You know your a pretty immature loser when you use hashtags on a debate site while seemingly simultaneously taking the position of all 4 political quadrants in the comment section despite openly admitting to hating white people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
The man who said "yeah, there you go, white power.." I thought was saying it in disdain, not in agreeance, by the tone of his voice. It sounded more like, "there you go, just another racist trump supporter."
And sure, the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist. I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt on things they say without thinking or meaning, or things said in the heat of the moment. But yes, the statement was racist. For example, I don't think Joe Biden is necessarily racist when he said "If you don't know who to vote for, you aint black," although that's an overtly racist statement.
>On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
Again, I'm not defending the historical statistics. I'm simply saying people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person.
As for the "eugenics speech" you said Trump made in Minnesota, assuming your referencing "good genes," I simply think is silly. It's literally a phrase. People can say I'm handsome and tall, I got good genes. He was referencing genes of success, your work drive, etc. He has said this in the past. There is nothing to suggest it is about race, it's a manner of speech. People could take almost any common phrase and vaguely relate it to some racist thing X person said in 1922. We have to realize that politicians are people too, they speak like normal people. Trump freelances half the time anyway, he's talking like a normal human.
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.
>One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"
Still haven't heard a second person. it appeared to be the one man driving past the camera in a golf cart, who was the clear person who did it. At this point your just cherry picking the supposed amount of people. It would make no sense for the white house to say" trump didn't hear that man say white power but did hear others say it." They said "He did not hear the one statement made on the video" so clearly they think there was the one statement of white power, or at least it was the most prevalent. If they heard more, they would have just said multiple.
About the intent, the problem is Trump didn't even hear that in the first place. It would be another thing if he heard it and didn't think "white power" was racist, but it would be another if he simply didn't hear it.
Ok, so you claim Trump's racist because the NYC five were black. I mean just last year Trump reinstated the death penalty for federal crimes and scheduled 5 executions, including 3 white people, 1 sexually related- "Welsey Ira Purkey, found guilty in Missouri in November 2003 of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl before dismembering and burning her body" and "White supremacist Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted in Arkansas of murdering a family of three, including an eight-year-old girl" and "Dustin Lee Honken, found guilty in Iowa in 2004 of murdering five people, including a single mother and her 10- and 6-year-old daughters."
I know these also include murders, but its not like Trump only supports the death penalty for black people. I don't think you have to counter-act your position on the death penalty with a second example of white gang rapists to prove your not racist. The whole thing just seems silly to me. Race doesn't matter, the crimes do.
As for the housing discrimination, I'll admit I don't know much about it, but I know it's more than just black and white. That's a complex case. I've heard conflicting viewpoints about these supposed practices, so I'll leave it at that. When I argue Trump isn't racist, I'm at the least arguing that he isn't racist today, or any recent history, let's just say within the past 2 decades.
>It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.
It's because the NYC five was a very popular national case in his home state. There probably wasn't a case with 5 white people raping a women that big. He stood by his stance because they only settled the case, and he thinks they did a bad job and there's more to it. Which is a fair opinion. But simply because these people were black is no basis for a racially motivated stance.
The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant. It has nothing to with taking an opinion on it. I am borderline for rapists to be killed, it has nothing to do with skin color.
>If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?
You are looking through all of this only through the lens of race. The only case I've heard him take a public stance on was this national case, with the alleged rapists being black. Simply because the only case he took a stance on happened to be black is not evidence for racism. If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white, would that make him racist against whites?
>Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant.
I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."
> Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist
What? Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another. There clearly has to be intent. If you don't know that something is racist, in this case Trump didn't know the man chanted "white power," then it's clearly not racist. You clearly have to know it is racist for you to believe your race is superior to another.
>I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it.."
Ah yes, this is probably the most famous example of the context being completely forgotten. He didn't wait, in fact he clarified everything in the same interview with the reporters. Here is the transcript-
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
Trump very clearly states, in the same series of questions, "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally." I don't even think I have to justify this one, it's literally right there in the interview.
That's because they ask tough questions and try to have a conversation, and the liberals retreat into their feelings when they don't have anything to back up their claims
Literally look up any youtube video. Or look at the protesters and rioters. Conservatives like to have dialogue and free speech, liberals shut it down.
