Racist Right Rallies Around Trump

[NYcarbineer]

Oh boy, another "Trump is a racist" thread. Just what we need.

When we catch up to the number of Benghazi threads, then you get to complain.

 

[Onyx]

The funny thing is - I know the disposition of the discrimination suit he mentioned. Apparently he doesn't, or he'd not have brought it up.

Gotcha.

You asked for self verification. If you already knew what I was saying was true, then the only reason you would of asked for verification was to deflect away from an intellectual response.

Either that, or you just googled it. Like I said you could easily do, considering you are a grown ass man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Typically on the USMB, members back up their arguments with links or facts.

Which is a perfectly reasonable thing for a chump to do.

If USMB dictates that users do homework for other users , then I am going to go against the grain.

When someone makes a claim, I google it. Demanding proof on the internet is a dishonest deflection tactic, when google can be opened in the next tab.

Nope, you're just lazy and can't back up you're arguments...talk about deflection...

That is some mega irony there, coming from you of all people.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Racist Right Rallies Around Trump



Donald Trump is a racist disgusting piece of shit!

I can't wait until tomorrow...cause I get better looking every day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh boy, another "Trump is a racist" thread. Just what we need.

The Hillary nippleheads seem especialy desparate lately, have you noticed?

I have, indeed. The internal polling is showing Trump ahead.

Internal polling? What is that?

 

[FJO]

So, - likening your argument to any case in court - you are saying that a defendant must prove that he/she is innocent, rather than the accuser to prove that he/she is guilty?

You must be French or insane.

False equivalency.

This would be an intellectually honest response...

"I searched what you are talking about, but I could not find any information."

No, the intellectually honest answer would be:

Here is my contention: State your contention,
Here is my proof. Show link/proof of your contention.

You are new here and understandably you want to create a good first impression. You also want to change the prevailing unwritten rules.

YOU FAIL.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The funny thing is - I know the disposition of the discrimination suit he mentioned. Apparently he doesn't, or he'd not have brought it up.

Gotcha.

You asked for self verification. If you already knew what I was saying was true

I knew what you were intimating was not true. And so do you, if you actually have knowledge of the case.

 

[320 Years of History]

Racist Right Rallies Around Trump



Donald Trump is a racist disgusting piece of shit!

You know, IMO, the most telling thing in the video was Sean Hannity's remark that Trump talks about the impact of "this" and how "that" has affected people. What's telling about that? Well, what Mr. Hannity did not say...He didn't say, "Trump reiterated his solution for 'this' and his solution for 'that.'" That of course is not what he or anyone else can say because Trump has no solution approaches; the man is 100% vison, 0% implementation plan for that vision.

As for the racism claim, when Trump first announced his candidacy, of his remarks about Mexicans, I thought, "Wow! That's one hell of a vulgar and racist way to describe the nature of the immigration issue between the U.S. and Mexico." I thought, however, that it was just a gaffe and that he couldn't truly be that myopic, despicable and hateful. I thought, maybe he just "had a moment." Over the following year and a half, however, there's been no mitigation, no filtering of Trump's invective, insouciance, and pandering to the "white agenda" so to speak.

What might constitute mitigating actions -- because after words as divisive as Trumps, only actions can give lie to them; more words won't do it -- that solidly make the case that his words are little but poor phrasing? Well, any number of deeds that can only be seen as sincere, as uncontrived.

For example, that interview he's having with the Detroit pastor/bishop. Were the questions not provided to him in advance, were the interview being aired live, were the Trump campaign not party to the editing of the video that will be aired, were all those things so, his interview and appearance could be said to be a legitimate effort to reach out to the black community. But none of them is true, so the whole thing can only be seen as propaganda. Sadly, the minister has gotten himself into a situation where he's allowed himself and his congregation to be used literally as a pawn in helping Trump rather than serving as an impartial interviewer.

 

[Onyx]

I knew what you were intimating was not true. And so do you, if you actually have knowledge of the case.

Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself.

And he settled, which is in itself an admission of guilt. At least for a man who is applauded for never backing down.

Weren't you supposed to be ignoring me though? Go back to ignoring me, please.

 

[FJO]

I knew what you were intimating was not true. And so do you, if you actually have knowledge of the case.

Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself.

And he settled, which is in itself an admission of guilt. At least for a man who is applauded for never backing down.

Weren't you supposed to be ignoring me though? Go back to ignoring me, please.

No, settling a frivolous suit almost always means: OK I'll pay, it's worth the price not having to do with idiots.

I promise no matter how ridiculous you get, I will not ignore you. You are always good for a chuckle.

 

[Onyx]

Here is my contention: State your contention,
Here is my proof. Show link/proof of your contention.

You got off track.

I was referring to the intellectually honest response in regards to verifying claims.

Like Billy just proved in his other post, the nature of asking for proof was indeed deflection. He asked it, because it is easier to deny the legitimacy of evidence than to make a counter argument.

You are new here and understandably you want to create a good first impression. You also want to change the prevailing unwritten rules.

Why?

I am not trying to impress you.

YOU FAIL.

Are you twelve?

 

[Onyx]

No, settling a frivolous suit almost always means: OK I'll pay, it's worth the price not having to do with idiots.

