|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Some Americans are just getting to know Donald Trump. Readers of The Times have known him for 42 years.
They first met him, on the front page no less, on Oct. 16, 1973. Then 27 years old, Mr. Trump was the president of the Trump Management Corporation, at 600 Avenue Z in Brooklyn, which owned more than 14,000 apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.
“Major Landlord Accused of Antiblack Bias in City,” the headline stated. The Department of Justice had brought suit in federal court in Brooklyn against Mr. Trump and his father, Fred C. Trump, charging them with violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the operation of 39 buildings.
“The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color,’ ” The Times reported. “It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.”
Donald Trump’s first quoted words in The New York Times expressed his view of the charges:
“They are absolutely ridiculous.”
“We never have discriminated,” he added, “and we never would.”
Two months later, Trump Management, represented by Roy M. Cohn, turned around and sued the United States government for $100 million (roughly $500 million in today’s terms), asserting that the charges were “irresponsible and baseless.”
“Mr. Trump accused the Justice Department of singling out his corporation because it was a large one, and because the government was trying to force it to rent to welfare recipients,” The Times reported.
Under an agreement reached in June 1975, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a list of all apartment vacancies, every week, for two years. It was also to allow the league to present qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
Trump Management noted that the agreement did not constitute an admission of guilt.
Mr. Trump himself said he was satisfied that the agreement did not “compel the Trump organization to accept persons on welfare as tenants unless as qualified as any other tenant.”
By then, his interests had grown far beyond his father’s real-estate empire and reached into Manhattan. Judy Klemesrud portrayed him on Nov. 1, 1976: “He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates. He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth ‘more than $200 million.’ ” (That’s gone up a bit.)
Mr. Trump was already proving to be quite adept at courting reporters. “He was one of those who always returned a phone call,” said Charles Kaiser, the author of “The Cost of Courage.”
When Mr. Kaiser was a real estate reporter at The Times, in the early years of Edward I. Koch’s mayoralty, New York City was determined to build a convention center, to show the world that it was on the rebound from the mid-1970s fiscal crisis. Mr. Trump held an option on one of the possible sites, over a rail yard at the western end of 34th Street.
“Trump’s site was the only one that was all ready to go,” Mr. Kaiser recalled. “I was about to go on vacation to Europe to visit my parents when I called him up and said, where will it be? ‘It’s my site,’ he said. ‘You can bank on it.’
“He was my only source, and it was the only time I took a chance like this with a single source. I wrote it would be built there, it went on Page 1, and I climbed on a plane to Budapest.” (“Koch Said to Have Chosen 34th St. as Site of New Convention Center,” March 31, 1978.)
Back when trans-Atlantic telephone service was reserved for the most important and urgent communications, it must have been doubly jarring for young Mr. Kaiser to receive a call from his editor, Sheldon Binn, in Budapest the next day.
“Who was your source?” Mr. Binn demanded. “Koch is going crazy.”
“Donald Trump,” Mr. Kaiser answered.
“That’s what I figured,” Mr. Binn said.
As Mr. Kaiser told it: “Koch had a press conference, said I was a fine reporter, and my story was 100 percent without foundation. No one had told Ed yet they had chosen the site — or maybe they hadn’t! In any case, I was vindicated a month later.” (“Convention Site at West 34th St. Chosen by Koch,” April 29, 1978.)
The choice of the site for the convention center, Mr. Trump said, was “perhaps the most significant economic decision made in New York City since the building of the United Nations.” Still so young, he was perhaps too modest to say, “Since Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan Island.”
1973 | Meet Donald Trump
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Do Americans particularly care about how an American leader would fuck over people from foreign nations? I don't think they do, and connecting lower min wage in Haiti to taking away American jobs is a stretch that most people wouldn't make.
|
Totally aside. I remember recently calling Stiglitz an asshole (or at least someone whose recomendations we should not follow) and getting trashed on this forum by his leftists fans.
