Amateur Hour Continues

#15,980
#15,980
lawgator1 said:
They are full of themselves and think they know more than they do? Trump is justified for criticizing that?

Really?
Click to expand...

So you don't support freedom of speech? You don't have to agree with the criticism. That's the beauty of our country. You can voice your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#15,981
#15,981
Weezer said:
So you don't support freedom of speech? You don't have to agree with the criticism. That's the beauty of our country. You can voice your opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes. Trump is free to prove himself a crass and unsophisticated dolt and in fact does so every day. Sometimes hourly.
 
#15,985
#15,985
evillawyer said:
I thought everyone knew if the brown skin folks got uppity you could shout racist things at them. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

How quickly the left forgets Hillary Clinton's own racist comments in trying to sway the black vote. Oh noes! Moral equivalency! But...but... Trump's the one that made it okay to make racist comments.

The sad thing is you guys keep telling me it's not about politics when you won't even acknowledge your own side has engaged in similar rhetoric.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#15,986
#15,986
lawgator1 said:
Yes. Trump is free to prove himself a crass and unsophisticated dolt and in fact does so every day. Sometimes hourly.
Click to expand...
He does. He's a real jackass. Still not impeachable. Vote him out in 2020. Been saying that for awhile.

You should pay attention to some other politicians as well, on both sides of the aisle. Lots of worthless people in DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, McDad and W.TN.Orange Blood
#15,990
#15,990
Weezer said:
Once again, you can't dispute my argument so you resort to this. Weak.
Click to expand...

You advanced no argument. Instead you simply asserted moral equivalencies. Explained below.

So you think Trump is the first politician to make overtly racist comments? You haven't really been paying attention to politics, have you? Notice these are questions. Nothing follows from questions because they're not propositions. Accordingly, this is not an argument, where a conclusion is supposed to follow from or at least receive support from premises. The best I can see here is an attempt to minimize the fact that Trump--the current president of the US--didn't do anything that perverse because some unnamed politicians somewhere at some time in the past made a racist statement. Find a recent president (not some random politician) who, while in office, said something on all fours with this. So this is the initial set up for the moral equivalence move: "Come on guys, this is something we see everyday. Nothing to see here."

Trump's comments were wrong. I don't think he necessarily meant them to be racist, but they were poorly worded, uninformed, and idiotic. He won't do it, but he should issue an apology. That doesn't change the fact that the 4 congresswomen he was alluding to are full of themselves and think they know more than they do.

Not seeing an argument here. What's the conclusion? The best I can see, in short, is Trump was wrong, but these women have big league hubris. This is the moral equivalence move. After trying to minimize what Trump said so it doesn't seem so serious (first paragraph), you try to link what he did, causally, to what they've done, and roughly equate the two. It's like Chris Rock on OJ Simpson: "Not saying he should have killed her, but I understand."

Our country has problems and sadly most just want to point fingers and place blame rather than find real, viable solutions.

This point obviously has no bearing on whether what Trump said was racist or not. But it is another attempt to minimize the event and change the subject--a classic move after making the moral equivalence point. "A happens all the time, and it's really no worse than what the other guys did, and besides, don't we have bigger fish to fry. So let's not focus on what Trump said and just move on."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW and Velo Vol
#15,991
#15,991
evillawyer said:
You advanced no argument. Instead you simply asserted moral equivalencies. Explained below.

So you think Trump is the first politician to make overtly racist comments? You haven't really been paying attention to politics, have you? Notice these are questions. Nothing follows from questions because they're not propositions. Accordingly, this is not an argument, where a conclusion is supposed to follow from or at least receive support from premises. The best I can see here is an attempt to minimize the fact that Trump--the current president of the US--didn't do anything that perverse because some unnamed politicians somewhere at some time in the past made a racist statement. Find a recent president (not some random politician) who, while in office, said something on all fours with this. So this is the initial set up for the moral equivalence move: "Come on guys, this is something we see everyday. Nothing to see here."

Trump's comments were wrong. I don't think he necessarily meant them to be racist, but they were poorly worded, uninformed, and idiotic. He won't do it, but he should issue an apology. That doesn't change the fact that the 4 congresswomen he was alluding to are full of themselves and think they know more than they do.

Not seeing an argument here. What's the conclusion? The best I can see, in short, is Trump was wrong, but these women have big league hubris. This is the moral equivalence move. After trying to minimize what Trump said so it doesn't seem so serious (first paragraph), you try to link what he did, causally, to what they've done, and roughly equate the two. It's like Chris Rock on OJ Simpson: "Not saying he should have killed her, but I understand."

Our country has problems and sadly most just want to point fingers and place blame rather than find real, viable solutions.

This point obviously has no bearing on whether what Trump said was racist or not. But it is another attempt to minimize the event and change the subject--a classic move after making the moral equivalence point. "A happens all the time, and it's really no worse than what the other guys did, and besides, don't we have bigger fish to fry. So let's not focus on what Trump said and just move on."
Click to expand...
All of this to say racism only matters at it pertains to Trump? Honestly, it seems you don't have a problem with racism, just Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#15,995
#15,995
37L1 said:
Trumps tweets some real stupid stuff alright.

But what's the end result?

He gets everyone focusing on him, again.

He is the news cycle. Just how he likes it.
Click to expand...
He's the freaking potus. Quit playing stupid social media games like a teenager and realize the focus will always be on him
 
  • Like
Reactions: roosterjbh
#15,996
#15,996
To me what's makes today's Twitter attacks racist is the fact that 3 of the people he aimed these attacks at were born in America. They are no less of an Americam citizen as he is. They just happen to be brown so he attacks and tells them to go back to where they came from because his supporters eat it up.

Combine that with the fact Trumps own mother came to America from an extremely poor Scottish fishing village with basically nothing. She worked as a cleaning lady. And his Grandfather was from Germany. He has had 2 immigrant wives. I guess in Trumps eyes it's okay to immigrate to the US if you are white and or attractive. The racism and hypocrisy here is obvious and frankly disturbing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and JCP201
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top