Is Donald trump racist?

Author: clokflokleberrymojimbo

Posts

Total: 86
#61
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Being called a Russian Agent is astronomically worse, especially if it’s literally proven false.
To be fair, I said say or do anything. While I'm not necessarily a person who can say what is and what isn't effective diplomacy in terms of what's best for the US, I'm not sure gagging on Putin's dick (metaphorically) every time they meet counts.

And previous Presidents haven’t gotten as many votes either. You and I both know that without mail in voting, Trump would’ve easily won. 

Don’t worry tho, states are making sure this shit doesn’t happen again. It’s why Dems are panicking. Just look at Texas for example.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Trump being a shitty person. You can still support a candidate based on his policies even if he is a shitty person.
Topic's author
#62
clokflokleberrymojimbo
clokflokleberrymojimbo's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 6
0
0
0
clokflokleberrymojimbo's avatar
clokflokleberrymojimbo
0
0
0
-->
@ebuc
I have my opinions on the matter though I can guarantee you i'm not trumper.

my opinion is just no shit hes racist.
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,027
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
For the most part, I really don't think most Trump haters really deep down even care whether he is a racist or not. Most of the people that do care are likely racist themselves as you have to be under the mad delusion that objective races exist for racists to exist. Calling Trump a racist is all about preserving power, and I am not just talking about the elite oligarchs in DC. The same common people that believe in the mad delusion of objective races and critical race theory also believe in the mad delusion that somehow they share in some small way the same power that the Oligarchs and lobbyists in Washington DC wield.

The very thought that the Oligarchs in DC actually don't care about the people would mean to admit you have been living the life of a deluded powerless slave, and deep down, nobody wants to admit that they willingly chose to be a slave to a bunch of ice cream eating Oligarchs in DC. Just like nobody wants to admit they willingly chose a bad life partner after a divorce.

So we burn effigies on the altar of racism and pretend we have actual power by doing so. America is such a predictably primal society.
If another word could be substituted to call a man that blasphemes heretically a worldview of faux power, that word would be used ceaselessly to preserve the illusion of power. Nobody wants to be woken up from a good dream. It's not about the word. It's about power.

Nobody gave a flying fuck about Trump's racial views until in 2016 he said the one demonic word you most certainly are not allowed to talk about in Washington DC.

Swamp.

Trump's lasting contribution for "destroying democracy" has nothing to do with Jan 6.
It's for planting the seed of an idea that your vote really does not matter. And that is what makes Trump the worst "racist" of all.
For destroying the illusion of democracy.


#64
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of the people that do care are likely racist themselves as you have to be under the mad delusion that objective races exist for racists to exist.
You really need to drop this argument. Racism describes a mindset towards a group of people based on superficial characteristics. There is nothing about that which requires objectivity. In fact the idea is as subjective as it gets, because the word describes what someone themselves decided to single out.

Arguing that racists don’t exist on such an absurdly irrelevant and misguided technicality strongly suggests that you have a vested personal interest in this point.
#65
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R

Well, he is a Grand Dragon.
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Being called a Russian Agent is astronomically worse, especially if it’s literally proven false.
Turns out that when… 

- You have no problem calling out everyone from American allies to celebrities for anything they do which you don’t like, but refuse to condemn Putin for anything, including killing journalists to keep himself in power

- Your campaign chairman gave your internal polling data to a Russian agent

- Nearly everyone associated with your campaign had Russian contacts that they lied about

- Your entire campaign leadership team took a meeting with someone who literally disclosed that the meeting would be in regards to “Russia and Its government’s support for Mr. Trump”

- Your *only* input to the republican platform was to remove anti Russian language

- You take a private meeting with Putin in which you kick out every American and and afterward destroy the translator’s notes, then never speak of the meeting again

- nearly every piece of your foreign policy goes against every previous administration but yet aligns with what Russia wants

- too many more to list 

…you do all that you’re going to get called a Russian agent. That’s not on the media, that’s on Trump.

It never ceases to amaze me how the party of personal responsibility always paints Trump as the victim every time the world reacts to the stupid things he says and does. We have never in our history seen such a vile childish narcissistic imbecile in power before. Of course he will be hounded. That’s common sense.
#67
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,746
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
No collusion. That’s what Saint Mueller said. Stop spreading misinformation 
#68
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ILikePie5
 Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
#69
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,746
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Mueller said it in his own words: No collusion. It’s not that hard 

#70
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ILikePie5

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wasted no time during his House Judiciary Committee testimony in undercutting President Trump’s ongoing insistence that Mueller’s probe cleared him of all wrongdoing.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
Trump has also repeatedly rejected the idea that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was meant to aid his own candidacy. (He also regularly rejects the idea that any Russian interference takes place, but that’s well-established by now.) Under questioning from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mueller contradicted Trump’s claims.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”

#71
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ILikePie5
Former President Donald Trump had a surprisingly candid response when challenged over the tens of thousands of lies he told during his time in office, according to the author of a new tell-all book.
“We asked him why, as president, he thought it was OK for him to continually tell the American people things that were not true, to lie again and again and again,” Washington Post journalist Philip Rucker recalled of interviewing Trump on Tuesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“And he said to us, ‘You know, there’s a beautiful word, and it’s called disinformation,’” Rucker said.
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,027
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
You really need to drop this argument. Racism describes a mindset towards a group of people based on superficial characteristics.

That's bigotry. Races are artificial constructs of a deluded mind.

Racism can only exist in a postmodern dystopian bullshit world.

When objectivity mattered, MLK said to judge people on objective content. 
#73
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Mueller said it in his own words: No collusion. It’s not that hard
Mueller never said that. Those are Trumps words.

