Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

[Joe]

Well, if the mods think I'm getting too rowdy, I'm sure they'll let me know.

[pErvinalia]

They are like a hair trigger these days. As soon as the report comes in they are rushing to issue an infraction. I'd take a week off if I was you, Joe..

[Forty Two]

Moving the goalposts Forty Two?

Uh, no, repeating myself.

You've already been provided plenty of evidence, by me

The birther thing is not racist. It's what you want to see in it. You attribute a racist motivation because Obama is black. However, challenges were made to Ted Cruz's right to be President, and previously to John McCain - neither of them was elected, of course, so the issue fizzles out. People even sued in court against John McCain over that issue.

The reality is that questioning the right of someone to run for president is not racist in and of itself, and that what you're doing is inferring racism from the fact that Trump raised the birther issue against Obama.

And the issue of the "Mexico sending bad people" - that's not racist at all. Bad people cross the border illegally -- good people do too (I know that for a fact, because I know more than one illegal border crosser personally) -- but, there is a higher percentage of criminality crossing the border than in the general public. I've addressed that before. You're ignoring it.

You are citing these (through links) as "examples" of racism, when they are only racism if you infer motive and intent -- they are not themselves direct evidence of racism. I.e. holding those views is not inherently racist -- racists can, and do, hold those views, but so do non-racists.

and others, and your hand waving is no refutation. How about you provide some evidence that these charges are weak?

You just have to read the "charges." First of all, they're not "charges." The only "charge" is the nearly 50 year old housing administrative action. That's plainly not "evidence" since we all know that commissions bring charges all the time, and they, like any allegation, are not evidence.

The other "charges" you mentioned - like the bad people cross the border thing - are just not racist - on their face, they are not racist. It's true, bad people cross the border - when they come from Mexico, they're going to be almost all Mexicans that cross. It's not a statement about all Mexicans or most Mexicans. It's a statement about the people crossing the border illegally.

And, remember - I was asking you to provide examples of evidence of racism before he announced his run for President. These "examples" you cite are politically motivated. Now, if you had somethinf from 2010, or 2000, or 1995 or something where he's making racist statements, then I'd like to see them.

Your unsupported word doesn't cut it.

Well, you taking non-racist things, like challenging a birth certificate, and inferring racism because you already "know" that he's racist doesn't cut it.

As for snark, report me if it's too much.

No, what I'll do is start making similar comments toward you, if that's what you want. We can go that route, if you like. Or, we can talk and debate like human beings.

[Forty Two]

The criminal/rapist thing... why do we assume that he wasn't suggesting that Mexicans etc have in general higher criminality? Is there some other reason for why you'd expect immigrants to more likely be rapists?

Because that's not what he said.

Illegal immigrants =/= immigrants, and he was referring to illegal immigrants.

[Joe]

Moving the goalposts Forty Two?

Uh, no, repeating myself.

You've already been provided plenty of evidence, by me

The birther thing is not racist. It's what you want to see in it. You attribute a racist motivation because Obama is black. However, challenges were made to Ted Cruz's right to be President, and previously to John McCain - neither of them was elected, of course, so the issue fizzles out. People even sued in court against John McCain over that issue.

The reality is that questioning the right of someone to run for president is not racist in and of itself, and that what you're doing is inferring racism from the fact that Trump raised the birther issue against Obama.

And the issue of the "Mexico sending bad people" - that's not racist at all. Bad people cross the border illegally -- good people do too (I know that for a fact, because I know more than one illegal border crosser personally) -- but, there is a higher percentage of criminality crossing the border than in the general public. I've addressed that before. You're ignoring it.

You are citing these (through links) as "examples" of racism, when they are only racism if you infer motive and intent -- they are not themselves direct evidence of racism. I.e. holding those views is not inherently racist -- racists can, and do, hold those views, but so do non-racists.

and others, and your hand waving is no refutation. How about you provide some evidence that these charges are weak?

You just have to read the "charges." First of all, they're not "charges." The only "charge" is the nearly 50 year old housing administrative action. That's plainly not "evidence" since we all know that commissions bring charges all the time, and they, like any allegation, are not evidence.

The other "charges" you mentioned - like the bad people cross the border thing - are just not racist - on their face, they are not racist. It's true, bad people cross the border - when they come from Mexico, they're going to be almost all Mexicans that cross. It's not a statement about all Mexicans or most Mexicans. It's a statement about the people crossing the border illegally.

And, remember - I was asking you to provide examples of evidence of racism before he announced his run for President. These "examples" you cite are politically motivated. Now, if you had somethinf from 2010, or 2000, or 1995 or something where he's making racist statements, then I'd like to see them.