I don't admire a lot of leftist points of views either. However, when I talk about tolerance sarcastically, I'm referencing a very large group of people on the left who refuse to have conversations with conservatives and talk about their views, and instead we just see insults and name-calling and hate. In fact, this is almost exclusively on the left. You will hardly ever see conservatives unwilling to have a conversation about their views, nonetheless yell meaningless profanities and insults.
I can see what your saying about people paying attention when you use that profile picture, but I think it can only go so far, and only works somewhat on the internet. People will be a lot less open-minded to your views if the first thing they see is "f*ck you for voting Trump." This especially would be a turn off in real life. It could be more useful to get their attention and discuss issues with you, but it would most likely manifest into trying to win a debate rather than a friendly discussion.
It's very subjective what one considers to be offensive or how they take something. That's why I don't think freedom of speech should have any limitations even if it is deemed offensive or hurtful. I can 100% disagree if a person is supporting white supremacy and calling black people or minority groups as a waste of human life, but I 100% support their free speech rights to that opinion.
I'm simply saying that there is nothing you are achieving by that. Conservatives laugh at leftists when they just can't stand a different opinion. I said nothing about the 1st amendment, I'm a conservative, of course I love the constitution. If anyone, it's the leftists silencing free speech with people they disagree with.
"will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction."
So if you believe that's what people think, then you have no problem with having a conversation with them to actually understand what they believe? Perfect! I love productive discussions and free speech.
ah, so in other words: "We don't tolerate people who disagree with us politically. Screaming "f*ck half the country who voted" is a very necessary way to achieve progress as a country👍"
>For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."
This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power." I honestly see no reason not to believe that here, he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind. This just isn't great evidence. He also yesterday just announced in his platinum plan to label the KKK as a terrorist organization.
The housing stuff is a pretty complex case, and it was 50 years ago, so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today, or even in the recent years. As for the Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated. He called for bringing back the death penalty, which is a fair opinion to have. Just because something isn't legal doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it should be or not.
Whether you believe he has a history or not of racism, it is pretty irrelevant when were talking about IS he racist, not WAS he racist. I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present. Knowing what he's done for the black community, he isn't racist in the slightest. He has repeatedly condemned racism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, nationalists, etc. If you really think he's racist, he's sure doing a damn terrible job at it.
I also think his actions speak much louder than his words. Specifically what he's done for the black community in the past 4 years, (jobs, school choice, prison reform, etc) as well as the platinum plan he just announced, which I don't even see as political, in fact I mildly disagree with some of the things in it, but it looks like a pretty good plan if you look at it objectively.
Ok, even though I disagree with the notion he is racist at all, I can still respect your middle ground there. I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?
ah, so who's being toxic now? I don't believe small sample size votes from strangers measures your intelligence on a given topic, nonetheless who is right. The art of constructing a debate is different than what is actually truth.
I've debated this many times before on this website. Lol you definitely have a super lousy definition of toxic, simply stating my preliminary position and pointing out preliminary flaws in the opposition's position isn't toxic.
Unfortunate con didn't refute pro's evidence. When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove. Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.
"Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint."
The big problem with your argument is nobody is directly killing anyone. Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint.
Nobody is killing people. This is a matter of policy. There is debate to be had on which one is better or which one would save more lives. It's the same with gun control. One policy may be better than another. There is discussion to be had. But I don't know why you should assault people because they have a different solution.
I can't find the link. I have it quoted from you in early May, you 100% said it. Do you retract the comment? Forget about the comment, do you stand by political violence or not?
You know your a pretty immature loser when you use hashtags on a debate site while seemingly simultaneously taking the position of all 4 political quadrants in the comment section despite openly admitting to hating white people.
#JustSaying
#StepYourGameUp
I see you changed your profile picture, very good!
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.
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.
And which race is that?
You keep the dodging the question. Is Minnesota a race?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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.
What are you referencing, what guy, what did Trump say?
The rest of it turned my mind into a nuclear bomb. Please explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.
The man who said "yeah, there you go, white power.." I thought was saying it in disdain, not in agreeance, by the tone of his voice. It sounded more like, "there you go, just another racist trump supporter."
And sure, the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist. I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt on things they say without thinking or meaning, or things said in the heat of the moment. But yes, the statement was racist. For example, I don't think Joe Biden is necessarily racist when he said "If you don't know who to vote for, you aint black," although that's an overtly racist statement.
