Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Status
Not open for further replies.

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Rather, here's one of the times he said exactly what I noted.

[video=youtube;kcuQI0V_g-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kcuQI0V_g-Y#t=985[/video]

Forward to 16:00 for context and at 16:28 he says, "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."


Town, I've lost all hope for you. You show signs of brainwashing more everyday.
In no way that you can actually demonstrate.

Your distaste for Trump is affecting your thinking
Rather, thinking has led to my distaste for Trump.

Trump has had mostly negative things to say about Mexico. And here those people are, helping Texas out of a tough scrape.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
A wall that was there long before this Pope, and one that has many large openings through which anyone who behaves himself may walk without submitting passport or other paperwork.

Yes, the Vatican does have walls, and some are quite large. But anyone can stroll through the Pope's front yard -- St. Peter's Square -- at nearly any time. Only metal detectors stand between the iconic landmark and the millions of tourists who come to see the historic headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church.
In other words, Vatican City may have walls, but the front door is always open, said the Rev. James Martin, a Catholic priest and editor at large at America magazine.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/world/vatican-walls/index.html

9435b0b4a7687a0818c8af930c8b1567--vatican-city-gates.jpg


Are you telling us that is the wall Trump is planning to build? A wall anyone can walk through at any time, without visa or evidence of citizenship?



Because conservatives roll that way. Nice try.



He was exposed as an ignorant buffoon. Again.



For an American, the proper address is "Mr. President." And his name is Donald.

The real iron here, is that The Vatican, with about 1000 permanent residents, took in about 20 Syrian refugees.

If the United States had admitted a proportional number, we would have taken in millions of them.

I can't believe anyone actually fell for that story about Vatican walls.
What if all President Trump wanted to do, was ensure that everybody crossing the border from Mexico into the US, somehow is subject to metal detection surveillance/inspection? Then, in that case, President Trump's idea would only be proposing to secure half of the American land border, with less protection than most of the Vatican's land border. Instead, his idea is to secure half the US land border with an impermeable wall, which is equal security to most of the Vatican's land border.

That's hypocrisy, what the pope did. And President Trump having dealt the pope a rhetorical blow that rhetorically knocked the pope off his rhetorical feet and down onto the rhetorical mat, is absolutely nothing compared with Paul's recount of what he did to Pope St. Peter, in the epistle to the oldest Galatian dioceses, perhaps among them the Antiochian church.

That Paul still breathed---rhetorically---after that altercation, means that we can still be in full communion with the papacy, even while pointing out any hypocrisy that they might commit. It doesn't necessitate autocephaly for anybody to condemn a pope for plain hypocrisy, and that's what the future President Trump did, it's just that it was a twit-er instead of verbally, like Paul did. The pope has since backed off, which is ambiguous, but could be evidence that HH recognized that the future President Trump's judgment was true.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Rather, here's one of the times he said exactly what I noted.

[video=youtube;kcuQI0V_g-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kcuQI0V_g-Y#t=985[/video]

Forward to 16:00 for context and at 16:28 he says, "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."



In no way that you can actually demonstrate.


Rather, thinking has led to my distaste for Trump.

