Trump Hat Causes University Spat

[Victorian Gray]

Lol while you have at the same time Canadian "feminist" PM at the same time praising the diversity of Canada that it has gender segregated mosques. Authoritarian lefties--it's bad when the right does it, but it's okay when the left does it.

Separation in the Synagogue

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/160962/jewish/Separation-in-the-Synagogue.htm

 

[fskimospy]

If 40-50 years ago is all you've got...
Democrat Party... paging Robert Byrd.

Seems you pick and choose who gets to turn a new leaf and move on from a society of 40-50 years ago. In Trump's case it was largely his father's business in the 60s. While he actively played a role in the 70s where it continued, one has to wonder the other interests at play, and the others players involved.

Does Trump disavow racism? Absolutely.
So what did the Democrat's grand wizard do differently?

Uhmm, this makes absolutely no sense. Parties are made up of people and those people change over time. The Democratic Party could have been 100% racists 50 years ago and that means nothing as to what it is comprised of now.

Donald Trump is one person. He is exactly the same person today as he always was. If the Democrats had nominated Robert Byrd to be president you would have a point, but they haven't. (Him being dead and all doesn't help) Hell, even Byrd might be less racist than Trump because at least he apologized and admitted what he did was wrong. Trump has never apologized or admitted any fault for his long, long history of extreme racism.

Anyway it's ironic that now conservatives are so angry at her attempt to stifle free speech that they are threatening to kill her for her speech. You can't make this shit up, haha.

 

[disappoint]

Uhmm, this makes absolutely no sense. Parties are made up of people and those people change over time. The Democratic Party could have been 100% racists 50 years ago and that means nothing as to what it is comprised of now.

Donald Trump is one person. He is exactly the same person today as he always was. If the Democrats had nominated Robert Byrd to be president you would have a point, but they haven't. (Him being dead and all doesn't help) Hell, even Byrd might be less racist than Trump because at least he apologized and admitted what he did was wrong. Trump has never apologized or admitted any fault for his long, long history of extreme racism.

Anyway it's ironic that now conservatives are so angry at her attempt to stifle free speech that they are threatening to kill her for her speech. You can't make this shit up, haha.

Exactly the same? Certainly you don't mean he couldn't have changed his mind about something right? In that case, that you believe he could have changed his mind about something at some point, then he isn't the same person he was before changing his mind. Don't you agree? Are a person's thoughts not a part of them? Not a part of what makes them who they are in your opinion?

 

[Ackmed]

To those who claim Trump is guilty of what he was accused of in the 70's, and thus still makes him a racist. Then Hillary is still very unethical, a liar and dishonest, as she fired from a case while being a lawyer for being just that? Sure seems like she's the same person.

I believe people can change, and certainly change their opinion. I know I have. Even more so in how many years it has been for both candidates. They've both been in the spot light for decades, I am sure they have said things and done things in the years past that they don't agree with now days.

This is getting off topic though. It's funny (mostly sad) how either side likes freedom of speech, unless it offends them.

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly the same? Certainly you don't mean he couldn't have changed his mind about something right? In that case, that you believe he could have changed his mind about something at some point, then he isn't the same person he was before changing his mind. Don't you agree? Are a person's thoughts not a part of them? Not a part of what makes them who they are in your opinion?

Is this a Theseus's ship argument or something? He is still the same entity he was before and nothing in his statements or behavior indicates he has changed his mind or has any regret for his racism. In fact, he continues to say racist things to this day.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. When someone acts like a huge racist for their whole life maybe they are just a huge racist.

 

[fskimospy]

To those who claim Trump is guilty of what he was accused of in the 70's, and thus still makes him a racist. Then Hillary is still very unethical, a liar and dishonest, as she fired from a case while being a lawyer for being just that? Sure seems like she's the same person.

Of course not as there is not actually any evidence that such a thing happened, it's just one guy's claim. Surely you aren't trying to compare the ranting of one guy to a case brought against the Trump organization, which was in fact backed by loads of evidence.

I believe people can change, and certainly change their opinion. I know I have. Even more so in how many years it has been for both candidates. They've both been in the spot light for decades, I am sure they have said things and done things in the years past that they don't agree with now days.

People can absolutely change. There is no evidence that Trump has changed though and the burden is on him to show that he no longer holds racist opinions. If anything the evidence available strongly indicates he continues to be a racist.

This is getting off topic though. It's funny (mostly sad) how either side likes freedom of speech, unless it offends them.

I do agree, that is pretty amusing.

 

[Texashiker]

We understand perfectly. Your wife leaves you and makes you pay child support and you can't keep a job consistently.
.

What are you talking about? I left my first wife and my kids by her are grown.

What exactly were the "lies" she told and why do they deserve threats of rape and/or death?

Lie - trump is racist

Lie - trump is opposed to immigration.