Your unsupported word doesn't cut it.

Well, you taking non-racist things, like challenging a birth certificate, and inferring racism because you already "know" that he's racist doesn't cut it.

As for snark, report me if it's too much.

No, what I'll do is start making similar comments toward you, if that's what you want. We can go that route, if you like. Or, we can talk and debate like human beings.

Gee Forty Two, if you wanted to see what you're asking for, you should read the thread. I even gave you a link.

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing substantive to back your assertions. Claiming that I'm inferring racism and my examples are politically motivated is just ad hominem argument. I like the "charge" strawman, but it's still fallacious reasoning, and not very convincing. Why would anybody buy this?

No wonder the majority of Americans agreed with me in a recent poll.

According to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 57 percent of Americans think Trump's policies have been bad for Muslims, and 56 percent think they've been bad for Hispanics. Forty-seven percent, including three-quarters of blacks, think they've been bad for African Americans.

Fifty-seven percent of all adults, including more than 8 in 10 blacks, three-quarters of Hispanics and nearly half of whites, said they think Trump is racist. Eighty-five percent of Democrats consider Trump racist, but just 21 percent of Republicans agree.

I suspect the percentage is higher on this forum.

Maybe repeating yourself isn't the best approach.

[Joe]

They are like a hair trigger these days. As soon as the report comes in they are rushing to issue an infraction. I'd take a week off if I was you, Joe..

Well, Seth did warn me about this forum.

[Seabass]

The criminal/rapist thing... why do we assume that he wasn't suggesting that Mexicans etc have in general higher criminality? Is there some other reason for why you'd expect immigrants to more likely be rapists?

Because that's not what he said.

Illegal immigrants =/= immigrants, and he was referring to illegal immigrants.

False, as usual. He made no distinction between legal and illegal. He said "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best..." etc.

[Forty Two]

Gee Forty Two, if you wanted to see what you're asking for, you should read the thread. I even gave you a link.

In that link the only reports of "racism" from 1974 to 2015, were the hearsay allegations where someone said that when Trump and Ivana came to the casino, then the pit bosses would move all the black people off the casino floor in the 1980s. Ummm... excuse me if that doesn't sound like bullshit. You can see pit bosses single out all the black gamblers and employees and clearing them off to a separate room so Donald Trump won't see them when he walks through the casino? Really? The other wone was the Central Park 5 which is where a group of teenagers were accused of raping and beating a jogger, and the assertion is that he, like a million other people, thought they were guilty because they were black.

The Central Park Jogger case is also not as you present it, as even after another assailant admitted to the rape and beating, the "Armstrong Report" found that the central park 5 were involved, and that the likely scenario was that they and the newly confessed assailant were involved together or successively.

There are no statements made by Trump that suggest that his view of the case is because they are black.

You, on the other hand, have offered nothing substantive to back your assertions.

I have - his actual statements. You declare, for example, that the Central Park 5 case is evidence that he is a racist. However, when the 5 were arrested, they confessed to the crime. The evidence was solid, and they were convicted. They retracted their confessions, of course, and in 2002, Matias Reyes came forward for some reason and confessed to the crimes, and claimed to be acting alone. However, the Armstrong Report found that the information that the original 5 assailants disclosed during their confessions showed that they must have been there too. That's not enough, obviously, to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, since they cast doubt on the manner in which the confessions were obtained and the like. But, there is nothing in the case or Trump's reaction to it, and even his continued assertion that he believes the evidence shows they were involved and he believes their original confessions -- nothing in that means he's a racist.

Claiming that I'm inferring racism and my examples are politically motivated is just ad hominem argument.

It isn't ad hominem. One - claiming you are inferring racism is a statement of fact. A literal racist comment would be "that guy's a nigger" or something like that. If Trump says "I think the Central Park 5 are guilty" even though they later had their convictions overturned and were awarded a civil settlement - that is not literally racist. However, you can "infer" from that racism if you say that the reason Trump thinks that is because they are black. But nothing has been presented to show that Trump wouldn't think a white group of teens who are alleged to have brutally raped jogger are not as guilty under the same circumstances. That's why it's an inference, not direct evidence of what you're accusing him of.

The examples after June, 2015, have a political motivation because since that point in time his opposition has been trying to attack him that way.

I like the "charge" strawman, but it's still fallacious reasoning, and not very convincing. Why would anybody buy this?

