Opinion The Trump Presidency

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forzaport said:
Then you agree that my statement about the travel ban having precisely zero to do with race is correct. QED.
Click to expand...

And the fact that it has precisely zero to do with race is not a defence of his actions.

This is exactly my point. Trump made a statement that he aimed to shut down all Muslim immigration into the United States. That is an undeniably bigoted position for a presidential candidate to take. But because the bloke who posted the quote incorrectly used the word ‘racist’ you’ve jumped on his terminology, when the underlying point wasn’t ‘is this racist’, it was ‘is this a morally shitty thing to do?’

This is why I say that anybody who says ‘Islam is not a race’ in defence of bigotry has lost the argument. You’ve turned it into an argument amount semantics, because the argument about morality is an unwinnable one.
 
Moo87 said:
That is true, but discrimination against religion and race often go hand in hand. Not to mention in your post you argued against it being designed as a Muslim ban despite Trump explicitly saying this is what he was aiming for.

I guess you could make a similar argument that “blacks” is not a race when Trump said “I think sometimes a black may think they don’t have an advantage or this and that. I’ve said on one occasion, even about myself, if I were starting off today, I would love to be a well educated black, because I really believe they do have an actual advantage.”

In a similar vein, his comments about one of his former accountants “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”

He initially denied the comments, but over a decade later conceded they were “probably true.”

Trump has recently referred to entire African countries, as well as Haiti and El Salvador, as “shitholes”, questioning why the US would want anyone from there.

He also claimed Mexican immigrants to the US “are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

In 2016 he claimed a judge was biased against him because of the judges Mexican heritage.

In the 70’s when he was president of his families real estate firm they were sued by the Justice Department (of the Nixon government) for systematically discriminating against African -Americans for rental tenancy. The case was settled.

So there’s multiple corroborated examples spanning decades which many would view as racist, or at least bigoted conments about minorities.

You can argue the details of each comment, that he was misunderstood etc, but at the end of the day I’d say being associated with racial discrimination and discrimation against other minorities paints enough of a picture.
Click to expand...

And here's the exact problem. Everything gets conflated so people are brainwashed into seeing 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 7 (RACIST!!), when in reality, it's 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 1 = 2 (like most people)

Of those 7 examples, 5 are easy to explain as not racist but have been made to look racist by the anti-Trump media. The money counting quote is likely from the 70s/80s which is "clearly a secondhand quote, made in a private conversation and written some years after the fact", which Trump never directly admitted as having said and later vehemently denied it (link). The landlord case was common practice at the time and the 70s was not a very friendly time for minorities. Now if you want to paint Trump as racially discriminating based on a secondhand quote and a landlord policy from ~40 years ago, that's up to you. People were generally much shittier in the 70s compared to today. That's life.
 
Schulzenfest said:
And the fact that it has precisely zero to do with race is not a defence of his actions.

This is exactly my point. Trump made a statement that he aimed to shut down all Muslim immigration into the United States. That is an undeniably bigoted position for a presidential candidate to take. But because the bloke who posted the quote incorrectly used the word ‘racist’ you’ve jumped on his terminology, when the underlying point wasn’t ‘is this racist’, it was ‘is this a morally shitty thing to do?’

This is why I say that anybody who says ‘Islam is not a race’ in defence of bigotry has lost the argument. You’ve turned it into an argument amount semantics when the underlying point is the morality of the statement itself.
Click to expand...

Funny, Moo is still arguing racism.

"Is this a morally shitty thing to do?" is a strawman argument.

I'm staying on point, you're trying to pivot to bigotry and claim victory.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Forzaport said:
Funny, Moo is still arguing racism.

"Is this a morally shitty thing to do?" is a strawman argument.

I'm staying on point, you're trying to pivot to bigotry and claim victory.
Click to expand...

Of course calling for a Muslim ban isn’t ‘racist’, because that’s not what the word racist means. But arguing over whether or not calling for a Muslim ban technically fits the definition of racism serves no purpose in assessing Trump’s character. You call it ‘staying on point’, I call it ‘clinging to a narrow semantic argument because the moral argument is indefensible’.

If I wandered outside right now and kicked a puppy, it wouldn’t be racist, but it’d still be a shitty thing to do. ‘Islam is not a race’ is not a defence of Trump’s character.
 
Schulzenfest said:
Of course calling for a Muslim ban isn’t ‘racist’, because that’s not what the word racist means. But arguing over whether or not calling for a Muslim ban technically fits the definition of racism serves no purpose in assessing Trump’s character. You call it ‘staying on point’, I call it ‘clinging to a narrow semantic argument because the moral argument is indefensible’.

