ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 06:42 PM   #641
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Who is wielding that tool? To what ends?

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:48 PM   #642
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Although I'm very happy he was elected, Trump is not my hero. To me, he is just a tool. A big, useful tool.
Oh i know.
He's a shovel used to move your stinking ****. That's obvious.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:48 PM   #643
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,313
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Quote:
Did Judge Corial attack Trump? No.
In Trump's view he did. He ruled against him in the Trump U. lawsuit, and Trump saw that as unfair.
And I'm sure in the minds of white supremecists, the actions of minorities to be treated as equal is seen as an "attack" too.

The question is not 'how does a racist Orangutan see things', but 'How does a non-bigoted observer view things'. A non-racist observer will certainly see the attack as unprovoked.

You are supporting a racist and a bigot. A White supremacist. Just admit it and move on.
Quote:
Quote:
Was Trump's pathetic obsession with birtherism prompted by attacks from Obama? No.
At the beginning no
At this point, you should just stop.

The previous poster pointed out that Trump's birther attacks on Obama were unprovoked. You've admitted it. Its evidence that Trump is a racist. Whatever happened after the initial attack is irrelevant.

You are supporting a racist and a bigot. A White supremacist. Just admit it and move on.
Quote:
Quote:
Did the Central Park Five attack Trump? No.
They were thought to have committed a horrific crime (and, frankly, I think they actually did take part in it), so Trump was responding to the anger that almost all Manhattanites felt at the time.
Trump maintained that the 5 were guilty all the way up to the 2016 presidential campaign, long after the case had been tried, and the defendants jailed, and subsequently released (and charges dropped). So you can't say Trump's actions were due to what people felt "at the time".

Quote:
If it is true that Trump discriminated against black people in renting, it likely was do his belief in stereotypes or his worry about other potential renters believing in stereotypes. It would be an example of racism for sure, but not an example of white supremacy.
So let me get this straight... Trump violated laws against renting to minorities. You admit it was an example of racism, but you're clearing him because "its not a particular type of racism"?

All bigotry is rooted in stereotypes which are often false, whether it is a KKK member railing on the "evil" minorities or a bigoted landlord not wanting to rent to those same minorities.

Quote:
No, it doesn't preclude him from being racist, and he probably is a little bit racist.
By "a little racist" I assume you mean "a lot racist". And by "a lot racist" I assume you mean "This guy is definitely a full blown racist".

Quote:
But I am pretty sure he is not a white supremacist, which is a different category in my view.
Well, there is this article to support your assertion:

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...e-not-superior
“It’s grossly unfair that Ms. Hill sought to portray Donald Trump as an upholder of white supremacy, when everything he says or does directly undermines that whole concept,” Sanders said. “Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is on some mission to make white people look good hasn’t been paying attention.”...Ending on a personal note, Sanders said that she was “a hundred-per-cent sure” that her boss is not a white supremacist. “Donald Trump cannot even spell the word ‘supremacist,’ ” she said.

The only way you can say Trump is not a white supremacist is to admit he is such an incompetent buffoon that he actually makes white people look bad.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:28 PM   #644
Axiom_Blade
Master Poster
 
Axiom_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Trump supporters knew what that thing was and voted for it anyway. That was a despicable act of betrayal. I settled for Clinton because I though she would be a survivable event. You just threw away your country's place in the world on whim.
Democrats had a golden opportunity to embrace left-wing populism and win with Bernie. Instead, they decided to take a big step back to the 90s with Hillary. And then they wonder why they lost?

I used to think that Democrats were cynical with all their talk of "strategic voting" and "pragmatism". Cynical, but consistent. This election showed me how wrong I was. The Democrats are just as blindly partisan as anybody else. They brushed aside their opportunity with Bernie in favor of somebody who was a "real Democrat". Bernie, according to them, was a false Democrat, simply using their party apparatus. They decided to go with Hillary, even though she was under investigation by the FBI at the time, and wildly unpopular with anybody who wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue Democrat. She deserved to be president, because she had so much experience and had been so loyal to the party.

This was neither "strategic" nor "pragmatic". This was blind partisanship.
Axiom_Blade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:31 PM   #645
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,313
Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade View Post
Democrats had a golden opportunity to embrace left-wing populism and win with Bernie.
No, Bernie would not have won. Too much of his own political baggage. He may have seemed like a good choice among "bernie Bros", but its doubtful that he would have gotten much support among moderates (especially once the specter of tax increases appears. Yes, Free college tuition is popular among the younger set, less so among older people.).

Quote:
She deserved to be president, because she had so much experience and had been so loyal to the party.
It wasn't just that she "deserved" to be president... she was also the most qualified, with her experience as senator, secretary of state, and as first lady. Its more experience than any of the candidates in any of the parties had.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:10 AM   #646
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,604
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
They were thought to have committed a horrific crime (and, frankly, I think they actually did take part in it), so Trump was responding to the anger that almost all Manhattanites felt at the time.
Okay, this is the only part I'm going to answer.

The Central Park 5 were cleared. When they DNA tested semen samples from the victim's clothes, not only did they find *nothing* matching any of the five, but what they found instead was the DNA of a known, convicted rapist, who was free at the time the victim was attacked. And this match found in 2002, when the rapist confessed, said he acted alone, and their convictions were vacated.

So no, they're innocent.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.