Trump has had mostly negative things to say about Mexico. And here those people are, helping Texas out of a tough scrape.
Trump loves the good Mexicans, I do too.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
I know where his parents came from, Nihilo. I also know, and just posted a video, of Trump calling him a Mexican, not his parents. He wouldn't call himself a Scott. You know why that is? You should.
You're going to have to go ahead and explain how or why calling someone Mexican is racist, Town. I don't understand.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You're going to have to go ahead and explain how or why calling someone Mexican is racist, Town. I don't understand.
You have to ask yourself a simple question to begin with, "Is Trump a stupid man?"
If you answer yes then there's no way to continue. If you find yourself saying, "No, he's a very astute man. A very successful, very intelligent man. A Wharton man."
Now we can get some where.
Trump understands the judge he noted was born and reared here, is not a Mexican. But he calls him a Mexican.
Why would he do that?
Because he's speaking to a set of people who would do that. That's his audience. And he's telling them that he can't get a fair hearing from one. It's the oldest code use in the bigoted playbook. Whether Trump actually believes that is immaterial. He's using it.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
You have to ask yourself a simple question to begin with, "Is Trump a stupid man?"
If you answer yes then there's no way to continue. If you find yourself saying, "No, he's a very astute man. A very successful, very intelligent man. A Wharton man."
Now we can get some where.
Trump understands the judge he noted was born and reared here, is not a Mexican. But he calls him a Mexican.
Why would he do that?
Because he's speaking to a set of people who would do that. That's his audience. And he's telling them that he can't get a fair hearing from one. It's the oldest code use in the bigoted playbook. Whether Trump actually believes that is immaterial. He's using it.
Trump is like the Archie Bunker of politics, I find it refreshing :chuckle:
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
You have to ask yourself a simple question to begin with, "Is Trump a stupid man?"
If you answer yes then there's no way to continue. If you find yourself saying, "No, he's a very astute man. A very successful, very intelligent man. A Wharton man."
Now we can get some where.
Trump understands the judge he noted was born and reared here, is not a Mexican. But he calls him a Mexican.
Why would he do that?
Because he's speaking to a set of people who would do that. That's his audience. And he's telling them that he can't get a fair hearing from one. It's the oldest code use in the bigoted playbook. Whether Trump actually believes that is immaterial. He's using it.
When my ancestors got off the boat from France, and then they had children in America, I don't have any trouble thinking of that first generation as French. I understand the technical legal difference, sufficiently. I still have no problem thinking of them as French. And again, why is it racist to call someone Mexican? All the Mexicans I know, I really, really like.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
When my ancestors got off the boat from France, and then they had children in America, I don't have any trouble thinking of that first generation as French. I understand the technical legal difference, sufficiently. I still have no problem thinking of them as French. And again, why is it racist to call someone Mexican? All the Mexicans I know, I really, really like.
I never said there was something inherently racist about saying someone is a Mexican, but I also answered you question. Repeating it won't do either of us any good. Read it again sometime, but drop your filter from the reading. You have a different background and heart than he does. He's not using language the way you do. His history speaks to it.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
It is no problem calling someone Mexican...if that is consistent with their self-identification. I see no reason to believe Trump gave that any consideration. But more to the point, it is racist to give that as a reason that a judge cannot be fair to you.
So Trump is a racist. So what?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It is no problem calling someone Mexican...if that is consistent with their self-identification. I see no reason to believe Trump gave that any consideration. But more to the point, it is racist to give that as a reason that a judge cannot be fair to you.

I AGREE. Donald Trump WANTED TO APPEAL TO HIS CROWD; MOREOVER, HE WANTED TO LET THE LIBERALS KNOW THAT NO ONE CAN FORCE THEIR pc AGENDA ON HIM.

moving on, the real problem wit trump is , as a politician, he has to play into the political game, something not required of a private person. this is why he should have said, the m were the worst for having the night march, shouting 'jews will not replace us' and blood and soil' because none of that is about confederate statues, which blacks may carev aboutbut i do not think jews acre about, although tthe jews would care abot being singled out when it had nothing to do with a jewish issue this is why it was nazi
Sorry for the all caps, it does it without my awareness
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
I just want you to know. You, collectively; those ITT who hate President Trump; you're literally telling us that he is both, a racist, and not a racist, in the same way, and at the same time; violating logic. There's therefore literally zero reason for anybody to hear anything you say, without first wondering whether anything out of your mouth or keyboard is worth trying to understand. You can't say, A and not-A, at the same time, and in the same way.

For my part, the presence of racial slurs in anybody's current OR PAST vocabulary is sufficient reason for me to judge them racists. It's important to note that their absence does not prove that they are not racist, but their presence is proof positive that they are racist. And I don't know, but I've never seen, read, heard, or otherwise become aware of President Trump uttering or writing a racial slur, at any time. I do welcome anybody's proof that he has used such a slur, and openly.

And I also do note, that Presidents Obama, and I believe George W. Bush, consumed illicit drugs before becoming POTUS, and I don't believe that either of them consumed illicit drugs while in office, so even while they are technically dopeheads, they did not consume dope during their respective administrations.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I just want you to know. You, collectively; those ITT
What does ITT stand for?

who hate President Trump; you're literally telling us that he is both, a racist, and not a racist, in the same way, and at the same time; violating logic.
How are they doing that? Or is it in the ITT part? Okay, I'll wait.


For my part, the presence of racial slurs in anybody's current OR PAST vocabulary is sufficient reason for me to judge them racists.
I think that's too harsh. I dropped the N bomb at six. I didn't understand it, but still.