 

[disappoint]

People can absolutely change. There is no evidence that Trump has changed though and the burden is on him to show that he no longer holds racist opinions. If anything the evidence available strongly indicates he continues to be a racist.

Is it? Or is the burden of proof on the one making the accusation?

edit: Suppose I say "fskimospy is a thief." Should you have to prove your innocence to the accusation or should I have to prove your guilt?

 

[Texashiker]

People can absolutely change. There is no evidence that Trump has changed though and the burden is on him to show that he no longer holds racist opinions. If anything the evidence available strongly indicates he continues to be a racist.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

People say trump is a raciest, prove it.

People say trump is opposed to immigration, prove it. All I hear trump talk about is securing our borders and enforcing current laws.

The lady in the video was spouting hate comments, nothing more.

 

[fskimospy]

People are innocent until proven guilty.

People say trump is a raciest, prove it.

People say trump is opposed to immigration, prove it. All I hear trump talk about is securing our borders and enforcing current laws.

The lady in the video was spouting hate comments, nothing more.

I already did that, in this thread no less.

It's time to stop being so politically correct, we shouldn't be afraid to call racists racists.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it? Or is the burden of proof on the one making the accusation?

edit: Suppose I say "fskimospy is a thief." Should you have to prove your innocence to the accusation or should I have to prove your guilt?

The burden of proof was met for him a long time ago. Did you ever read any part of the federal case against the trump organization? It's crazy. Have you read his public statements about racial minorities? They are crazy.

If those things had never happened I would absolutely say he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They did though. Imagine Robert Byrd. After being in the KKK is it everyone's job to continually prove he was a racist or was it his job to show he has turned a new leaf?

Trump dug this hole himself, now he needs to prove to everyone that he's no longer a racist.

 

[flexy]

When I say an university or school SHOULD be neutral grounds I do NOT mean that I am against some dude wearing a Trump hat YET would be fine with BLM protesting. Cheezus...

 

[MongGrel]

People say trump is a raciest, prove it.

http://theurbandaily.com/2012/10/25/6-statements-donald-trump-speech-closet-racist/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

why bother I guess.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

People are innocent until proven guilty.

People say trump is a raciest, prove it.

People say trump is opposed to immigration, prove it. All I hear trump talk about is securing our borders and enforcing current laws.

The lady in the video was spouting hate comments, nothing more.

go buckshat elsewhere, no longer getting trapped in your pit of stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

Is it? Or is the burden of proof on the one making the accusation?

edit: Suppose I say "fskimospy is a thief." Should you have to prove your innocence to the accusation or should I have to prove your guilt?

People are innocent until proven guilty.

People say trump is a raciest, prove it.

People say trump is opposed to immigration, prove it. All I hear trump talk about is securing our borders and enforcing current laws.

The lady in the video was spouting hate comments, nothing more.

I'm sure neither of you have called Hilary corrupt or said she has committed any crimes right? Because I'm sure that's how strongly you feel about being innocent until proven guilty.

Also, being a racist isn't a crime so I'm not sure what he'd be guilty of. I guess we'll have to rely on other evidence.​

 

[disappoint]

The burden of proof was met for him a long time ago. Did you ever read any part of the federal case against the trump organization? It's crazy. Have you read his public statements about racial minorities? They are crazy.

If those things had never happened I would absolutely say he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They did though. Imagine Robert Byrd. After being in the KKK is it everyone's job to continually prove he was a racist or was it his job to show he has turned a new leaf?

Trump dug this hole himself, now he needs to prove to everyone that he's no longer a racist.

You continue to say that as if you didn't understand my point. I asked earlier: "Suppose I say "fskimospy is a thief." Should you have to prove your innocence to the accusation or should I have to prove your guilt?"

Since you won't answer the question I'll have to answer it for you. Of course the obvious answer is that I should have to prove your guilt, after all one of the tenets of this nation is innocence until proven guilty.

The issue is how long can you assume guilt?

Suppose you were once a thief. You stole a bag of potato chips when you were a teenager on a dare from a friend. Years later you no longer engage in theft and you no longer believe theft is justified. Should you be labeled a thief for the rest of your life because you once did? How about if you've never publicly proclaimed theft is wrong because you believe it to be so obvious that you feel it's not necessary to make a public proclamation against it?

I understand where you're coming from. He once made racist statements therefore he is still a racist unless he states otherwise. But that is assuming you can read his mind and know he still thinks racist thoughts. You have no evidence he does. You assume he does because he has not stated to the contrary.

 

[disappoint]

I'm sure neither of you have called Hilary corrupt or said she has committed any crimes right? Because I'm sure that's how strongly you feel about being innocent until proven guilty.

Also, being a racist isn't a crime so I'm not sure what he'd be guilty of. I guess we'll have to rely on other evidence.​

Why would she be excluded from being presumed innocent until proven guilty?

