Challenge:Liberals on this Board...Especially Students...Show HARD Evidence that Trump is Racist

[Correll]

He treated Khan, a political operative of the left, the same way he treated other political enemies.


Regardless of skin color, race, age, sex, height. ect ect ect.


That you see that as evidence of racism is YOU being the one in denial.

More equine excrement...Don't try to tell me that I'm in denial. I have to wonder about anyone who defends this piece of shit.....what is in your heart

Opinion | Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List

Minorities As Uppity and Ungrateful
Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure. He had a history of making racist comments as a New York real-estate developer in the 1970s and ‘80s. More recently, his political rise was built on promulgating the lie that the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya. He then launched his campaign with a speech describing Mexicans as rapists.

T

he media often falls back on euphemisms when describing Trump’s comments about race: racially loaded, racially charged, racially tinged, racially sensitive. And Trump himself has claimed that he is “the least racist person.” But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so....

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal POsts.



Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.


Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

43 pages now and it's apparent that no amount of evidence of his racism will jolt you out of your delusional stupor, if that is, in fact, what we're dealing with here. More likely, you know what he is, but don't have the integrity to admit it. That makes you an apapologist for a racist and therefore no better.

The fact that he has, on occasion, had harsh words for non minorities-mainly political opponents- does not, in any way, negate the pattern of rhetoric, and behavior leveled at minorities over many years. The end.

YOu challenged me to show that President Trump had had "petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


Because you, for some odd reason, had convinced yourself that that was something he did with minorities and that was thus evidence of him treating minorities differently and worse.


That was a very reasonable level of proof you requested.


But then, I did it.

And you started moving the goal posts and disagreeing with your own standard of proof.



Even more than the refutation of your link's number one point,


your irrational response to that point being refuted, shows that the Left's commitment to the idea of Trump being "Racist"


is completely irrational and not based on anything that Trump actually does.


This is really time for you to consider that you are being a bit crazy here.


And reexamine your assumptions.

I accept your admission that you cannot defend your position anymore.


Page 44 and not one lib can meet the OP challenge.


Have any of you libs managed to learn anything from your constant and repeated failures?

 

[Correll]

He treated Khan, a political operative of the left, the same way he treated other political enemies.


Regardless of skin color, race, age, sex, height. ect ect ect.


That you see that as evidence of racism is YOU being the one in denial.

More equine excrement...Don't try to tell me that I'm in denial. I have to wonder about anyone who defends this piece of shit.....what is in your heart

Opinion | Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List

Minorities As Uppity and Ungrateful
Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure. He had a history of making racist comments as a New York real-estate developer in the 1970s and ‘80s. More recently, his political rise was built on promulgating the lie that the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya. He then launched his campaign with a speech describing Mexicans as rapists.

T

he media often falls back on euphemisms when describing Trump’s comments about race: racially loaded, racially charged, racially tinged, racially sensitive. And Trump himself has claimed that he is “the least racist person.” But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so....

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal POsts.



Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.


Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

43 pages now and it's apparent that no amount of evidence of his racism will jolt you out of your delusional stupor, if that is, in fact, what we're dealing with here. More likely, you know what he is, but don't have the integrity to admit it. That makes you an apapologist for a racist and therefore no better.

The fact that he has, on occasion, had harsh words for non minorities-mainly political opponents- does not, in any way, negate the pattern of rhetoric, and behavior leveled at minorities over many years. The end.

YOu challenged me to show that President Trump had had "petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


Because you, for some odd reason, had convinced yourself that that was something he did with minorities and that was thus evidence of him treating minorities differently and worse.


That was a very reasonable level of proof you requested.


But then, I did it.

And you started moving the goal posts and disagreeing with your own standard of proof.



Even more than the refutation of your link's number one point,


your irrational response to that point being refuted, shows that the Left's commitment to the idea of Trump being "Racist"


is completely irrational and not based on anything that Trump actually does.


This is really time for you to consider that you are being a bit crazy here.


And reexamine your assumptions.

Trump administration strips consumer watchdog office of enforcement powers in lending discrimination cases

The Trump administration has stripped enforcement powers from a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unit responsible for pursuing discrimination cases, part of a broader effort to reshape an agency it criticized as acting too aggressively.

The move to sharply restrict the responsibilities of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity comes about two months after President Trump installed his budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, at the head of the bureau. The office previously used its powers to force payouts in several prominent cases, including settlements from lenders it alleged had systematically charged minorities higher interest rates than they had for whites.

From your post.



part of a broader effort to reshape an agency it criticized as acting too aggressively.



Republicans have a long standing position on siding with lenders more than borrowers, regardless of skin color.

Part of the old, Party of Big Business paradigm...


You are looking at one portion of a larger move and taking it out of context and making assumptions about motive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

More equine excrement...Don't try to tell me that I'm in denial. I have to wonder about anyone who defends this piece of shit.....what is in your heart

Opinion | Donald Trump’s Racism: The Definitive List

TA standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal POsts.



Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.


Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

43 pages now and it's apparent that no amount of evidence of his racism will jolt you out of your delusional stupor, if that is, in fact, what we're dealing with here. More likely, you know what he is, but don't have the integrity to admit it. That makes you an apapologist for a racist and therefore no better.

The fact that he has, on occasion, had harsh words for non minorities-mainly political opponents- does not, in any way, negate the pattern of rhetoric, and behavior leveled at minorities over many years. The end.

YOu challenged me to show that President Trump had had "petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


Because you, for some odd reason, had convinced yourself that that was something he did with minorities and that was thus evidence of him treating minorities differently and worse.


That was a very reasonable level of proof you requested.


But then, I did it.

And you started moving the goal posts and disagreeing with your own standard of proof.



Even more than the refutation of your link's number one point,


your irrational response to that point being refuted, shows that the Left's commitment to the idea of Trump being "Racist"


is completely irrational and not based on anything that Trump actually does.


This is really time for you to consider that you are being a bit crazy here.


And reexamine your assumptions.

I accept your admission that you cannot defend your position anymore.


Page 44 and not one lib can meet the OP challenge.


Have any of you libs managed to learn anything from your constant and repeated failures?

I accept you admission that all that you can do is blow smoke out of your ass about moving the goal posts while remaining either pathetically blind to his racism, or disgustingly dishonest about what you know he is.

 

[Correll]

A standard lib response when their point is utterly refuted,


instead of admitting that their point was bullshit, they just throw up more bullshit.



You claimed he treated Khan bad based on race.


You demanded to "Let me ask you, how many times has Trump engaged in these petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


When I gave you a huge example, ie the Republican Primaries,



you admitted that he was "relentless and merciless" with them, but then started talking about how we have to look at the Khan incident "in context".


That was the Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts.


Now, you are trying to change the subject, without admitting that your first point was refuted.


I will be happy to move on to discuss your other points, once we resolve this one.


Because otherwise you are engaging in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument,


which is a form of lying.


And you finish by claiming that he treats people differently based on race, but the first example off you list, has already been disproved.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


Page 42 and counting and no lib can meet the challenge of the op.

43 pages now and it's apparent that no amount of evidence of his racism will jolt you out of your delusional stupor, if that is, in fact, what we're dealing with here. More likely, you know what he is, but don't have the integrity to admit it. That makes you an apapologist for a racist and therefore no better.

The fact that he has, on occasion, had harsh words for non minorities-mainly political opponents- does not, in any way, negate the pattern of rhetoric, and behavior leveled at minorities over many years. The end.

YOu challenged me to show that President Trump had had "petty feuds with people who are not a racial, ethnic or religious minority? "


Because you, for some odd reason, had convinced yourself that that was something he did with minorities and that was thus evidence of him treating minorities differently and worse.


That was a very reasonable level of proof you requested.


But then, I did it.

And you started moving the goal posts and disagreeing with your own standard of proof.



Even more than the refutation of your link's number one point,


your irrational response to that point being refuted, shows that the Left's commitment to the idea of Trump being "Racist"


is completely irrational and not based on anything that Trump actually does.


This is really time for you to consider that you are being a bit crazy here.


And reexamine your assumptions.

I accept your admission that you cannot defend your position anymore.


Page 44 and not one lib can meet the OP challenge.


Have any of you libs managed to learn anything from your constant and repeated failures?

I accept you admission that all that you can do is blow smoke out of your ass about moving the goal posts while remaining either pathetically blind to his racism, or disgustingly dishonest about what you know he is.

You are the one that moved the goal post, when I met your first demand and showed that President Trump has a history of treating people like he treated Khan, regardless of skin color.


I did that, and instead of admitting I did it, you started wiggling and talking shit about considering Khan "in context".


YOU MOVED YOUR GOAL POST.


I asked you to pick the example, and then I happily let you set the bar of proof for my counter example.


And your response is to post a bullshit race baiting meme as part of a Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used as political propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Obamas took the country backwards and divided the population among racial lines. There is more animosity between the races than ever, Yes, there are racist white people. However, their views are not mainstream, nor are they accepted in society. On the other hand, black racism is tolerated.

"Obama's Portraitist Paint an Image of a Black Woman Holding the Severed Head of a White Person?"

Astounding, and dispositive.....

 

[longknife]

445 posts and not one piece of evidence that President Trump is racist...or homophobic...xenophobic...or any other kind of phobia.

The Left continues to try but always fall flat on their faces.

 

[Pogo]

445 posts and not one piece of evidence that President Trump is racist...or homophobic...xenophobic...or any other kind of phobia.

The Left continues to try but always fall flat on their faces.

"The Left" didn't even make that claim. "The OP" did. It's right up there in the title.

Meanwhile you have failed to prove you don't eat babies.
See what I did there?