From 2007, his praising of Venezuela's economy:
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2719
Now at 2016 we can see the results of his preaching.
|
I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here?
|
On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 13:10 SK.Testie wrote:[quote] Ah yes. Bernies cause. "Fight the corrupt establishment!! Fight the big banks! Fight wall street! Fight lobbyists! Fight the Waltons! The politicians are all crooks!" "So we need bigger government, thus more bureaucrats, and here's Hillary the poster girl for the establishment who is friends with every shady interest in the world!! Saudi Arabia? np" Quite a cause. Meanwhile the guy on the other side self funded his campaign, maneuvered past a tonne of obstacles in the media or blew threw them, and has bent the establishment to his will. He's out doing the interviews daily, whereas Hillary hides from them. Trump is pretty socially liberal and most of his policies will be fairly liberal. And he's at least called out Saudi Arabia and a large number of other people that just always got a free pass. And then Bernies lies and identity politics will come into play as he campaigns for Hillary non-stop. "He's sexist!" Hires women in top positions all his life. This should be the literal negation of the argument. Tonnes of women who dated the man support and love the man while ripping the NYT on their BS hit job. "He's racist!" Same. Hiring all races and believing in meritocracy. "His rhetoric though!" Actually highlights a problem that a large % of the nation feels far more than the rest of the nation. + Show Spoiler +He's just going to pander with, "He's divisive!" meanwhile the left will always divide everyone into their own victimized group. It's appalling, yet appallingly effective. And then his fans will wave flags saying, "love wins!" while Hillary takes the throne. Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid. That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything. I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary.
|
On May 20 2016 04:17 LegalLord wrote: Do Americans particularly care about how an American leader would fuck over people from foreign nations? I don't think they do, and connecting lower min wage in Haiti to taking away American jobs is a stretch that most people wouldn't make. I think it's more about contradictions. Wanting to give immigrants to America opportunities, trying to fight poverty, favoring globalization, supporting raising the minimum wage in the USA, but directly screwing Haitians.
|
On May 20 2016 04:25 SolaR- wrote: I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here? The difference is that Clinton will admit that some of her views and actions were either wrong or did not work out as she hoped. Trump will continued to deny that he did anything wrong and the agreement did not admit guilt. I am more interested in how people respond to being asked about their mistakes in the past. The issue with Trump is that he often refuses to admit they exited.
|
On May 20 2016 04:25 SolaR- wrote: I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here? no, people are judging him on something that happened 40 years ago, then maybe some 39 years ago, some 30 years ago, 10 years ago etc and is still exactly the same way as of today.
Seems perfectly reasonable to judge someone that way if you happen to think it's bad.
|
Neither of those things you pointed to were what I was insinuating. Here you have a figure in a powerful position actively working to suppress the wages of a foreign people.
The question of "do American people care?" Some do. Some pretend to. Some really care. Some do not. Some are simply ignorant of it. And others still don't care at all.
Clinton directly suppressed the wages of a vast number of people less than a decade ago. I don't think Trump has anything that villainous in his past.
This rest I will write isn't as relevant to the point on Hillary since it has emotional appeal and personal anecdotes.
+ Show Spoiler +I think it's because Hillary supporters see her as cold and calculating, yet sensible and rational. "Do Americans particularly care about how an American leader would fuck over people from foreign nations?" A lot do. A lot more pretend to. And it's important to call them out on it. Otherwise all this talk of peace tolerance and love is worth nothing and we'd have to assume we don't care how many people jump to their deaths in China in the factories that need nets on them. I'd say 14 suicides in one year in a factory is a massive number of suicides (hello Apple). I for instance, don't think I'll buy an apple product because I saw Steve Jobs as a blow hard and I'd heard roughly about how the Chinese workers kill themselves so often in factories. I'm no saint and I'm sure I have products I was very unaware where they come from. I still eat meat but I'm pretty sure we should all be vegan with some adequate substitute (meat grown in labs when). But it is something people do care about and people who know about things like Blood Diamonds will actively be dissuaded from buying them. Some people will preach from the rooftops that we need to treat everyone fair and equally, but then they will grudgingly allow companies to clearly abuse the workers in their factories and still support those companies. "Yeah.. what they do is terrible. *purchases iphone*. It's like Bernie supporters saying, "Yeah! Fuck the Waltons!!!" -> shops at wal-mart. Do people care about foreign peoples? The Iraq war had some demonstrations worldwide. Connecting low min wage in Haiti to taking away American jobs? I don't think I insinuated that aspect of it. There was suppression of a foreign people when the corporations could have paid them more for their work that she worked in tandem with.