If I wandered outside right now and kicked a puppy, it wouldn’t be racist, but it’d still be a shitty thing to do. ‘Islam is not a race’ is not a defence of Trump’s character.
Click to expand...

Accusing someone of being a misogynist racist is quite different to saying they're a morally shitty human being.

The argument was specifically addressing the misogynist and racist accusations.

I'm more than happy to have an argument with you over morality. In brief, leaders of countries have to, at times, make morally shitty decisions to protect their country. No one batted an eyelid when Obama did it. Also, if the travel ban was truly intended to ban Muslims, it's the most ineffective Muslim ban ever and the Venezuelans have every right to be pissed off.
 
Forzaport said:
Funny, Moo is still arguing racism.

"Is this a morally shitty thing to do?" is a strawman argument.

I'm staying on point, you're trying to pivot to bigotry and claim victory.
Click to expand...
Actually I’m not. You asked philthy05 for evidence for him labelling Trump a racist and a misogynist, but then readily dismissed it. I’ve merely added more examples to show that there is plenty of other evidence that people may reasonably come to a similar conclusion.

My post above highlighted what are only several of many examples which cover different incidents over decades. Given time and effort there’s plenty more that could be added.

You dismissed it seemingly on the basis of:

1) Apparently being the 70’s it was ok to run your business based on clearly racist ideals. Yes it was a long time ago, and discrimination was a problem on a lot of fronts, but they were taken to court twice by the justice department over this. This does not constitute normal business practices, even in the context of the 70’s.

2) The quote regarding his accountant actually was a first hand recollection which Trump did admit was “probably true” before denying it years later.

3) Why you didn’t even rate Trump directly questioning a judge’s ability to do his job based purely on his Mexican heritage as an example of racism, well that’s a bit rich. Even Paul Ryan called it “the textbook definition of racism.”

4) The comments about the “shithole countries” amounted to Trump declaring that people from those countries would not be able to contribute to American society based purely on where they were from.

5) The initial travel ban you may argue is not technically racist, but it clearly was aimed to discriminate against a minority, and the comment from Trump I mentioned were used by the first judge assessing the ban.

I was merely presenting that there have been several instances in which Trump has been widely condemned for words and actions many view as racist, and your argument against philthy05 was superficial at best.
 
Moo87 said:
Actually I’m not. You asked philthy05 for evidence for him labelling Trump a racist and a misogynist, but then readily dismissed it. I’ve merely added more examples to show that there is plenty of other evidence that people may reasonably come to a similar conclusion.

My post above highlighted what are only several of many examples which cover different incidents over decades. Given time and effort there’s plenty more that could be added.

You dismissed it seemingly on the basis of:

1) Apparently being the 70’s it was ok to run your business based on clearly racist ideals. Yes it was a long time ago, and discrimination was a problem on a lot of fronts, but they were taken to court twice by the justice department over this. This does not constitute normal business practices, even in the context of the 70’s.

2) The quote regarding his accountant actually was a first hand recollection which Trump did admit was “probably true” before denying it years later.

3) Why you didn’t even rate Trump directly questioning a judge’s ability to do his job based purely on his Mexican heritage as an example of racism, well that’s a bit rich. Even Paul Ryan called it “the textbook definition of racism.”

4) The comments about the “shithole countries” amounted to Trump declaring that people from those countries would not be able to contribute to American society based purely on where they were from.

5) The initial travel ban you may argue is not technically racist, but it clearly was aimed to discriminate against a minority, and the comment from Trump I mentioned were used by the first judge assessing the ban.

I was merely presenting that there have been several instances in which Trump has been widely condemned for words and actions many view as racist, and your argument against philthy05 was superficial at best.
Click to expand...

Happy coincidence this video came up the other day. Watch it and learn something, or don't. Up to you.

Racism topic starts about 15 minutes in.

 
Last edited:
To give a couple of examples:

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/02/21/news-reported-facts/#more-16752
Judge Curiel
  • Factual Report: Candidate Trump employed a common legal strategy by questioning the objectivity of the judge for the Trump University trial. The strategy was a solid one because it biased the judge to rule favorably for Trump to avoid the appearance of bias. As it turned out, the judge scheduled the trial for after the election, which was unnecessarily generous to Trump. A more normal schedule would have put the trial before election. The potential bias Trump called out was that because of his immigration plan, Trump was deeply unpopular with Americans of Mexican heritage. Lawyers routinely consider that sort of potential bias.
  • Mind Reading: Trump is racist against people with Mexican heritage and believes they can’t be good judges.

