and will contribute to the economy and make America stronger not just freeloaders who need saved.
How is it racist if Remy thinks all refugees should be allowed to come?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,886
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
Democrats are paid by the billionaire donor class t destroy the requirements to be a citizen and make it so that everyone can be an exploitable citizen no matter what country they are loyal to.

No citizen requirements means America regresses to becoming a colony of the remaining nations of the globe. They literally come here, exploit, and send money back to their home country. They treat native Americans far worse than we treated Indians. At least we gave them reservations.

People can argue about compassion, economics, and diversity, but I am asking a more fundamental question: What does it even mean to be a citizen anymore? If there's no border, no loyalty expectation, and no enforcement of laws, then maybe it means nothing. And if it means nothing, then the people funding this erosion, whether on the left or right, are doing so for one reason: to control and exploit a low-trust, low-resistance labor pool and giving fuck all about protecting the culture of America. I can't wait for your 10 million Chinese to start constructing illegal buildings all over California and watching Americans self deport themselves to Canada in shame.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,886
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
That would be for Congress to decide, and no it's not the same for citizens as it is for illegal aliens. Due process is whatever is codified into law, and that's what the Trump administration ignored when they pulled all these persons onto a plane with no hearing and just flew them out of the country without being reviewed by anyone.
You got the first part right and the last part wrong.

U.S. immigration law—codified by Congress—has long provided for “expedited removal” under certain conditions. Specifically, 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1) allows immigration officers to order removal without further hearing or review for non-citizens who arrive at a port of entry without proper documentation or attempt to enter fraudulently, unless they claim asylum or express fear of persecution. In such cases, they are then referred for a “credible fear” interview—not a full court hearing—before any further proceedings.

Congress extended expedited removal in 1996 through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This law gave the Department of Homeland Security (and previously the INS) the authority to deport certain unauthorized immigrants swiftly if they are apprehended within 100 miles of the border and cannot prove they've been in the U.S. continuously for more than 14 days. In 2004, under George W. Bush, DHS used this authority more widely, and in 2019 the Trump administration expanded it further to apply to those who had been in the U.S. for up to two years without authorization. This expansion was challenged in court but ultimately upheld in 2020 by the D.C. Circuit.

Additionally, Congress explicitly does not require a full immigration court hearing for all removal proceedings. 8 U.S. Code § 1229a lays out formal removal procedures, but § 1225 and § 1231 provide separate authority for expedited and administrative removals. For instance, reinstatement of prior removal orders (per § 1231(a)(5)) allows ICE to re-deport someone previously deported without a new hearing, unless they express a fear of return. These laws were passed by Congress and upheld by courts, making them a part of the due process framework.

So, yeah, while due process is guaranteed by the Constitution, courts have consistently held that the scope of that process depends on the individual’s citizenship status and the nature of their presence in the U.S. Unauthorized immigrants at or near the border with little or no established ties are legally subject to summary removal processes, which have been authorized by law and used by every administration, Democratic and Republican, since the 1990s. The Trump administration acted within that legal framework, as had all previous administrations including the Deporter in Chief, Obama. No outrage is necessary to admit reality.

If someone has already gone through immigration proceedings and received a final order of removal from an immigration judge, they are not entitled to a second court hearing before being deported. This is codified in 8 U.S. Code § 1231(a). Once the order is final, the government is required to remove them within 90 days. The Trump administration, like previous administrations, deported many individuals with final orders, including criminals, without new hearings because the law doesn't require one.

For example, in 2020, Trump’s DHS deported a group of individuals who had been convicted of crimes and had exhausted their appeals. The removal of these individuals—often by plane—was not "without due process," because their due process already occurred during the lengthy removal proceedings. Many had years of appeals and court time. Once those proceedings were completed and a final order issued, no further court review is required before physically deporting them. That is legal, routine, and was authorized by Congress in the laws mentioned above.

So the idea that they were pulled onto planes “with no hearing” misrepresents what happened. Their hearing already happened. What people confuse as a violation is often just the enforcement phase of a lawful deportation order. There’s no legal obligation to give someone a second hearing or unlimited hearings, unless new evidence or asylum claims arise, and even then, it’s a VERY narrow exception to established jurisprudence. 

Courts have repeatedly upheld that finality is crucial to the function of immigration law. As wylted also said.





WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Because you aren't listening. You've made clear that you are incapable or at the very least unwilling to understand left wing viewpoints. Here's yet another example:
We can watch a segment of CNN together. When would you like to organize this? I am on discord
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
How is it racist if Remy thinks all refugees should be allowed to come?
I was trying to give him some credit and was assuming he wasn't a retard who actually believed that
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 8,363
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So if you are arguing they deserve some rights instead of the same rights as Americans than fair enough but then again how would you differentiate them and give them full jury trials from say a Chinese army invading who also technically fall under illegal aliens?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,826
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So the idea that they were pulled onto planes “with no hearing” misrepresents what happened. Their hearing already happened. What people confuse as a violation is often just the enforcement phase of a lawful deportation order. There’s no legal obligation to give someone asecond hearing or unlimited hearings, unless new evidence or asylum claims arise, and even then, it’s a VERY narrow exception to established jurisprudence.
Someone might want to explain all this to the supreme court