Trump isn’t a racist, nor does he fan those flames. That’s the sport of anti-Trumpists who utilize that canard for the sake of power seeking.

I never said nor implied I was above judging people. I would suggest trying to put words in another’s mouth is bad form.

Trump isn’t a racist, nor does he fan those flames. That’s the sport of anti-Trumpists who utilize that canard for the sake of power seeking.

I never said nor implied I was above judging people. I would suggest trying to put words in another’s mouth is bad form — NOS4A2

I don't believe it appropriate to judge people, including Trump, because we can't see what's in their heart. However, judging behavior is appropriate - and Trump's behavior (in terms of both words and actions) CLEARLY appeals to racists, and he avoids distancing himself from them. This normalizes their behavior - which indeed fans the flames.

You are free to disagree, but please don't claim your judgment is anything other than partisan. The only negative judgments you've made are against those who disagree with and dislike Trump, and you repeat the same old partisan tropes.

They’ve already tried to sell us the notion of a dark future before the election—recession, race wars, nuclear fallout, concentration camps, the second coming of Hitler, Russian influence, ecological collapse—and they are doing everything in their power to make this a reality. — NOS4A2

The anti-trumpists are doing everything in their power to cause environmental and economic collapse, nuclear fallout, concentration camps, etc.?

You appear to have contracted Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome. As a possible remedy, I suggest that you stop watching Fox News.

I don't believe it appropriate to judge people, including Trump, because we can't see what's in their heart. However, judging behavior is appropriate - and Trump's behavior (in terms of both words and actions) CLEARLY appeals to racists, and he avoids distancing himself from them. This normalizes their behavior - which indeed fans the flames.

You are free to disagree, but please don't claim your judgment is anything other than partisan. The only negative judgments you've made are against those who disagree with and dislike Trump, and you repeat the same old partisan tropes.

It’s not partisan because Trump has denounced racists and racism from the beginning. It’s actually you who is partisan because you refuse to see it.

The media is spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump himself. It is the media spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump. They are emboldened and normalized by the media, not Trump.

how do I delete comments?

It’s not partisan because Trump has denounced racists and racism from the beginning. It’s actually you who is partisan because you refuse to see it. — NOS4A2

Trump has read denouncements from the teleprompter, and I don't ignore it, I applaud this. But I also call out the bad behavior, and this bad behavior (which is predominantly off the cuff, unfiltered, unquestionably a product of his OWN mind) is not negated by the good.

You, on the other hand, completely ignore the bad behavior. You hide behind a superior attitude: "I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice". Political incorrectness means inadvertantly saying something that some people find offensive. This is forgiven when one apologizes and recognizes the feelings of the offended. It goes beyond PC when he just defends his actions, and it's not negated by reciting a prepared speech (although I am glad he delivers those). In my personal opinion, I think he is simply incapable of ever admitting he's done anything wrong. But the effect is the same: racists love him, and it normalizes racist behavior.

The media is spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump himself. It is the media spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump. They are emboldened and normalized by the media, not Trump.

Judgments of Trump are a consequence of the words he unapologetically uses. Even if merely spoken out of political correctness, the fact is that there are predictable consequences to doing so, and there are appropriate responses he COULD make: acknowledging those who are offended, and apologizing for inadvertantly offending. Voters who embraced his political incorrectness should have anticipated that this would cause a backlash. Instead you condemn them for not being like an idealized version of you who merely disdains political correctness.

BTW, if it's wrong to call people racist, how do you rationalize Trump's calling people racist?

Trump has read denouncements from the teleprompter, and I don't ignore it, I applaud this. But I also call out the bad behavior, and this bad behavior (which is predominantly off the cuff, unfiltered, unquestionably a product of his OWN mind) is not negated by the good.

You, on the other hand, completely ignore the bad behavior. You hide behind a superior attitude: "I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice". Political incorrectness means inadvertantly saying something that some people find offensive. This is forgiven when one apologizes and recognizes the feelings of the offended. It goes beyond PC when he just defends his actions, and it's not negated by reciting a prepared speech (although I am glad he delivers those). In my personal opinion, I think he is simply incapable of ever admitting he's done anything wrong. But the effect is the same: racists love him, and it normalizes racist behavior.

What bad behavior? Tweeting? Saying things that do not conform to the trite sensibilities of the media, celebrity and political class? And then refusing to apologize when finger waggers show up? Sorry, I think that’s exactly what the world needs right now.

Racists love Trump because the media claims he is one of them. But it’s not borne out by the facts.

Judgments of Trump are a consequence of the words he unapologetically uses. Even if merely spoken out of political correctness, the fact is that there are predictable consequences to doing so, and there are appropriate responses he COULD make: acknowledging those who are offended, and apologizing for inadvertantly offending. Voters who embraced his political incorrectness should have anticipated that this would cause a backlash. Instead you condemn them for not being like an idealized version of you who merely disdains political correctness.

BTW, if it's wrong to call people racist, how do you rationalize Trump's calling people racist?

