What about it, racist?
Trump is not a racist
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
What about it, racist?
EVM has offered to answer your question, dear Brother, albeit with a condition.
Why not meet him halfway? If he is truly a racist, here is your chance to prove it.
^Can't fix stupid
"The gun death rate in the US is the lowest in the world. Exclude homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, self-defense, police shootings, and beatings with a gun."
"The US has the lowest vehicular death rate in the world. First, exclude all vehicles."
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
domer loves to waste his time on false claims......
MarylynCobb
New member
I think no)
No need to beg to differ, since I welcome arguments from my opposition. That is what political forums are for, so thanks for differing.
All that I recall seeing so far are allegations, dismissed cases, and propaganda. If you are convinced that one of these items is in fact evidence, please present it here so we can sift through it. Pick one item that you think qualifies, and we can break that item down to see if it qualifies as evidence. I am open to debate on any item that you present.
Actual evidence should be easy to recognize, but it should not be confused with a potentially plausible path that cannot be substantiated. If you wish to be the lefty who wins this debate, you will need to demonstrate that you can differentiate actual evidence that can be proven from a plausible path that cannot. A plausible path is very tasty if one is looking to satisfy confirmation bias or add hype to political ideology, but it most certainly is not evidence. Be the lefty who can put actual evidence against this, and you will win.
Present the evidence.
Please present any evidence that you have that is not just propaganda, allegations, or dismissed cases. If you feel that I have dismissed actual evidence that is not allegations, propaganda, or dismissed cases, please present it. I am quite willing to acknowledge that Trump is a racist if you can present actual evidence that is not dismissed cases, allegations, or propaganda. If all you can do is present non evidence and claim that it is in fact actual evidence, then we will never get anywhere. If you are confident that non evidence that has been presented here is in fact actual evidence, present it with how it is more than just a plausible path that cannot be proven.
He is probably a nice guy, but he has nothing to offer in political discussion or debate. I just think of him as a bot that is programmed to detect righties, and then post one of a dozen pre programmed responses.
I take it from this clever and profound rhetoric that you are a lefty.
This is not even Trump. Even if it was, it is only a compilation of stuff that has been removed from its full and proper context. I hope you can do better than this.
The fact that you are unaware that courts often allow a corporation to "change their ways" and pay fines,without admitting guilt does not mean they did not do it. It is a long time justice aberration that smears the entire system,. Lawyers call it "we didn't' do it, but we promise not to do it again". Trumps case resulted in him being forced by the court to run large ads saying they will no longer discriminate and apartments will be available to all. Trump took THAT to court. claiming the expense was crippling.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Evmetro,
A refreshing and welcome attitude, sir. Thank you for your civility. Mutual respect is a prerequisite for civil discourse. Sad that so many here cannot grasp this basic concept. But that's what the Ignore feature is for.
Those are indeed evidence, whether they prove racism or not. Some things must be accepted without actual proof. For instance, I accept that some posters here are going to be so rude as to be unpleasant to talk to, so they are placed on Ignore. I can't prove rudeness. It is a matter of perception. Just as racism is.
There is no crime in racism. But we do define it as a crime when actions are taken which violate the civil rights of another. While it is impossible to absolutely prove that civil rights have been violated, it can be shown in court in a convincingly enough manner that jurors agree beyond a reasonable doubt. When that occurs, it is deemed 'proven.' The 'proof' is not absolute. It is a matter of conjecture. In the course of such proof items of evidence are presented. None of which alone need be proof, but the compilation of them all might actually constitute it for legal purpose. No judge will allow a legal team to argue that since a presented item is not proof on it's own that it cannot be presented. No judge is going to entertain a semantic argument of what 'evidence' is. Your approach would be summarily disallowed in court. Rather, the word evidence is accepted as meaning what most people believe it means, and the argument boils down to whether or not evidence as acceptable to the court. There might be some evidence which is not deemed acceptable to the court, and is disallowed. But there is never a judgement that such evidence is not 'actual evidence.'