>On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
Again, I'm not defending the historical statistics. I'm simply saying people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person.
As for the "eugenics speech" you said Trump made in Minnesota, assuming your referencing "good genes," I simply think is silly. It's literally a phrase. People can say I'm handsome and tall, I got good genes. He was referencing genes of success, your work drive, etc. He has said this in the past. There is nothing to suggest it is about race, it's a manner of speech. People could take almost any common phrase and vaguely relate it to some racist thing X person said in 1922. We have to realize that politicians are people too, they speak like normal people. Trump freelances half the time anyway, he's talking like a normal human.
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.
>One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"
Still haven't heard a second person. it appeared to be the one man driving past the camera in a golf cart, who was the clear person who did it. At this point your just cherry picking the supposed amount of people. It would make no sense for the white house to say" trump didn't hear that man say white power but did hear others say it." They said "He did not hear the one statement made on the video" so clearly they think there was the one statement of white power, or at least it was the most prevalent. If they heard more, they would have just said multiple.
About the intent, the problem is Trump didn't even hear that in the first place. It would be another thing if he heard it and didn't think "white power" was racist, but it would be another if he simply didn't hear it.
Ok, so you claim Trump's racist because the NYC five were black. I mean just last year Trump reinstated the death penalty for federal crimes and scheduled 5 executions, including 3 white people, 1 sexually related- "Welsey Ira Purkey, found guilty in Missouri in November 2003 of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl before dismembering and burning her body" and "White supremacist Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted in Arkansas of murdering a family of three, including an eight-year-old girl" and "Dustin Lee Honken, found guilty in Iowa in 2004 of murdering five people, including a single mother and her 10- and 6-year-old daughters."
I know these also include murders, but its not like Trump only supports the death penalty for black people. I don't think you have to counter-act your position on the death penalty with a second example of white gang rapists to prove your not racist. The whole thing just seems silly to me. Race doesn't matter, the crimes do.
As for the housing discrimination, I'll admit I don't know much about it, but I know it's more than just black and white. That's a complex case. I've heard conflicting viewpoints about these supposed practices, so I'll leave it at that. When I argue Trump isn't racist, I'm at the least arguing that he isn't racist today, or any recent history, let's just say within the past 2 decades.
>It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.
It's because the NYC five was a very popular national case in his home state. There probably wasn't a case with 5 white people raping a women that big. He stood by his stance because they only settled the case, and he thinks they did a bad job and there's more to it. Which is a fair opinion. But simply because these people were black is no basis for a racially motivated stance.
The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant. It has nothing to with taking an opinion on it. I am borderline for rapists to be killed, it has nothing to do with skin color.
>If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?
You are looking through all of this only through the lens of race. The only case I've heard him take a public stance on was this national case, with the alleged rapists being black. Simply because the only case he took a stance on happened to be black is not evidence for racism. If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white, would that make him racist against whites?
>Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant.
I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."
> Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist
What? Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another. There clearly has to be intent. If you don't know that something is racist, in this case Trump didn't know the man chanted "white power," then it's clearly not racist. You clearly have to know it is racist for you to believe your race is superior to another.
>I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it.."
Ah yes, this is probably the most famous example of the context being completely forgotten. He didn't wait, in fact he clarified everything in the same interview with the reporters. Here is the transcript-
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
Trump very clearly states, in the same series of questions, "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally." I don't even think I have to justify this one, it's literally right there in the interview.
That's because they ask tough questions and try to have a conversation, and the liberals retreat into their feelings when they don't have anything to back up their claims
Literally look up any youtube video. Or look at the protesters and rioters. Conservatives like to have dialogue and free speech, liberals shut it down.
I don't admire a lot of leftist points of views either. However, when I talk about tolerance sarcastically, I'm referencing a very large group of people on the left who refuse to have conversations with conservatives and talk about their views, and instead we just see insults and name-calling and hate. In fact, this is almost exclusively on the left. You will hardly ever see conservatives unwilling to have a conversation about their views, nonetheless yell meaningless profanities and insults.
I can see what your saying about people paying attention when you use that profile picture, but I think it can only go so far, and only works somewhat on the internet. People will be a lot less open-minded to your views if the first thing they see is "f*ck you for voting Trump." This especially would be a turn off in real life. It could be more useful to get their attention and discuss issues with you, but it would most likely manifest into trying to win a debate rather than a friendly discussion.