I did not raise a "charge" strawman - you used that term. Using that term loads the issue. Posting a link to a bunch of supposed racist examples is not helpful to resolve the issue unless we look at each of the examples. It's a house of cards, because none of the examples evidence racism are direct evidence of racism. They each require an inference that his intent must be racist. The closest one to direct evidence of racism is the 1973 Fair housing issue - but, I don't think I need to explain why a fair housing complaint against a company that was at the time run by Trump's father, and under policies in force under Trump's father, is not much evidence of DJT,Jr's state of mind.

Here' an article from Vox that tries to paint the picture - because it matters - that Trump has been accused of being a racist since the 1973 fair housing thing. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/3/9089495/do ... ump-racist - note, they include things that aren't racist -- they say he's racist for criticizing the Japanese trade policies, and for saying that the St. Regis Mohawk Indian casino people had a history of criminal practices. He's accused of being racist on the Apprentice, because he fired a black contestant -- the summary in the Vox article is so incoherent that it doesn't even explain what was "racist" about the firing.

No wonder the majority of Americans agreed with me in a recent poll.

According to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 57 percent of Americans think Trump's policies have been bad for Muslims, and 56 percent think they've been bad for Hispanics. Forty-seven percent, including three-quarters of blacks, think they've been bad for African Americans.

Fifty-seven percent of all adults, including more than 8 in 10 blacks, three-quarters of Hispanics and nearly half of whites, said they think Trump is racist. Eighty-five percent of Democrats consider Trump racist, but just 21 percent of Republicans agree.

I suspect the percentage is higher on this forum.

Maybe repeating yourself isn't the best approach.

Well, you're free to conclude what you want, but, frankly, when the divide is along party lines, as that Newsweek article says, it shows what's happening. It wasn't that long ago that more than half of all Democrats thought George W. Bush knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks were going to happen and was complicit in them.

I don't think more than half of all Democrats are that stupid. What happens is that People answer surveys in a way that paints their preferred politicians in a favorable light, and their hated politicians negatively.

The amount of mud that has been slung at Donald Trump is unbelievable, unprecedented. If you want to believe that he is a racist, rapist, who hates kids and dogs, pays hookers to pee on hotel beds (because Obama slept there), and colluded with Russians to rig the election, feel free. That's the narrative that's been pushed by his opponents.

[Forty Two]

The criminal/rapist thing... why do we assume that he wasn't suggesting that Mexicans etc have in general higher criminality? Is there some other reason for why you'd expect immigrants to more likely be rapists?

Because that's not what he said.

Illegal immigrants =/= immigrants, and he was referring to illegal immigrants.

False, as usual. He made no distinction between legal and illegal. He said "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best..." etc.

I can't see how you can listen to that speech and not hear the context being illegal immigration. But I will give you that he does not distinguish between legal an illegal immigration in the clip (first video). He talks about Mexico "sending" people. My interpretation of that is that he's talking about countries unloading undesirables - like Cuba did in 1980. But, I will admit that it's neutral on that, and you could say that he's claiming there that Mexico is sending people "legally" to the US (filling out proper paperwork). That, to me, sounds unlikely. I think Trump is referring to Mexico basically pushing or encouraging people over the border.

I freely admit that that's as much of an inference on my part as what I'm saying you're doing with the other quotes and things. It's interpretation.

[JimC]

They are like a hair trigger these days. As soon as the report comes in they are rushing to issue an infraction. I'd take a week off if I was you, Joe..

AM NOT!

Must...not...reach...for...ban...button...for...rEv...

Must...resist...temptation...

[Brian Peacock]

Ban the heretic!!!!

[Seabass]

I can't see how you can listen to that speech and not hear the context being illegal immigration.

Your problem, not mine. I heard what he actually said, while you did some charitable reading between the lines.

[Forty Two]

I can't see how you can listen to that speech and not hear the context being illegal immigration.

Your problem, not mine. I heard what he actually said, while you did some charitable reading between the lines.

He did not specify either way - he referred to Mexico "sending" people in that speech. That's an entirely different issue. If Mexico is "sending" people, he noted that they would not be sending their best.

And, so, it's not just my problem, it's yours, too. Both of us are interpreting what he said.

And, if you are objecting to charitable readings, how can you accept the most uncharitable readings when they're offered? You're saying my charitable reading is unacceptable, but your uncharitable one is correct?

Lastly, since he's only referring in the statement to the people Mexico is "sending" then he's not referring to Mexicans in general. How can it be racist when he's not even generalizing a nationality, much less a "race?" Unless your uncharitable interpretation that he's referring to a racial group, when he doesn't actually refer to a racial group, is the only reasonable interpretation....

[Seabass]

Good god, you're insufferable.

[mistermack]