Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
poor pig fucking goy
Trump is not a racist
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
poor pig fucking goy
Loving91390
Verified User
You call everyone a goy .... Does that mean , you are a black Jew ?
Here, I will cover your previous post that you are referring to:
What I posted was that the case you are referring to was in fact dismissed as allegations. This is a fact, and here is the legal wording:
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that in
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C.
Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations
contained therein, and predating this Order.
The FACT that the court dismissed the complaints as allegations makes them especially worthless. The fact that complaints were made and that there was a case not evidence of guilt.
Do you have some evidence that proves that this case, that was in fact dismissed as allegations, is something more than dismissed allegations? Speculating on what the decree MIGHT have meant is not evidence that it meant anything more than what the court said it meant. The official position of the court was that the allegations were simply allegations, and they dismissed] the case as just that. If you have evidence that this dismissed case or consent decree mean something more than the court says, provide something more substantial than politically motivated speculation and emotional assertions.
So where is the guilt? I hope you are not implying that being sued proves guilt in spite of what the court later decides.
This link is gish gallop in its purest form, and the existence of the gish gallop list is not proof that anything contained in it is true. Every item on the gish gallop list is either a dismissed case, allegation, or accusation, and every single item on your gish gallop list has been covered on this very thread. If you can find a single item on your gish gallop list that is something more than an accusation, allegation, or dismissed case, isolate[/] it and present it here.
How ironical. I was just trying to determine if your logic equation was a formal or informal fallacy.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
He took up with the party of racists, exploited that.
I know you are a lefty and all, but I have come to see you as being a little more objective and civilized than the rest of them. I also believe that you are objective enough to be able to see the difference between actual evidence and what lefties have been posting on this thread, and I certainly believe you have more to offer than what you have just posted. I will assume that this post of yours is just political humor.
Neither, dumbfuck. It was an example of your juvenile tactics.
Your lack of self-awareness is well known to the forum.
Actually, it was you who presented the fallacy in question.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Evmetro,
It was a 'drive by' post. Not much more serious than my post about him pardoning a white turkey.
I wrote this thread off a long time ago after I gave strong evidence of Trump's racism and you found a way to blow it off, just as you have done for virtually everybody who came to this thread with similar evidence. That's fine, I get your gig. You have convinced yourself that Trump is not a racist and this thread is a way for you to enforce your beliefs by discounting anything anyone else says to the contrary. Hey, if that works for you, then you're not going to listen to anything that challenges that. Other people have similar threads going where they are convinced Trump never lied. I think they are only trying to convince themselves because something doesn't feel quite right about their beliefs. That's what I see you doing here.
Most of my positions do fall on the left but not all. I do try to consider all views when formulating my own. I do not take positions just because that's what the party wants. I am not a member of any party. I also am not above using a bit of semantic trickery to enhance my point. In this case I referred to one of the major political parties as 'the party of racists.' Of course, there is no ambiguity there. Everybody knows which party I am talking about. And there is a reason for that.
Not that I believe all Republicans are racists. I do not. But I do believe that: a) if someone is a racist, and b) they are going to align with one of the major parties, that c) they are most likely going to pick the Republican party. This would make the Republican party the party of racists, but it doesn't say that all Republicans are racist. If Republicans are uneasy with such a moniker, they need to stop exploiting racists for the racist vote.
It is sad that Trump could not get elected without the racist vote, and even sadder that he is willing to exploit that. Since he has done so, and he has become the face of the Republican party, then it is a reasonable statement to call that party the party of racists. If Republicans do not want that association, they need to take a stand against the President. I have a lot more respect for Republicans who stand against Trump than those who support him. Guilt by association. I strongly disagree with Trump, I disapprove of his performance, and I believe the Republican party has severely damaged it's reputation by falling in line behind the President.
It was a 'drive by' post. Not much more serious than my post about him pardoning a white turkey.
I wrote this thread off a long time ago after I gave strong evidence of Trump's racism and you found a way to blow it off, just as you have done for virtually everybody who came to this thread with similar evidence. That's fine, I get your gig. You have convinced yourself that Trump is not a racist and this thread is a way for you to enforce your beliefs by discounting anything anyone else says to the contrary. Hey, if that works for you, then you're not going to listen to anything that challenges that. Other people have similar threads going where they are convinced Trump never lied. I think they are only trying to convince themselves because something doesn't feel quite right about their beliefs. That's what I see you doing here.
Most of my positions do fall on the left but not all. I do try to consider all views when formulating my own. I do not take positions just because that's what the party wants. I am not a member of any party. I also am not above using a bit of semantic trickery to enhance my point. In this case I referred to one of the major political parties as 'the party of racists.' Of course, there is no ambiguity there. Everybody knows which party I am talking about. And there is a reason for that.
Not that I believe all Republicans are racists. I do not. But I do believe that: a) if someone is a racist, and b) they are going to align with one of the major parties, that c) they are most likely going to pick the Republican party. This would make the Republican party the party of racists, but it doesn't say that all Republicans are racist. If Republicans are uneasy with such a moniker, they need to stop exploiting racists for the racist vote.