Shithole Countries
  • Factual Reporting: In a non-public meeting with other politicians, President Trump used strong language (shithole countries) to question why our immigration policies allow in so many people from economically disadvantaged countries instead of economically advanced countries such as Norway.
  • Mind Reading: President Trump called black and brown countries “shitholes” because he is a racist.
 
Schulzenfest said:
Why is being prejudiced against a religion somehow better than being prejudiced against a race?
Click to expand...

**general comment not necessarily in relation to Trumps policies, comments, or actions**

Because a religion is a set of ideas someone subscribes to, and can unsubscribe from of their own accord. A race is a box someone is placed into via physical characteristics.
 
Forzaport said:
To give a couple of examples:

http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/02/21/news-reported-facts/#more-16752
Judge Curiel
  • Factual Report: Candidate Trump employed a common legal strategy by questioning the objectivity of the judge for the Trump University trial. The strategy was a solid one because it biased the judge to rule favorably for Trump to avoid the appearance of bias. As it turned out, the judge scheduled the trial for after the election, which was unnecessarily generous to Trump. A more normal schedule would have put the trial before election. The potential bias Trump called out was that because of his immigration plan, Trump was deeply unpopular with Americans of Mexican heritage. Lawyers routinely consider that sort of potential bias.
  • Mind Reading: Trump is racist against people with Mexican heritage and believes they can’t be good judges.

Shithole Countries
  • Factual Reporting: In a non-public meeting with other politicians, President Trump used strong language (shithole countries) to question why our immigration policies allow in so many people from economically disadvantaged countries instead of economically advanced countries such as Norway.
  • Mind Reading: President Trump called black and brown countries “shitholes” because he is a racist.
Click to expand...
I’d just like to point out that the factual reporting section is more interpretation of Trumps intent.

What Trump said about judge Curiel was inherently racist. He literally questioned his ability to do his job based solely on his Mexican heritage. Now I have no doubts that he was trying to gain an advantage for his case; that is quite obvious.

I also note that Adams claims that this is a “common legal strategy” without providing any specific examples of this (especially in regards to questioning a judge’s race) His “factual” reporting is based on his interpretation of Trumps intent and is aimed at justifying his words and actions based on the perceived gain, and does not address the ethics or impact of Trumps words.
 
Moo87 said:
I’d just like to point out that the factual reporting section is more interpretation of Trumps intent.

What Trump said about judge Curiel was inherently racist. He literally questioned his ability to do his job based solely on his Mexican heritage. Now I have no doubts that he was trying to gain an advantage for his case; that is quite obvious.

I also note that Adams claims that this is a “common legal strategy” without providing any specific examples of this (especially in regards to questioning a judge’s race) His “factual” reporting is based on his interpretation of Trumps intent and is aimed at justifying his words and actions based on the perceived gain, and does not address the ethics or impact of Trumps words.
Click to expand...

It actually provides a rational basis and context that makes a lot more sense than Trump is just a big 'ol immoral racist. As I posted earlier, I'm not interested in changing opinions, if you think Trump is racist, apply that filter to all his actions. I doubt many racists would offer a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants when the opposition were demanding half that. And again there's that pivot. Have fun in your bubble.
 
If Trump put's tariffs on Australian products then it would be nice for Australian leaders to retaliate. Show some guts for a change and stop worrying about trying to lick Trump's arse.

Trump's argument is that their current account deficit with the rest of the world is too big and the one with China in particular. Our largest trade deficit of both goods and services is with the USA - $18B deficit on goods and -$7B deficit on services for a total trade deficit of $25B in a two way trade total of $66B. The Yanks are our 2nd biggest 2way trade partner but long way behind the $155B with China and a $30B surplus with them. Our imports from the yanks is 2nd biggest at $45B, behind China's $63B and Japan 3rd at $23B is approx half that of USA and 4th is Thailand and Germany both around $16B. We have a $20B trade surplus with Japan and $12B deficits with both Thailand and Germany.

Time to close that deficit Trump style with some tariff increases on USA imports. Collect some tariffs to pay for those corporate tax cuts.

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/Documents/usa.pdf

upload_2018-3-5_16-20-19.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I reckon the odds of Trump putting a tariff on Australian products are somewhere near zero.

Take note that all these countries talking of retaliation are not disputing Trump's top claim - that the trade deals are not fair to the US.

Already we're seeing Trump ease his position on Mexico and Canada depending on how NAFTA goes so it's a pretty easy conclusion that Trump wanted more leverage in those negotiations.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Kochie agrees with me. Put Tariffs on US products to reduce our trade debt.

Click to expand...

Your mate Tim Harcourt has weighed in on this:

But UNSW Business School’s Tim Harcourt said Australia could benefit in the long run.

