Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

[Forty Two]

Good god, you're insufferable.

[Joe]

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?

Strawman! The link says nothing about removing customers.

And speaking of bullshit, Trump said “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.” What exactly was that?

In 1991, a book by John O’Donnell, who had been president of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump as criticizing a black accountant and saying: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” O’Donnell wrote that for months afterward, Trump pressed him to fire the black accountant, until the man resigned of his own accord.

So much for your hearsay argument.

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.

Show me where he took ads calling for the death penalty against white criminals. Provide links, and no, Mohawks don't count.

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 n****r" 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 haven't made any inference and the political motivations of those who provided these examples are irrelevant. You emphasizing it is argumentum ad hominem. Furthermore, your speculation about Trump's thinking is also irrelevant, since I provided these as examples of racist behavior.

Remember, racist is as racist does.

Uh, what was two?

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.

Allegation or charge, you are misrepresenting my argument, and putting up a strawman to argue against. State of mind is irrelevant to Trump's behavior. Nice try, but still fallacious.

As evidence of Trump's racist behavior, the DOJ data is solid as a rock. Trump wasn't a mindless drone, he was the President of the company, and bore responsibility along with his Dad

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.

So the only link you managed to provide in this entire post claims Trump is racist. You have an interesting way of making your case.

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.

As an independent, I see a different divide. Trump is considered racist among groups that have suffered from racist behavior by a far greater margin than those who haven't. I won't speculate why that is, but will just point out that 57% of the entire survey favors my position, and that none of your statements about Democrats is relevant to that.

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.

That's nice Forty Two, but so far off topic as to be a total waste of words.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Nice sidestep. Is there some reason for why you'd expect illegal immigrants more likely to be rapists?

[pErvinalia]

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...

I've already addressed this multiple times in the past. If you were a business owner and referred to blacks in your employ as lazy, does the fact that you aren't referring to all blacks mean that you can't be being racist?

[mistermack]

Nice sidestep. Is there some reason for why you'd expect illegal immigrants more likely to be rapists?

Well they should be.

Just by excluding convicted rapists, the legals should be less likely to be rapists.
Excluding people convicted of other sexual crimes should also have that effect.

I would have thought that was obvious.

[pErvinalia]

Huh? I'm talking about as a percentage of the general population of America or Mexico. Otherwise there is no significance of them having the usual reprobate behaviours. He may as well say that the Republicans were sending rapists to the RNC.

[mistermack]

If Sweden had excluded Muslims from legal immigration, they would have far less rape going on. That's a fact, but they are so politically correct, there is a ban on mentioning ethnicity, or religion, or any other clue that might give the game away.

Rape has absolutely soared due to immigration, but they are determined to keep that hidden.

If the US was as choosy as Australia about who gets in legally, they would keep lots of rapists out. Not all, obviously, but lots.

[Forty Two]

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...

I've already addressed this multiple times in the past. If you were a business owner and referred to blacks in your employ as lazy, does the fact that you aren't referring to all blacks mean that you can't be being racist?

You can refer to black people in your employ as good, hard working people, and still be a racist.

That's not the question - whether you "can be" or "can't be being racist." Of course you "can be" - racist is a state of mind. Evidence of racism is what we look for - in what people say and do.

If you are a business owner and refer to some blacks in your employ as lazy, but you refer to other blacks in your employ as rock stars with a grand future at the company, it's not very strong evidence of racism.

If you were a business owner and referred to blacks in your employ as lazy, you could be racist, but it's not clear, is it? Doesn't it depend on whether you have other employees that are not lazy? Or, whether you refer to all employees black, or white, as lazy? Or, whether the phrase "referred to blacks" relates to all the blacks in the employ, or just those two black guys, who happen to be loafing, as lazy? I.e. - in the statement you mentioned, the answer really is "it depends," isn't it?

If you say that black people are lazy, then that's better evidence that one is racist. Thinking an entire race of people is lazy is rather racist.

[Forty Two]

Nice sidestep. Is there some reason for why you'd expect illegal immigrants more likely to be rapists?

Well they should be.

Just by excluding convicted rapists, the legals should be less likely to be rapists.
Excluding people convicted of other sexual crimes should also have that effect.

I would have thought that was obvious.

I would expect illegal immigrants that cross on foot or in the back of vans to be more likely criminals of every type, because that's how criminals get into the US. They can't get visas. Yet, a lot of them still want to come to the US. So, you're going to get an uptick in the rates of all types of criminals.