It is sad that Trump could not get elected without the racist vote, and even sadder that he is willing to exploit that. Since he has done so, and he has become the face of the Republican party, then it is a reasonable statement to call that party the party of racists. If Republicans do not want that association, they need to take a stand against the President. I have a lot more respect for Republicans who stand against Trump than those who support him. Guilt by association. I strongly disagree with Trump, I disapprove of his performance, and I believe the Republican party has severely damaged it's reputation by falling in line behind the President.
Last edited:
montgomery
Verified User
To Trump's supporters racism is a good and desirable trait. One of them, CFM, even outright admits it, while the others know it but deny it. Trump's popularity is nothing more complicated than encouraging his supporters to blame minorities for all the ills that Americans are suffering. That is racism defined!
It's such an obvious evil that it's a wonder it hasn't been outlawed. It's a hate crime.
It's also a carbon copy of Hitler's method of using the Jews as the minority for the German people to hate and to blame for the same situation in Germany as is now evident in the US. The middle class is being eliminated and the people are now becoming the poor. The rest of the world needs to fear what this could lead to in America. Especially as it relates to China's position of having the ability to starve America's workers with doing it much more cost effectively.
Trump's promotion of 'China hating' is going to increase. The American people will be made ready for war. Trump needs to be eliminated soon!
Last edited:
Then I was able to properly interpret it. This is cool, a lefty and a righty communicating properly.
I suspect that we may be able to communicate and debate whichever item you had presented as evidence, since you seem to be a little more objective than most lefties, and you also seem to be able to communicate without having to use uncivilized language without having to bite and pull hair. Perhaps if you re present whichever item you believe is actual evidence, we can discuss and debate it in a civilized and objective way. We would simply need a single item that is isolated from any gish gallop lists, and an explanation of how it is more than an allegation, accusation, or dismissed case. Once you present your item, I will agree to not shoot it down on the spot, but instead, we will discuss it.
This goes off into partisan speculation, so it is not really all that helpful in isolating and debating the item that you feel is the actual evidence. It is not relevant if I think Trump is a racist or not, or what anybody else believes. What is needed in order to secure a victory in this thread, is actual evidence that is not an allegation, dismissed case, or accusation.
I am somewhat aware of your political stance, and I respect that you are able to remain civilized. Even better yet, I respect that there seems to be a little independent streak in you that allows you to function outside of the rigid dogma of the left. What I can never seem to find are people who can step outside of their respective side of the war long enough to debate something objectively. I suspect that you may have this ability that is especially hard to find in lefties.
This is a lot of partisan agenda, which would be fun to debate and discuss in various threads. Let's see if we can narrow down and debate a single submission of racism evidence first though.
Your response to post 1318 is one of your better posts
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Evmetro,
It's all I came here for.
LOL! There's no point. It has already been presented and blown off by you.
Preconditions are not an open debate.
Pretty hard to find anywhere.
Tell ya what. Instead of going around the same old circles, let's try a new tack. President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism. That makes him a racist by association. Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also a racist.
It's all I came here for.
LOL! There's no point. It has already been presented and blown off by you.
Preconditions are not an open debate.
Pretty hard to find anywhere.
Tell ya what. Instead of going around the same old circles, let's try a new tack. President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism. That makes him a racist by association. Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also a racist.
I am a little disappointed to see you completely surrender like this, but I understand. There have been 1335 post on this thread, and not one lefty has been able to isolate a single shred of evidence from the internet or any gish gallop list and present it here with an explanation as to why it is more than an allegation, dismissed case, or accusation. 1335 post of lefties failing to do this would look pretty intimidating if one were wanting to accomplish this task. You are probably wise to throw up the smokescreen like this, and get away from any expectation to do what no lefty has been able to do in 1335 posts. Throw some blame out there to justify why you can't be part of this, and remember that rigid lefty dogma will forbid you to admit that you cannot.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
So have we "proven" Don isn't "racist" yet?
I did not expect that you would be presenting the evidence of his racism, so I am not surprised that your post was about something else besides posting actual evidence.
The item that is relevant to today's political landscape is evidence that Trump IS a racist, but I would not be the least bit surprised to see lefties use the lack of evidence that Trump is NOT a racist as evidence that he is. The left has adopted the "guilty until proven innocent" thing, right? This entire thread shows lefties charging Trump as guilty, and there has certainly been no evidence presented that proves he is guilty. Even the courts backed down from their charges, and lefties still charge him as guilty until proven innocent.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Evmetro,
Congratulations. You 'proved' it to yourself. Goal accomplished.
Unless you wish to actually address this evidence:
President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism. That makes him a racist by association. Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also inherently racist.
Congratulations. You 'proved' it to yourself. Goal accomplished.
Unless you wish to actually address this evidence:
President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism. That makes him a racist by association. Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also inherently racist.
