So if Trump says something like "Racism is evil -- and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans," then he, too, is not turning a blind eye nor supporting them?(Link: www.cnn.com/.../index.html)
(sighs, loudly) You seem to be under the incorrect impression that an individual saying one thing or two things in the correct vein somehow overrides or overrules the other dozens of things said by an individual of the total opposite nature. It doesn't. Also I think you got your negatives confused at the end there.
So he has condoned white supremacists, the KKK, and neo-nazis at least once, let alone having supposedly done so twice as often as he has condemned them? That must mean he has done it at least twice, considering my quote of condemning them shows he has condemned them at least one, right? In that case, I'd imagine you can quote him doing so?And how are my "negatives confused?" If "turning a blind eye" is the "positive" then "not turing a blind eye" would be the negative, no? If "supporting" is the "positive," wouldn't "not supporting" be the negative? Or do I misunderstand what you're trying to say by my "negatives?"
Yes, you misunderstand; I think you meant "then he too is turning, and supporting them," as in, the reference to my original point. You said "not" and "nor," which I imagine was a mistake, because it would be a double negative. But anyway.And you really want a list of the racist-overtone things he's said? Really? You're somehow magically unaware of them?
No, I'm saying he is not supporting the white supremacists, KKK, and neo-nazis, as he literally called them "repugnant." But upon reading into it, you are correct about "nor" being incorrect due to the "not" the preceded it, my mistake.And you said that trump said things of opposite nature to condemning racism and racist groups. I'm of the understanding that the opposite of condemning is condoning, so I was asking you to show me him condining those groups, not him saying supposedly racist things.
Um... sure, condoning is the opposite of condemning. Here, the Atlantic has a long, in-depth piece recording several instances of significant consequence over time. www.theatlantic.com/.../There's also literally an entire Wikipedia page dedicated solely to this issue with dozens of quotes by him about a wide variety of topics, here, with sources at the bottom of the page of course. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
I haven't read the whole thing, but I actually had a recent conversation with someone about the first one they mention in your first link. Trump wasn't convinced of that, only charged. Additionally, and there may be evidence out there claiming otherwise, but the person I spoke to earlier could not show me evidence that this was Trump's doing. Employees of an organization that Trump owned was doing it. I used the example that if an employee in Facebook employs racist policies, that doesn't make Mark Zuckerberg a racist. He may be liable in some way, as the owner of Facebook, but you are not directly responsible for the actions of employees of a company or organization you own. So in this particular instance, can you show me evidence that supports the notion that Trump directly influenced his employees to employ racist procedures?As for your second link, they also mentioned this law suit, they also mentioned things like Charlottesville and how he supposedly claimed white supremacists were very fine people, despite not only NOT doing so, but also providing explicit clarification that he was not referring to the white supremacists, but rather the ordinary people who where not white supremacists who did not want the removal of historic statues.So right off the bat, these links don't appear to be very credible.
(squints and pinches the bridge of nose in obvious mental discomfort) ... Yes they are. It's literal irrefutable factual evidence including quotes from the man himself. You asked for proof, being too lazy to find it yourself, I gave it to you, and without actually reading it, you're saying that it's null.
It's a fact that he called neo-nazis very fine people, when he segments the statement with "also" from the previous portion of the sentence where he said there were bad people, from the latter portion of the sentence when he said there are also fine people? It's a fact when he clarifies during the same discussion mere moments later by saying that he's not talking about the white supremacists? Yet it's still a fact that he called them very fine people?
And I did read it, I read part of it, and they're literally incorrect.
... I don't think you know what the word "literally" means, friend. And no, they aren't.
Unless you think that a person can be recorded saying something, and they didn't actually say it, even when they said it.