|
On May 20 2016 04:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:25 SolaR- wrote: I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here? no, people are judging him on something that happened 40 years ago, then maybe some 39 years ago, some 30 years ago, 10 years ago etc and is still exactly the same way as of today. Seems perfectly reasonable to judge someone that way if you happen to think it's bad. I wasn't asserting thst it is wrong to judge someone for past mistakes. I was merely pointing out that it was hypocritical to turn a blind eye to Hillary's mistakes while at the same time judging Trump for his.
|
On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 19 2016 13:34 oBlade wrote: [quote] Don't forget he's been a celebrity for decades but the racism/sexism narrative didn't start until this presidential bid. That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything. I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary.
I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that.
|
On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: [quote]
That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything. I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that.
Sure, but its not like they created the narrative. The narrative always existed, just now its being discussed.
His assertion is that the narrative never existed. Not that people just started talking about it. Obviously it only came to the fore when the conversation started. Thats how anything becomes evident.
On May 20 2016 04:59 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:41 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 04:25 SolaR- wrote: I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here? no, people are judging him on something that happened 40 years ago, then maybe some 39 years ago, some 30 years ago, 10 years ago etc and is still exactly the same way as of today. Seems perfectly reasonable to judge someone that way if you happen to think it's bad. I wasn't asserting thst it is wrong to judge someone for past mistakes. I was merely pointing out that it was hypocritical to turn a blind eye to Hillary's mistakes while at the same time judging Drumpf for his.
And thats fine, but it doesnt address Drumpf. Hillary's faults and her problems are one issue and Drumpfs are another one.
Its not a competition to prove who is worse for immigrants. Not in that particular exchange anyway. Thats not defending a position its deflecting as someone pointed out.
And generally speaking even if you were to compare them, someone who is in a policy making position will naturally have more off an effect better or worse than someone who is not. So its not really a fair comparison.
What you can compare fairly is the rhetoric and the positions that both have as of right now.
|
On May 20 2016 05:10 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote: [quote] I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Sure, but its not like they created the narrative. The narrative always existed, just now its being discussed. His assertion is that the narrative never existed. Not that people just started talking about it. Obviously it only came to the fore when the conversation started. Thats how anything becomes evident.
I'm saying there never was a narrative before the election. There were only isolated incidences. A narrative seems a bit far fetched.
|
On May 20 2016 05:15 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:10 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote: [quote] What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Drumpf is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Drumpf being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Sure, but its not like they created the narrative. The narrative always existed, just now its being discussed. His assertion is that the narrative never existed. Not that people just started talking about it. Obviously it only came to the fore when the conversation started. Thats how anything becomes evident. I'm saying there never was a narrative before the election. There were only isolated incidences. A narrative seems a bit far fetched.
So Drumpf just turned into what you see right now after he started running for President ? He's always been the same Drumpf, always. That you can say with absolute confidence. And that specific to him and his personality. Some people acknowledge mistakes and failure and grow. Some are like Trump.
|
On May 20 2016 04:25 SolaR- wrote: I recall someone on here saying that we can't judge Hillary on prior beliefs from 20 years ago because those beliefs were popular back then even though theyvare considered wrong now.
In contrast people are judging trump on something that happened 40 years ago shortly after the civil rights movement. I am not condoning his actions if it is true,does no one see the hypocrisy here?
It's total nonsense. IMO, nothing more than 10 years old is relevant modern day. Perhaps this is just because of my age, though. I am so aware of all the ways I have grown over the past 10 years. But if someone is 50, are they really a totally different person when they are 60 (potentially)?
|
On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 01:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: [quote]
That's so far from the truth that I'm not sure what makes you believe that. There was an entire book written about him in 1993 that touched on sexism/misogyny repeatedly; regardless of whether it's true, the narrative has been there for ages. The racism narrative was birthed (heh) during the birther movement, maybe, but his women issues are an old, old media plaything. I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that.