If this is what you are submitting as evidence that Trump is a racist, let's look into it and see if we can agree on everything. First, let's look at your claim that "President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism." I have not observed this personally, but I am open to understanding it if you can demonstrate that he is in fact doing this. Can you give me a couple examples of this that are not propaganda, allegations, or accusations?
We would also want to validate the notion that taking political advantage of racism proves one is a racist, if we can validate that this is happening.
We should make sure we agree on the meaning of guilt by association. Do we agree that Trump's guilt by association looks like the illustration below?
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
We must also evaluate this: Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also inherently racist.
Again, I think we will need to substantiate the notion that this is in fact happening, and that this is in fact evidence of racism.
Poli, I want to break this down objectively, so let me know if it is reasonable that we substantiate and agree upon the above items.
If I was not taking the extra time to try working this one objectively with you, I would normally have replied to your above post by simply posting that you posted an unsubstantiated emotional assertion, but I really am interested in working through this in a way that we both agree on, and in a way that neither of us can deny. This may not be possible, but I will give it my best shot.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Evmetro,
Our first disagreement will come on the statement that: "President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism."
I believe that to be true, but you will not agree. I would submit that Trump has encouraged racists in his campaign speeches in order to attract the votes of racists. Since Trump was endorsed by David Duke, this contention is supported. Trump walked a fine line here, obviously courting the racist vote, but at the same time disavowing it when questioned directly about it.
Since racists voted for and have supported him, the proof is in the pudding. That means he took political advantage of racists.
Since he just barely squeaked by in the election, losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral college, he needed all the votes he got, or he would not have been elected. That includes the racist vote.
Therefore, Trump capitalized politically on racism.
That makes him an averse racist.
If this is what you are submitting as evidence that Trump is a racist, let's look into it and see if we can agree on everything. First, let's look at your claim that "President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism." I have not observed this personally, but I am open to understanding it if you can demonstrate that he is in fact doing this. Can you give me a couple examples of this that are not propaganda, allegations, or accusations?
We would also want to validate the notion that taking political advantage of racism proves one is a racist, if we can validate that this is happening.
We should make sure we agree on the meaning of guilt by association. Do we agree that Trump's guilt by association looks like the illustration below?
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
We must also evaluate this: Anyone who is willing to encourage and capitalize politically on racism is also inherently racist.
Again, I think we will need to substantiate the notion that this is in fact happening, and that this is in fact evidence of racism.
Poli, I want to break this down objectively, so let me know if it is reasonable that we substantiate and agree upon the above items.
If I was not taking the extra time to try working this one objectively with you, I would normally have replied to your above post by simply posting that you posted an unsubstantiated emotional assertion, but I really am interested in working through this in a way that we both agree on, and in a way that neither of us can deny. This may not be possible, but I will give it my best shot.
Our first disagreement will come on the statement that: "President Trump has clearly taken political advantage of racism."
I believe that to be true, but you will not agree. I would submit that Trump has encouraged racists in his campaign speeches in order to attract the votes of racists. Since Trump was endorsed by David Duke, this contention is supported. Trump walked a fine line here, obviously courting the racist vote, but at the same time disavowing it when questioned directly about it.
Since racists voted for and have supported him, the proof is in the pudding. That means he took political advantage of racists.
Since he just barely squeaked by in the election, losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral college, he needed all the votes he got, or he would not have been elected. That includes the racist vote.
Therefore, Trump capitalized politically on racism.
That makes him an averse racist.
I respect that you believe what you want to believe, and you are correct that I disagree. Do we agree that neither my belief nor your belief qualifies as evidence of anything other than that some folks believe what you think, and some folks believe what I think?
This should raise two questions. 1, is there any evidence that he did in fact do this, or is this only what it looks like to his political opponents? 2, If he did in fact do this, does this really prove he is a racist?
Do we agree that we need answers to these questions, and that the answers need to be validated?
This reminds me that I never saw a reply from you about the association model that I posted in our last go around. Here is what is unresolved from my last post:
"We would also want to validate the notion that taking political advantage of racism proves one is a racist, if we can validate that this is happening.
We should make sure we agree on the meaning of guilt by association. Do we agree that Trump's guilt by association looks like the illustration below?"
Premise A is a B
Premise A is also a C
Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs
I must also ask if this model describes what you mean with Duke. Does Dukes endorsement of Trump guarantee that Trump endorsed Duke, and does the above model describe how this all works?
Is "obviously courting the racist vote" something that can be proven, or is this the opinion of Trump's political opponents? Is there any evidence out there that Trump did not mean it when he disavowed so many times?
This is where I run into the most problems with your evidence submission. I really am open to anything, but this has my eyebrows up. Are you really suggesting that if a racist votes for a particular candidate, that this candidate then becomes a racist as well? How does this work?
Are you suggesting that 100% of the racist vote went to Trump?
If the receipt of any percentage of the racist vote means that Trump capitalized on the racist vote, I am open to this notion. As far as it being evidence that Trump is a racist, we would need some proof that he did in fact intentionally solicit and receive racist votes, and we would need some kind of proof that this even means that he is in fact a racist and not just a politician or salesman.