Well anyone who understands the English language knows Trump didn't call white supremacists very fine people. He said there were bad people but among the people who protested the removal of the statue were people who were not white supremacists, neo-nazi's, or the KKK, and they were genuinely decent people who didn't want the removal of historic statues. Hence "you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." Why would Trump call white supremacists "very bad people" while simultaneously calling them "very fine people?" He wouldn't and he didn't. He clearly said there were bad people, the white supremacists, as well as (hence "also") very fine people on both sides. He literally did not call white supremacists very fine people. You, due to bias or literary incompetence, incorrectly interpreted his statement, despite its semantically correct expression.Additionally, facts and words aren't as simple as you seem to think they are. I can be recorded saying "the sky is beautiful shade of orange," and that would be a fact. But if you come out and say that I'm wrong because the sky is blue, but failed to understand the context and know that I said it during a sunset, then that doesn't make your stance valid. It is a fact that I said the sky is orange and it is a fact that the sky is blue. Both of these facts seek to conflict with one another. So you can't say blindly mention a fact that you're entirely unfamiliar with. But again, your fact is still incorrect because Trump literally did not call white supremacists very fine people.
No honey. You're wrong. I'm sorry that you can't read.Here, this may help you out given the current situation, as it can with anyone who is willing to read it... though that's been tough for you so far. www.newyorker.com/.../why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
Okay, then in the statement "you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." What do you think Trump meant when he said "you had very bad people in that group?"
I think you would be well-served by reading the New Yorker article I posted, even though it is long, which likely means you won't, since you obviously didn't read the Atlantic article either or even half of the Wiki article. I don't have anything else I can write to help you at this moment.
I'm actually already familiar with the article. This isn't the first time I've seen it. It's a very common article shared in political communities. That being said, please, answer my question: In the statement "you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides." What do you think Trump meant when he said "you had very bad people in that group?"
I didn't ask you whether you had seen it-- I know that you likely will not READ it. Seeing a work of journalism, and reading it, are not the same thing. I'm amazed that needs to be explained.Your question has already been answered. Continuing to ask it makes you look bad.
Why would I re-read something I've already read? You asked me to read it under the assumption that I haven't read it, and I'm telling you that assumption, the foundation of your proposal, is incorrect.And where has my question been answered?
Apparently Trump doesn't know that because he's done so several times and in several different ways.
Would you be interested in me quoting him doing so?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
If white supremacy is cool then are you going to a slave plantation?
Probably buddies with Robin DiAngelo or something
@Jack9949 Oh never. But if you ever want to be my slave. . . my door is always open.:D
"Haha slavery is funny as long as the victims are my enemies."
Okay, it's not funny but you're having fun with joking about slavery. My misunderstanding.
@crmoore I knew he’d say some fucked up shit like that. I just meant to expose him
And screenshot one of the times I said black people were inferior... it never happened
@RolandCuthbert I will admit I called you the n-word that one time but that was literally it.
@crmoore Are you seeing this?
@RolandCuthbert It wouldn’t matter if you were white. I’d still have no interest in satisfying your homosexual desires
@Jack9949 And why not? You have the same desires. I don't know why you keep pretending you don't. Racists are almost always homophobic. And everyone knows homophobic guys are secretly homosexual.www.psychologytoday.com/.../are-homophobic-people-really-gay-and-not-accepting-itA series of studies recently published in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found higher levels of homophobia in individuals with unacknowledged attractions to the same sex, particularly when they grew up with authoritarian parents who also held homophobic attitudes. In the University of Rochester's press release, Netta Weinstein, the study's lead author, said, "Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves." In the same release, study co-author Richard Ryan added, "In many cases, these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward."
This is extremely childish. I find it hard to believe this is coming from an adult, let alone someone who is well into adulthood.
@crmoore Ikr. This guy probably just sits on a couch all day trolling people on the internet cuz he wouldn’t last a minute around his own kind outside.
@RolandCuthbert I don’t care what the studies say. They don’t apply to every individual.
@Jack9949 It applies to you. I don't know why you would lie and claim the opposite.It's ok. You are among friends.