At least for the racism piece, it didn't start until he ran for presidency because he announced his candidacy by calling illegal immigrants rapists. He has also repeatedly denigrated the looks of his female competition (Fiorina) and the wives of his competition (Cruz). It really doesn't get much more sexist than implying ability is somehow tied to appearance.
|
On May 20 2016 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote: [quote] I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. At least for the racism piece, it didn't start until he ran for presidency because he announced his candidacy by calling illegal immigrants rapists. He has also repeatedly denigrated the looks of his female competition (Fiorina) and the wives of his competition (Cruz). It really doesn't get much more sexist than implying ability is somehow tied to appearance.
First he didn't say all illegal immigrants were rapists. He said some were good people. Done end of story, you can't say all.
Second, that is just trumps style. He is attacking fiorina's looks because she is in fact ugly and looks menacing. I don't think it has anything to do with being a women. He attacked males for their physical characteristics as well. The media likes to say any attack on a woman is sexist. They did the same shit to bernie.
With cruz's wife, that was just in retaliation because cruz lainched an attack ad on trumps wife. He just stated that his wife was much better looking which is a fact. Not to mention trump's wife career was based on her looks.
|
I mean it's not really relevant whether the "narrative" of calling Trump a racist started before the elections or not, because it's a narrative that is fact based. It's even worse if it starts at the campaign, because it means the way Trump has chosen to appeal to your base is to appear more racist than he has appeared earlier in his life.
|
On May 20 2016 05:17 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 03:27 Toadesstern wrote:On May 20 2016 03:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On May 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 01:52 oBlade wrote: [quote] I think you're confusing sexism with sex. That was just a book about the personal life of a famous rich guy. What would be sufficient evidence of sexism for you to accept Trump is sexist? Please provide several options, as we may not have an example that exactly hits all the points you are looking for. Certainly not off-hand remarks and jokes to bait the media and the left in general to complaint and look stupid. True sexism implies stuff like having a great person for a job position and not hiring them simply because they are a woman. it isn't even about wether or not he's a sexist. The guy said Trump being CALLED (wether true or not) sexist etc is all new and only started because of the election. Then someone pointed out that that's wrong. Wether the statements about his personality are correct or not wasn't even discussed. The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Trump is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. At least for the racism piece, it didn't start until he ran for presidency because he announced his candidacy by calling illegal immigrants rapists. He has also repeatedly denigrated the looks of his female competition (Fiorina) and the wives of his competition (Cruz). It really doesn't get much more sexist than implying ability is somehow tied to appearance.
I swear the whole world has collectively lost their understanding of what the word 'racism' means. Mexico, and the Mexican people, are not a race. They are a country, a nation. If Trump said that all dark-skinned people are criminals, then he would be racist.
The most you can say about Trump is that he is a conspiracy theorist who thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax, or that the Mexican government is purposely sending its criminal elements over the border (this was his original charge; i.e. that instead of keeping them in jail or taking the effort to rehabilitate them, they just send them to America). Completely separate, mind you, of saying that White people are superior to dark skinned people, who happen to live in Mexico in larger numbers. And not remotely implied through any logical stretch.
I think its funny that people are so concerned with these issues. As if whether what Trump did 20-30 years ago (or more recently) is too offensive, that he might hurt people's feelings. We should be focusing on his policies, or lack thereof, and how they impact the lives of millions of people. Unless you're saying you can predict what Trump's policies are based on how he treated black tenants 40 years ago, which I am deeply skeptical of. Or because he has made a few choice sexist remarks, I guess that means that his presidency will be devoted to subjugating women?? Its hard to take any of that seriously. I think personally he has his issues, but as a president, in terms of his policies, that's a totally different matter, especially considering he needs the help of the house and the senate to pass any kind of bill.
|
Norway28665 Posts
Solar, ZasZ.'s post does not contain the word 'all'. So he didn't say all.
Secondly, I really am baffled with the 'he's not sexist, he's equally much of an asshole towards everyone' as a way of defending a candidate.
|
|
|
|