You’re not stupid. You know damn well that Mueller would never say no collusion cause it’s not even a legal term that applies here. You know damn well that failure to establish a criminal conspiracy does not equal evidence of innocence. You can also add. Everything I listed are undeniable facts, some of which came from Mueller himself. 2+2=4

You’re right, it’s not that hard, which is why people like you prefer to stick with one liners rather than discuss facts, because you know you’re wrong.
#74
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's bigotry. Races are artificial constructs of a deluded mind.
Christ dude…

“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

Racism can only exist in a postmodern dystopian bullshit world
No, it exists in this one.  This isn’t that complicated, unless for some odd reason you want it to be.

#75
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@clokflokleberrymojimbo
Yes
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Trump is also a sexist. Trump, in a 2005 conversation with a television host that was caught on a live microphone, describes a failed seduction, saying: “I did try and fuck her, she was married,” and says that when he meets beautiful women he feels able to “grab them by the pussy”.
“You can do anything,” he tells Billy Bush, the TV host who is a cousin of George W and Jeb Bush.
#77
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,746
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Ah going from collusion to obstruction. Classic switcheroo.

How are you gonna obstruct a crime that doesn’t exist per Saint Mueller

Stop spreading misinformation or you’ll be banned by all social media
#78
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,746
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Mueller never said that. Those are Trumps words.

You’re not stupid. You know damn well that Mueller would never say no collusion cause it’s not even a legal term that applies here. You know damn well that failure to establish a criminal conspiracy does not equal evidence of innocence.
Guess what? In this case you’re innocent until proven guilty. Millions of dollars, over 2 and half years and Mueller couldn’t find enough. Deal with it.

You can also add. Everything I listed are undeniable facts, some of which came from Mueller himself. 2+2=4

You’re right, it’s not that hard, which is why people like you prefer to stick with one liners rather than discuss facts, because you know you’re wrong.
No no no. The Democrats were the ones that said Trump colluded with Russia.

It’s hard to care about something if nothing illegal was done. Cause guess what? That’s what Mueller said. Or he just didn’t have the balls to say it. Either way, the Democratic allegation that Trump “colluded” with Russia is either legal meaning he did what he could to win. Or Saint Mueller is a liar and doesn’t care.
#79
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Guess what? In this case you’re innocent until proven guilty. Millions of dollars, over 2 and half years and Mueller couldn’t find enough.
Mueller couldn’t find enough because the  he was required to meet a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a legal standard, and we apply it because we value freedom of the innocent over punishing the guilty. That has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

You are accusing the media of not having enough to justify its claims. That’s about logic, and you can’t make the case on those grounds which is why you resort to this obfuscation.

 The “mainstream” claim is not that Trump and Putin met regularly where Trump received his orders. The claim is that his campaign understood that Russia was working on their behalf, welcomed it, and did everything they could to amplify the results of Russia’s efforts. That’s not deniable. It’s also not deniable that Trump has some sort of affliction towards Russia, and whether wittingly or unwittingly, he absolutely helped Russia achieve many of its foreign policy goals in a way Putin never dreamed would become actualized reality.

It’s hard to care about something if nothing illegal was done. Cause guess what? That’s what Mueller said.
Mueller was running a federal investigation, so *his* concern, as the head of this investigation and person whose name would be on the final report was the legalality or illegality that could be proven in a court of law. Everything else was just politics, which he viewed as his responsibility to stay out of.

The idea that we shouldn’t care about it if it’s legal is absurd, and you would not accept that it for a second if we were talking about Biden, Obama, or Hillary and you know it. 
#80
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Mueller did "find enough".  His job is not to bring charges, though.  And because of that he was quite selective in his words, unequivocally stating that charges could be brought against Mr. Trump were he not a sitting President.  There were some odd 12 instances of events which he outlined as amounting to obstruction of justice carried out by Mr. Trump.

Were you to actually have listened to what Mueller stated, it was Congress' job to engage in a charge and trial/conviction.  As such, because the President can't have a 'day in court' as the average Joe would, the concept of bringing charges, guilt, arrest, etc was never brought up.  Why each individual instance of Obstruction was not a separate charge is beyond me, but were I to hazard a guess, it revolved around knowing they were never going to get a conviction out of the Senate, so why bother.


#81
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,027
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
"No evidence of collusion" is just a dogwhistle for partisan hacks for racist.
#82
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,746
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
They all change the topic to obstruction of justice. You do whatever’s needed legally to win
#83
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,027
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Forcible removal of political opposition is the hallmark of a totalitarian fascist society. I am done apologizing for these Democrat retards.

7 days later

#84
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@clokflokleberrymojimbo
"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) . It's a non-starter.

If you're interested in knowing whether he exhibits racial hatred, use that term. If you're interested in knowing whether he exhibits racial bias, use that term. I can't blame you much for using this nonsense term, given that even conservatives seem to accept it, but please stop using it and describe what you actually mean.
#85
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,138
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
The Ku Klux Klan has grown faster since Donald Trump’s inauguration than any time in recent memory, a Klan leader has claimed.
“I’ve been doing this for over 20 years and I haven’t seen the Klan grow at the pace it’s growing now,” Chris Barker, an Imperial Wizard of the KKK, told The Independent. “I mean, it’s even hard to keep track of the numbers you’ve got ’cause there’s so many coming in.”

9 days later

#86
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
lol mesmer wtf why do you care what term he uses? Racism is a term used to describe people who feel hatred against races or explicitly and consciously discriminate against people of color (sometimes people are racist against whites as well)