Like I said, at least with a guy who is applauded for never giving in.

Trump gave in. Either he can no longer be applauded for never giving in, or he is guilty by admission.

Which is it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I knew what you were intimating was not true. And so do you, if you actually have knowledge of the case.

Now you are blatantly contradicting yourself.

And he settled, which is in itself an admission of guilt. At least for a man who is applauded for never backing down.

Weren't you supposed to be ignoring me though? Go back to ignoring me, please.

No. You are a semi-interesting insect I wish to study.

In spite of Trump’s effort in 1974 to have the suit dismissed, his legal team reached an agreement with the government in June 1975. The suit was described in the agreement as a situation where the Trumps “have failed and neglected to exercise their affirmative and nondelegable duty under the Fair Housing Act… with the result that equal housing opportunity has been denied to substantial numbers of persons.”

The Trumps “vigorously deny said allegations,” the court document states.

The agreement, which laid out the specific terms that the Trumps would have to abide by moving forward, noted that it was “in no way an admission by it of a violation of the prohibition against discrimination.”

The complaint against Fred Trump and Donald Trump was “dismissed against them in their personal capacity, with prejudice.”

But the agreement includes some specific terms that had to be met by the Trumps, including the addition of the words “Equal Housing Opportunity” and the fair housing logo on all of their advertising. Beyond that, the agreement included a page-long description of how they were ordered to insert a monthly ad “at least 3 inches in length” in “a newspaper of general circulation” showing available apartments.

According to an article in The New York Times in June 1975, the day after the agreement was reached, Donald Trump said that the agreement was to their “full satisfaction” because it didn’t have “any requirement that would compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”

Operative - "it didn’t have 'any requirement that would compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”

In other words it had nothing to do with racial issues, but income. That the welfare recipients happened to be black was incidental.

Here, I've provided you with a source I'm sure you'll accept.

A Look Back at the Discrimination Suit Trailing Trump

 

[FJO]

No, settling a frivolous suit almost always means: OK I'll pay, it's worth the price not having to do with idiots.

Like I said, at least with a guy who is applauded for never giving in.

Trump gave in. Either he can no longer be applauded for never giving in, or he is guilty by admission.

Which is it?

Also it was not frivolous. He was being sued for 100 million dollars based on 39 different locational cases.

You forgot the third and valid option: It is not worth to bother with idiots.

You are approaching that point.

 

[S.J.]

Oh boy, another "Trump is a racist" thread. Just what we need.

The Hillary nippleheads seem especialy desparate lately, have you noticed?

I have, indeed. The internal polling is showing Trump ahead.

Internal polling? What is that?

Seriously?
internal poll English definition/translation

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh boy, another "Trump is a racist" thread. Just what we need.

The Hillary nippleheads seem especialy desparate lately, have you noticed?

I have, indeed. The internal polling is showing Trump ahead.

Internal polling? What is that?

Seriously?
internal poll English definition/translation

No, I know what internal polling is. I'm asking you whose internal polling you're referring to.

 

[Onyx]

Operative - "it didn’t have 'any requirement that would compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”

In other words it had nothing to do with racial issues, but income. That the welfare recipients happened to be black was incidental.

Here, I've provided you with a source I'm sure you'll accept.

False.

The case was multi-layered, but saying that it had nothing to do with racial issues is factually incorrect.

 

[S.J.]

Oh boy, another "Trump is a racist" thread. Just what we need.

The Hillary nippleheads seem especialy desparate lately, have you noticed?

I have, indeed. The internal polling is showing Trump ahead.

Internal polling? What is that?

Seriously?
internal poll English definition/translation

No, I know what internal polling is. I'm asking you whose internal polling you're referring to.

Your question was quite clear. You were asking me what internal polling is. If you had wanted to know "whose" internal polling I was referring to, you would have said "Whose internal polling are you referring to"?, like you just did. Your attempt at gracefully covering your blunder failed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Operative - "it didn’t have 'any requirement that would compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”

In other words it had nothing to do with racial issues, but income. That the welfare recipients happened to be black was incidental.

Here, I've provided you with a source I'm sure you'll accept.

False.

The case was multi-layered, but saying that it had nothing to do with racial issues is factually incorrect.

Gawd, the level of ignorance you self-betray. What a masochist.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with race. Of course the plaintiffs played the race card, because it was all they had. They wanted Trump to be forced to rent to people of unsound financing abilities. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the fact that they were black was incidental and irrelevant.

The disposition of the case rejected that nonsense, and Trump was essentially left to rent to who he wanted. He won.

 

[Onyx]

Gawd, the level of ignorance you self-betray. What a masochist.

Sexually I am also a sadist.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with race. Of course the plaintiffs played the race card, because it was all they had. They wanted Trump to be forced to rent to people of unsound financing abilities. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the fact that they were black was incidental and irrelevant.

Contradiction.

You said the suit had nothing to do with racial issues.

Racial issues was involved within the suit. Race was brought into just about every contention made by the federal government.

The disposition of the case rejected that nonsense, and Trump was essentially left to rent to who he wanted. He won.

A settlement is not a legal victory. It was only net loss for Trump.

And no, if he continued to violate the act he could easily be sued again. I am sure the feds were eager too.