It's very subjective what one considers to be offensive or how they take something. That's why I don't think freedom of speech should have any limitations even if it is deemed offensive or hurtful. I can 100% disagree if a person is supporting white supremacy and calling black people or minority groups as a waste of human life, but I 100% support their free speech rights to that opinion.
Fair enough
I'm simply saying that there is nothing you are achieving by that. Conservatives laugh at leftists when they just can't stand a different opinion. I said nothing about the 1st amendment, I'm a conservative, of course I love the constitution. If anyone, it's the leftists silencing free speech with people they disagree with.
"will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction."
So if you believe that's what people think, then you have no problem with having a conversation with them to actually understand what they believe? Perfect! I love productive discussions and free speech.
ah, so in other words: "We don't tolerate people who disagree with us politically. Screaming "f*ck half the country who voted" is a very necessary way to achieve progress as a country👍"
Con has a very tolerant profile picture 😂
>For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."
This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power." I honestly see no reason not to believe that here, he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind. This just isn't great evidence. He also yesterday just announced in his platinum plan to label the KKK as a terrorist organization.
The housing stuff is a pretty complex case, and it was 50 years ago, so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today, or even in the recent years. As for the Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated. He called for bringing back the death penalty, which is a fair opinion to have. Just because something isn't legal doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it should be or not.
Whether you believe he has a history or not of racism, it is pretty irrelevant when were talking about IS he racist, not WAS he racist. I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present. Knowing what he's done for the black community, he isn't racist in the slightest. He has repeatedly condemned racism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, nationalists, etc. If you really think he's racist, he's sure doing a damn terrible job at it.
I also think his actions speak much louder than his words. Specifically what he's done for the black community in the past 4 years, (jobs, school choice, prison reform, etc) as well as the platinum plan he just announced, which I don't even see as political, in fact I mildly disagree with some of the things in it, but it looks like a pretty good plan if you look at it objectively.
Ok, even though I disagree with the notion he is racist at all, I can still respect your middle ground there. I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?
Con didn't really refute pro's argument at all, I'm simply saying he could have done a much better job. I'm not bringing up my own debating skills.
ah, so who's being toxic now? I don't believe small sample size votes from strangers measures your intelligence on a given topic, nonetheless who is right. The art of constructing a debate is different than what is actually truth.
I've debated this many times before on this website. Lol you definitely have a super lousy definition of toxic, simply stating my preliminary position and pointing out preliminary flaws in the opposition's position isn't toxic.
Unfortunate con didn't refute pro's evidence. When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove. Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
"argumentum ex silentio"
"No one is being convinced by your fancy Latin"
lmaoo
So your against political violence in healthcare. Coulda just said that from the start
No one directly dies if there isn't "universal healthcare." We have universal healthcare in the sense if you go to the hospital you can't get turned away. I will repeat what I said.
"Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint."
Would you be for political violence against people who disagree with you on healthcare?
Sure, I would be. What's your point?
Sure
"You do know under that definition a principle can be you can kill me and the law won't punish you for it. What do you say to that?"
Ok?
You keep avoiding the topic at hand. Can you answer a simple question? Are you for political violence or not?
Can you stop avoiding the question? Are you for political violence or not?
"I didn't say guns"
Are you telling me you can't engage with hypothetical's?
How about you stop sugar coating what your trying to say and just say it? Are you for political violence or not?
The big problem with your argument is nobody is directly killing anyone. Nobody's goal is to kill people. There are different sides that are trying to find better solutions to the healthcare issue. It would be like me saying that I can use violence against you because you support a gun ban, which kills more people than if they are legal. Of course we can have a debate over whether guns save more lives or not, but simply because you believe one solution would result in indirectly killing more people is not a valid reason to physically assault an opposing viewpoint.
Policy- "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual."
Now can you respond to my comment? Why should physical violence be used against people who have different opinions?
Nobody is killing people. This is a matter of policy. There is debate to be had on which one is better or which one would save more lives. It's the same with gun control. One policy may be better than another. There is discussion to be had. But I don't know why you should assault people because they have a different solution.
Like I said, forget about the quote. Do you stand by physical violence against people with a different opinion on policy?
I can't find the link. I have it quoted from you in early May, you 100% said it. Do you retract the comment? Forget about the comment, do you stand by political violence or not?
So do you stand by your comment or not?