Now, there is a force that keeps many illegal immigrants' noses clean when they're in the US - the fear of getting caught and deported. Of the non-criminal illegals, which represents the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants (other than the breaking the immigration laws, employment laws, tax laws, and such) have to stay away from cops, because they tend not to have valid driver licenses, and they are nervous about getting caught for anything.

I'm not one who scorns illegal aliens, per se. Most of them are nice people looking to get themselves out of poverty. My sympathy for them, however, does not translate into a requirement that we have open borders and allow every economic migrant into the country.

I personally know illegal aliens - they come here in many different ways. They figure ways to get legal - the usual method is a marriage scam. If they are husband and wife, they get a divorce, and then one of them remarries someone else (an American, and they pay about $15,000 for the process), and they apply for a green card, going through the motions. They take photos, they hold pretend birthday and anniversary parties, take wedding photos, and set it up so they have an address together where utility bills come and stuff. There is a checklist. Then they get on the same page with various facts and a "story" about their relationship, so they remember stuff about each other. the big risk is the interview, where a sham can be revealed if they don't talk and walk like a married couple. Once one gets a green card, they just wait a few years - the safest way is for the new green card holder to get citizenship. Then they divorce the fake spouse, and remarry the old one, and a new green card application is filed.

This happens a lot. The entire system is broken.

[pErvinalia]

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...

I've already addressed this multiple times in the past. If you were a business owner and referred to blacks in your employ as lazy, does the fact that you aren't referring to all blacks mean that you can't be being racist?

You can refer to black people in your employ as good, hard working people, and still be a racist.

What the fuck does that have to do with what we are discussing? We not talking about secret racists. We are talking about whether what appears to be a racist statement can be a racist statement despite the fact it doesn't refer to all members of the race/ethnicity/nationality/whatever.

If you are a business owner and refer to some blacks in your employ as lazy, but you refer to other blacks in your employ as rock stars with a grand future at the company, it's not very strong evidence of racism.

He said the (paraphrasing) "there's good people too" thing as an afterthought (probably because he realised how racist the first bit sounded).

[pErvinalia]

Nice sidestep. Is there some reason for why you'd expect illegal immigrants more likely to be rapists?

Well they should be.

Just by excluding convicted rapists, the legals should be less likely to be rapists.
Excluding people convicted of other sexual crimes should also have that effect.

I would have thought that was obvious.

I would expect illegal immigrants that cross on foot or in the back of vans to be more likely criminals of every type, because that's how criminals get into the US. They can't get visas. Yet, a lot of them still want to come to the US. So, you're going to get an uptick in the rates of all types of criminals.

That's the crappest argument I've ever heard. They are more likely to be rapists because they break a US law totally unrelated to rape?? *cough* Bullshit! *cough*.

[Forty Two]

Nice sidestep. Is there some reason for why you'd expect illegal immigrants more likely to be rapists?

Well they should be.

Just by excluding convicted rapists, the legals should be less likely to be rapists.
Excluding people convicted of other sexual crimes should also have that effect.

I would have thought that was obvious.

I would expect illegal immigrants that cross on foot or in the back of vans to be more likely criminals of every type, because that's how criminals get into the US. They can't get visas. Yet, a lot of them still want to come to the US. So, you're going to get an uptick in the rates of all types of criminals.

That's the crappest argument I've ever heard. They are more likely to be rapists because they break a US law totally unrelated to rape?? *cough* Bullshit! *cough*.

No, they are more likely criminals of all types because anyone with a criminal record can't get a visa, so they have to cross illegally if they want to enter the US. That's why gang members, drug dealers, human traffickers and the like tend not have visas, and they tend to enter illegally, rather than merely overstay. People who don't have criminal records won't get a visa if they fill out the paperwork, so the pool of people applying for visas will have fewer criminals than the pool of people that cross in paperless.

[laklak]

I was offered $10,000 back in the mid 70s to marry a Filipino girl, but wasn't allowed to shag her so I didn't do it. Stupid.

[mistermack]

I was offered $10,000 back in the mid 70s to marry a Filipino girl, but wasn't allowed to shag her so I didn't do it. Stupid.

Yeh. You didn't think it through. You can shag a lot of Filipinos for $10,000.

Mind you, getting offered the money, and actually getting paid, are two different things.

[Forty Two]

I was offered $10,000 back in the mid 70s to marry a Filipino girl, but wasn't allowed to shag her so I didn't do it. Stupid.

Yeh. You didn't think it through. You can shag a lot of Filipinos for $10,000.

Mind you, getting offered the money, and actually getting paid, are two different things.

The money is paid up front, or people don't do it.

It's dangerous business, though, because the citizen begins to realize the power they have, and they can start making further demands.