This is your mistake. It is tantamount to saying that evidence = proof, which is false. Evidence and proof are two different concepts. You have mistakenly equated them for the purposes of this semantic game you are playing. Wikipedia says evidence is: "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence." You have been lumping everything which could be construed as evidence into the narrow 'strongest type of evidence,' and refusing to admit that the rest is actually evidenc as well.
We have strong evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution is essentially accepted as fact by most, and there is very strong evidence of evolution, but it is not considered proven. Many refuse to accept the evidence, just as you refuse to accept the Trump is a racist.
And what would be won?
That you would agree that Donald Trump is a racist? What's that worth?
That is completely subjective. Those who oppose him already agree he is a racist. Those who support him find a way to believe he is not. You have chosen a semantic game in which you equate the words 'evidence' and 'proof.' This may be sufficient for you, but others see right through the fallacy. Most people agree that evidence and proof are two different words meaning two different things. You don't. And that's OK. You are entitled to your own view.
A refreshing and welcome attitude, sir. Thank you for your civility. Mutual respect is a prerequisite for civil discourse. Sad that so many here cannot grasp this basic concept. But that's what the Ignore feature is for.
Those are indeed evidence, whether they prove racism or not. Some things must be accepted without actual proof. For instance, I accept that some posters here are going to be so rude as to be unpleasant to talk to, so they are placed on Ignore. I can't prove rudeness. It is a matter of perception. Just as racism is.
There is no crime in racism. But we do define it as a crime when actions are taken which violate the civil rights of another. While it is impossible to absolutely prove that civil rights have been violated, it can be shown in court in a convincingly enough manner that jurors agree beyond a reasonable doubt. When that occurs, it is deemed 'proven.' The 'proof' is not absolute. It is a matter of conjecture. In the course of such proof items of evidence are presented. None of which alone need be proof, but the compilation of them all might actually constitute it for legal purpose. No judge will allow a legal team to argue that since a presented item is not proof on it's own that it cannot be presented. No judge is going to entertain a semantic argument of what 'evidence' is. Your approach would be summarily disallowed in court. Rather, the word evidence is accepted as meaning what most people believe it means, and the argument boils down to whether or not evidence as acceptable to the court. There might be some evidence which is not deemed acceptable to the court, and is disallowed. But there is never a judgement that such evidence is not 'actual evidence.'
This is your mistake. It is tantamount to saying that evidence = proof, which is false. Evidence and proof are two different concepts. You have mistakenly equated them for the purposes of this semantic game you are playing. Wikipedia says evidence is: "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence." You have been lumping everything which could be construed as evidence into the narrow 'strongest type of evidence,' and refusing to admit that the rest is actually evidenc as well.
We have strong evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution is essentially accepted as fact by most, and there is very strong evidence of evolution, but it is not considered proven. Many refuse to accept the evidence, just as you refuse to accept the Trump is a racist.
And what would be won?
That you would agree that Donald Trump is a racist? What's that worth?
That is completely subjective. Those who oppose him already agree he is a racist. Those who support him find a way to believe he is not. You have chosen a semantic game in which you equate the words 'evidence' and 'proof.' This may be sufficient for you, but others see right through the fallacy. Most people agree that evidence and proof are two different words meaning two different things. You don't. And that's OK. You are entitled to your own view.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
there was no fine.......oops.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
excellent parallel......lib'ruls think Trump is a racist because they found a bone in a tar pit.......
Trumps bigotry resulted in a consent decree. In such a decree, you do not have to admit wrong doing. However Trumps were prohibited from discrinimating against any person in terms conditions or privileges. They were also required to take out advertisements notifying minority individuals that they had equal opportunity to seek housing at Trump properties.
This is not innocence. Consent decrees are tools to end long term practices of practices that have become normalized. The only thing Trump got was not having to plea guilty or go to trial . It hides the racist practices from the public. Corporatons enter these thhings quickly because they don't have to take a public hit showiing they were racist. But they still pay the penalties.