It's important to note that their absence does not prove that they are not racist, but their presence is proof positive that they are racist. And I don't know, but I've never seen, read, heard, or otherwise become aware of President Trump uttering or writing a racial slur, at any time. I do welcome anybody's proof that he has used such a slur, and openly.
According to a few sources he's had some things to say about blacks that are in the rascist category, though not the "hate them" end of the pool. I'll come back to it later. I have a family appointment at present. :D

And I also do note, that Presidents Obama, and I believe George W. Bush, consumed illicit drugs before becoming POTUS, and I don't believe that either of them consumed illicit drugs while in office, so even while they are technically dopeheads, they did not consume dope during their respective administrations.
Calling someone a dopehead because they did drugs at some point earlier in their lives makes as much sense to me as calling a person a liar because they told one in high school. :idunno:
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Calling someone a dopehead because they did drugs at some point earlier in their lives makes as much sense to me as calling a person a liar because they told one in high school. :idunno:
And you've every right to think so, and I've every right to attempt to convert you into thinking something other than that. There are those who've never done certain things, and President Trump is among the people alive today who've never consumed illicit drugs, and that means I need a way to distinguish between people like him, who've never done a certain thing, from people like Presidents 43 and 44, who did, and I think that dopehead is perfectly suitable.

I don't think I'm harsh, because morality will always be with us. We shouldn't try to bury it. It's morally superior to have never used a racial slur, regardless of anybody's sob story about why they were immoral in that case (as opposed to the multiple and multivaried and manifold other instances where they've been or are immoral). Everybody's immoral, but there are those who are not immoral in certain ways, and it's immoral to ignore that fact, IMO. President Trump never consumed illicit drugs, and Presidents 44 and 43 are dopeheads.

President Clinton said he didn't inhale (consume). And if President Trump used a racial slur, then the whole country and world needs to know that right away, also IMO. We already know that opposed to the dopeheads, President Trump is a "teetotaler," who is someone who never consumes alcohol, and also who never did before.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I think that dopehead is perfectly suitable.
I'd say even "former dopehead" would depend on the regularity of use and the period. To use it in a current sense seems irresponsible. Like saying that if you've been divorced but are remarried I should refer to you as the divorced guy.

I don't think I'm harsh, because morality will always be with us.
And our understanding and practice on the point frequently change. Just so, you could call the convert a heathen because he was one, but it's not a real reflection of his moral inclination after the fact.

We shouldn't try to bury it.
Or conflate it with the present if it isn't present. It's the sort of thing that can come up fairly in a long view discussion of a man's arc.

It's morally superior to have never used a racial slur, regardless of anybody's sob story about why they were immoral in that case (as opposed to the multiple and multivaried and manifold other instances where they've been or are immoral).
I can't agree. I'd say it's morally superior to not be a racist. But if George Wallace repents his ignorance and shuns it then he's no different than the fellow who was lucky enough to come up in a home where he was given better instruction.

And if President Trump used a racial slur, then the whole country and world needs to know that right away,
I think he did that with the Mexican comment. I've told you why. It's sly, like calling someone Liberace when you mean to imply something else, but it's still as low, only a bit less brave.

In the wake of that sort of rhetoric there was an alarming increase in hate related violence and intimidation. The Southern Poverty Law Center, in November or 2016 noted

[FONT=&quot]In the ten days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation...[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Of the 867 hate incidents collected by the SPLC, 23 were anti-Trump.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] SPL (link)

[/FONT]
32% of the incidents were anti-immigrant, 23% anti-black, 6% anti-Muslim, 12% anti-Semetic, 5% anti-women...
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I'd say even "former dopehead" would depend on the regularity of use and the period. To use it in a current sense seems irresponsible. Like saying that if you've been divorced but are remarried I should refer to you as the divorced guy.


And our understanding and practice on the point frequently change. Just so, you could call the convert a heathen because he was one, but it's not a real reflection of his moral inclination after the fact.


Or conflate it with the present if it isn't present. It's the sort of thing that can come up fairly in a long view discussion of a man's arc.


I can't agree. I'd say it's morally superior to not be a racist. But if George Wallace repents his ignorance and shuns it then he's no different than the fellow who was lucky enough to come up in a home where he was given better instruction.


I think he did that with the Mexican comment. I've told you why. It's sly, like calling someone Liberace when you mean to imply something else, but it's still as low, only a bit less brave.

In the wake of that sort of rhetoric there was an alarming increase in hate related violence and intimidation. The Southern Poverty Law Center, in November or 2016 noted

In the ten days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation...Of the 867 hate incidents collected by the SPLC, 23 were anti-Trump. SPL (link)

32% of the incidents were anti-immigrant, 23% anti-black, 6% anti-Muslim, 12% anti-Semetic, 5% anti-women...
I've heard bad things about the SPLC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top