The only thing I have ever "accused" her of on this forum as far as I can recall is being too stupid to operate 2 separate email accounts which I stated begs the question if she is qualified to be Commander in Chief. Much like being a racist, being stupid is also not a crime.

 

[MongGrel]

being stupid is also not a crime.

Of course not.

 

[fskimospy]

You continue to say that as if you didn't understand my point. I asked earlier: "Suppose I say "fskimospy is a thief." Should you have to prove your innocence to the accusation or should I have to prove your guilt?"

Since you won't answer the question I'll have to answer it for you. Of course the obvious answer is that I should have to prove your guilt, after all one of the tenets of this nation is innocence until proven guilty.

Well you answered it wrong. If I had been a thief in the past it would be perfectly reasonable to assume I was still a thief. This is in fact what people do every day all over the world, yourself included I am very sure.

The issue is how long can you assume guilt?

Suppose you were once a thief. You stole a bag of potato chips when you were a teenager on a dare from a friend. Years later you no longer engage in theft and you no longer believe theft is justified. Should you be labeled a thief for the rest of your life because you once did? How about if you've never publicly proclaimed theft is wrong because you believe it to be so obvious that you feel it's not necessary to make a public proclamation against it?

Yes because someone who has been repeatedly sued by the federal government for racist housing policies and has repeatedly made racist public statements throughout his adult life is exactly like a kid who once stole a bag of chips.

You are twisting yourself into knots to find a way to not accept the plainly obvious reality that Trump is a racist. Just a few months ago he said a judge couldn't judge him because he was a Mexican, for Christ's sake.

I understand where you're coming from. He once made racist statements therefore he is still a racist unless he states otherwise. But that is assuming you can read his mind and know he still thinks racist thoughts. You have no evidence he does. You assume he does because he has not stated to the contrary.

No, he was repeatedly sued by the federal government for racist housing policy and has repeatedly up to this day made racist public statements. I assume he is a racist because he has a long history of racism. What's the saying? When someone tells you who they are, believe them.

I am frankly baffled that anyone would try to argue that Donald Trump is not a racist. It's hilarious.

 

[disappoint]

Well you answered it wrong. If I had been a thief in the past it would be perfectly reasonable to assume I was still a thief. This is in fact what people do every day all over the world, yourself included I am very sure.

Perfectly reasonable, sure. But it's still factually incorrect that you're still a thief if you now believe stealing is wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Perfectly reasonable, sure. But it's still factually incorrect that you're still a thief if you now believe stealing is wrong.

No, it would be 100% factually correct, it would just be a wise move to re-evaluate your opinion of that person had they disavowed it. There is of course no reason to believe Trump has disavowed his prior racism. It's a central part of his candidacy after all.

It would be wise if an individual had turned over a new leaf that they make steps to communicate that to others. If Trump had truly stopped being a racist it would be better to tell people about what caused this change instead of saying that Mexicans can't judge him. (Which is incredibly racist, I'm sure you agree)

 

[disappoint]

No, it would be 100% factually correct, it would just be a wise move to re-evaluate your opinion of that person had they disavowed it. There is of course no reason to believe Trump has disavowed his prior racism. It's a central part of his candidacy after all.

It would be wise if an individual had turned over a new leaf that they make steps to communicate that to others. If Trump had truly stopped being a racist it would be better to tell people about what caused this change instead of saying that Mexicans can't judge him. (Which is incredibly racist, I'm sure you agree)

It would be wise if said individual actually wanted to be president. What if all they wanted to do was prevent a republican from becoming president?

 

[Jaskalas]

No, it would be 100% factually correct, it would just be a wise move to re-evaluate your opinion of that person had they disavowed it. There is of course no reason to believe Trump has disavowed his prior racism. It's a central part of his candidacy after all.

It would be wise if an individual had turned over a new leaf that they make steps to communicate that to others. If Trump had truly stopped being a racist it would be better to tell people about what caused this change instead of saying that Mexicans can't judge him. (Which is incredibly racist, I'm sure you agree)

What, the judge that is associated with an activist group(s) that is in total opposition to Trump's secure border policy?
That is a matter of fighting over POLICY. How the !@#$ does racism play into that?

 

[fskimospy]

What, the judge that is associated with an activist group(s) that is in total opposition to Trump's secure border policy?
That is a matter of fighting over POLICY. How the !@#$ does racism play into that?

Well first of all that statement about him being a member of an 'activist group in total opposition' has already been debunked many times. Don't be duped by Trump's lies.

Secondly, that's irrelevant as Trump himself said it was due to his Mexican heritage. How is that anything but super racist?

I mean if you want to support him that's your choice but you should do so with eyes open. He's a racist, pure and simple.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lie - trump is racist

Lie - trump is opposed to immigration.

You said:

"Poor liberals do not understand what happens when they tell lies."

Then I said:

"What exactly were the "lies" she told and why do they deserve threats of rape and/or death?"


Edit: Guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's several days later and still no answer to the second part of the question.