“If Trump makes the US an erratic and chaotic trade partner, Australia will be seen by China, South Korea, India and ASEAN as safe, reliable and on side in the Asia Pacific, particularly given the withdrawal of the USA by the Trump administration of the Trans Pacific Partnership.

“And given that the US is mainly a source of foreign investment, it is trade that matters for us in North East Asia and that’s where Australia must maintain its solid reputation as a reliable supplier and customer.”

And it seems like the Australian Government is now back talking to China after all:

The region was clearly top of mind for Ms Bishop on her second day in New York, when she spoke of “actively seeking ways to work with China” and “maintaining an Indo-Pacific that is stable and prosperous”.
 

Australia will also be seen as a place to dump cheap steel that would otherwise have gone to the US. What some of the experts need to remember is that it not all about exports it is also about imports from those countries hit by Trump's tariffs.

According to the Financial Review the Turnbull Government has moved to ratchet up existing tariffs on steel imports in an effort to prevent cheap Chinese steel from being dumped in Australia. Doubtless the countries impacted, including China, will fire back at Australia. The trade war has started regardless of the US stance on Australian steel and aluminium imports. On top of this if China's steel exports to the US fall then Australia's exports of iron ore may suffer unless of course we find alternate markets.

The reality is that the US and Chinese economies are too big to ignore. Despite Donald Trump they cannot ignore each other and the rest of the world cannot ignore either of them. There is a touch of chaos theory to it, Trump makes a noise and elsewhere in the world someone suffers for it. ​
 
Forzaport said:
Nice mental gymnastics. At no point did Trump 'back down'. The US pursued a different strategy under Trump's leadership that is showing real results. If there is peace between the North and South, then yes, Trump should be awarded the Nobel.
Click to expand...

So Trump didn't post a rocket man message with the threats to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen"? That didn't prompt retaliatory threats from the North Koreans? The threat of a war with North Korean never happened it was simply a figment of our imaginations.

Any peace in North Korea is down to the initiatives of the North and South Koreans and the Olympic Games. If anyone deserves a Peace prize it is North Korea's Kim Jong Un and South Korea's Moon Jae-in, not Donald Trump.

Another piece of news for you, The North Koreans have just protested to Washington about Trump's comments that the US lead sanctions had bought North Korea to the negotiating table. That may well be true but stirring the pot just when things are getting done is not the action of a Nobel Peace Laureate.
 
raptalia said:
So Trump didn't post a rocket man message with the threats to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen"? That didn't prompt retaliatory threats from the North Koreans? The threat of a war with North Korean never happened it was simply a figment of our imaginations.

Any peace in North Korea is down to the initiatives of the North and South Koreans and the Olympic Games. If anyone deserves a Peace prize it is North Korea's Kim Jong Un and South Korea's Moon Jae-in, not Donald Trump.

Another piece of news for you, The North Koreans have just protested to Washington about Trump's comments that the US lead sanctions had bought North Korea to the negotiating table. That may well be true but stirring the pot just when things are getting done is not the action of a Nobel Peace Laureate.
Click to expand...

Nope.

"President Trump’s taunt-tweets were personal messages to Kim, which had the effect of treating him like a peer and humanizing the situation in a way we’ve never seen."

Why President Trump Deserves Credit for Progress in North Korea
 
Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, says South Korean President Moon Jae-in

South Korean President Moon Jae-in thinks US President Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the standoff with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, according to a South Korean official.

...

The Trump administration has led a global effort to impose stricter sanctions on North Korea, with the US president also exchanging bellicose threats with Mr Kim in the past year over North Korea's development of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States.

In January, Mr Moon said Mr Trump "deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the US-led sanctions and pressure".
 
Forzaport said:
Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, says South Korean President Moon Jae-in

South Korean President Moon Jae-in thinks US President Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the standoff with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, according to a South Korean official.

...

The Trump administration has led a global effort to impose stricter sanctions on North Korea, with the US president also exchanging bellicose threats with Mr Kim in the past year over North Korea's development of nuclear missiles capable of reaching the United States.

In January, Mr Moon said Mr Trump "deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the US-led sanctions and pressure".
Click to expand...

and you don't think the Chinese played any part in getting the North Koreans to the negotiating table ? Or that promoting the US is in the South Koreans' interests?

The Chinese finally applied meaningful sanctions against North Korea that were far more telling than anything the west could muster. Then again Trump has claimed credit for forcing the Chinese to act. This is the same China that Trump started his own trade war with in April 2018. When the Chinese stepped up sanctions in November 2017 the North Koreans suddenly became interested in negotiating, odd coincidence that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sanctions-against-north-korea-trade-data-show

The thing about Trump is that he is no diplomat as he polarises people, look at your opinion and mine, and I am not sure that is what Nobel Peace prizes are made of. For the record it isn't just the South Koreans who think Trump is a worthy Nobel Laureate there are 18 Republicans who think he is worth a shot, pardon the pun. You do have to wonder where the other 217 House Republicans are. The Nobel Foundation has received over 300 nominations for the 2018 Peace Prize so Donald is in with a chance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-peace-republicans-barack-obama-a8333816.html

After their Aung San Suu Kyi * up the Nobel Foundation might be a bit wary of a repeat situation. The 1991 recipient has subsequently been implicated in the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims. Once awarded the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be taken away thus a person the United Nations have subsequently condemned over ethnic cleansing remains a Nobel Laureate. Given Donald's stance on Iran and it's implications, awarding him the 2018 prize might also come back to bite the Nobel Foundation in the proverbial.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/a...laughter-un-investigator-20180217-p4z0oj.html

On 30th September 1938 Neville Chamberlain arrived back from Munich and delivered his infamous 'Peace in Our Time' speech. Giving Trump the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize could turn out to be as big a blunder as awarding the 1938 Peace Prize to Adolph Hitler. Hopefully we will never know. The 1938 Prize was awarded to the Office for International Refugees.
 
raptalia said:
and you don't think the Chinese played any part in getting the North Koreans to the negotiating table ? Or that promoting the US is in the South Koreans' interests?

The Chinese finally applied meaningful sanctions against North Korea that were far more telling than anything the west could muster. Then again Trump has claimed credit for forcing the Chinese to act. This is the same China that Trump started his own trade war with in April 2018. When the Chinese stepped up sanctions in November 2017 the North Koreans suddenly became interested in negotiating, odd coincidence that.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sanctions-against-north-korea-trade-data-show
Click to expand...

China played a huge part in getting NoKo to the negotiating table but you have it backwards. China has been upholding UN sanctions against NoKo because of US pressure. Further, the US has specifically targeted individual Chinese companies that breached UN sanctions and have been shaming China into action (albeit respectfully). Traditionally, China has a history of vetoing US sanction proposals at the UN. You should be looking at why China is suddenly so helpful with NoKo. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because of the Trump administration's strategy.
raptalia said:
The thing about Trump is that he is no diplomat as he polarises people, look at your opinion and mine, and I am not sure that is what Nobel Peace prizes are made of. For the record it isn't just the South Koreans who think Trump is a worthy Nobel Laureate there are 18 Republicans who think he is worth a shot, pardon the pun. You do have to wonder where the other 217 House Republicans are. The Nobel Foundation has received over 300 nominations for the 2018 Peace Prize so Donald is in with a chance.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-peace-republicans-barack-obama-a8333816.html
Click to expand...

Strong leaders are polarising. That's the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean Trump is a poor diplomat. In fact, he has proven time and again to be a very effective diplomat with several leaders during his term. His frostiest relationship is with Merkel and even their meeting was fine.

raptalia said:
After their Aung San Suu Kyi **** up the Nobel Foundation might be a bit wary of a repeat situation. The 1991 recipient has subsequently been implicated in the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims. Once awarded the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be taken away thus a person the United Nations have subsequently condemned over ethnic cleansing remains a Nobel Laureate. Given Donald's stance on Iran and it's implications, awarding him the 2018 prize might also come back to bite the Nobel Foundation in the proverbial.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/a...laughter-un-investigator-20180217-p4z0oj.html
Click to expand...

Aung San Suu Kyi wasn't a * up. She was a worthy winner at the time. What has happened since is a different set of circumstances. No one can predict the future.

By the by, the Iran regime is a lot closer to collapse than people think. Might even happen during Trump's time. The Iranian people are largely pro-US so will be interesting to see how it goes once Trump pulls out of the nuclear deal.

raptalia said:
On 30th September 1938 Neville Chamberlain arrived back from Munich and delivered his infamous 'Peace in Our Time' speech. Giving Trump the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize could turn out to be as big a blunder as awarding the 1938 Peace Prize to Adolph Hitler. Hopefully we will never know. The 1938 Prize was awarded to the Office for International Refugees.
Click to expand...

What is your point here? Trump shouldn't be awarded the Nobel for his role in bringing peace to the Korean peninsula because Hitler?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Stupid temporary "trends" etc over the years
Replies
3
Views
1K
edgie
edgie
raptalia
News The Queen is dead, long live the King - HM Elizabeth II passes away
Replies
14
Views
2K
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top