That’s exactly it. the word-policing, not the results of his policies and actions, has resulted in the worst displays of anti-trumpism, which is more often than not plain old virtue-signalling. This virtue signalling can descend into violence and the suppression of human rights, for instance in Boston a couple years back, where a small free speech rally was descended upon by mobs throwing rocks and bottles of piss and the media wasn’t allowed access.

Show me an injustice or tyranny and I’ll be right there protesting against him. But I am not compelled to conform to the politically-correct orthodoxy, which is finally in its death throes.

Historically, racist rhetoric has led to racist policy:
Racism is not a Distraction, It's Policy
We buck the trend by calling it out the rhetoric when it happens.

What racist rhetoric?

The media is spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump himself. It is the media spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump. — NOS4A2

That might just be the most stupid thing that you've said so far, and you even repeated yourself, just like Trump does. Not stupid because it is so wrong, but rather stupid because it is so bloody obvious that Trump wouldn't spin himself as racist, regardless of whether he is actually racist or not.

What racist rhetoric? — NOS4A2

You're not going to be able to see it if you're wilfully blind.

Saying something “is bloody obvious” is insufficient enough reason for me to believe it. It’s more evidence of weak argument than anything else.

So you don't think that it's bloody obvious that Trump wouldn't spin himself as racist? You think that there's a serious possibility that he would try to spin himself as racist?

"Vote for me in 2020! I'm a racist!".

as a general rule, trolls ought not to be fed.

You're not going to be able to see it if you're wilfully blind

What I see is the use of false accusations for the purpose of achieving power. Using your specious manipulation skills, which never turn out to have the effect you pretend they do, you won’t see it because you’re wilfully blind.

What racist rhetoric? — NOS4A2

The stuff you pay no attention to, because you don't care what people say (except when aggregated into what you label a "mass hysteria" backlash against Trump).

I'll point out that his racist comments are but one aspect of Trump, and not even the most significant quality that invokes the backlash against him that you label "mass hysteria." The biggest issue is his disdain of truth. It's hilarious watching his staff rationalize the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. I expect this is just one more thing YOU don't care about, but most of the rest of the world values truth - and this understandably creates a well-deserved backlash.

Seriously, no matter how much you like what Trump does, nor how insignficant YOU consider his words, I cannot fathom how you could be so clueless as to why his words and actions create such strong negative feelings toward him. You don't have to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon, but goodness - can you be that blind?

Really, the backlash against Trump’s words has eclipsed any backlash in modern history.

The Woman’s March, the biggest protest in American history, occurred because Trump said “grab em by the p***y” in private a decade previously, and they wore the silly little hats to prove it. You know who marched in that protest? Harvey Weinstein.

No marching for the people in Hong Kong? No marching for the Uyghurs? No marching against injustice and tyranny and genocide?

Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?

Do you seriously believe that your 'arguments' here("counterpoints" is a better description) are acceptable?

I don’t care whether you accept them or not.

Really, the backlash against Trump’s words has eclipsed any backlash in modern history. — NOS4A2

Trump's behavior is unprecedented. Review this list of lies (which is but a small subset). He personally contributes to the spread of fake news including the spreading conspiracy theories (e.g. implying Clinton had Epstein killed), while concurrently labellling anything he doesn't like as "fake news". It's hilarious listening to his staff try to force fit his nonsense into something truthy. The silence of most Congressional Republicans on his antics adds to the frustration. No prior President has hurled insults with such frequency.

If you don't understand why this unprecedented behavior would arouse people, you're in denial. All I can surmise is that you like the policies he has implemented, you don't care what he says, and you believe anyone who doesn't share your opinion on this is crazy.

Zero injustice, zero tyranny, zero reason to eschew the ethics of journalism and the democratic process. It’s all word crimes. You are crying wolf.

You aren't engaging with what I said. I'm explaining to you why the response to Trump is unprecedented. You seem unable to think beyond your own partisan views.

It’s unprecedented because it is not a backlash to any evil or injustice, but to tweets and comments. It’s unprecedented because it’s a backlash in service of power-seeking, not in the service of ending tyranny.

@NOS4A2

The Russian influence canard is mostly an anti-Trump hoax.
— NOS4A2

A canard is "a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report: a groundless rumor or belief."
Your statement is categorical. Make your case or recant within three days, lacking that I request you be banned. The world is too full of liars and and their lies. — timw

Not merely a troll, but simply a liar. What you write or say simply cannot be taken at face value, i.e., trusted. Your words are worth less than nothing; they take and give nothing.

And, I did request you be banned. Apparently hasn't happened yet.

Not merely a troll, but simply a liar. What you write or say simply cannot be taken at face value, i.e., trusted. Your words are worth less than nothing; they take and give nothing.

And, I did request you be banned. Apparently hasn't happened yet.

Actively seeking to silence your political opponents instead debating them. You’re a pantywaist and a censor.

a pantywaist — NOS4A2

Congratulations on being the first person to ever use that insult on this forum. :brow:



There might as well be one ardent defender of Trump on the boards. But best not to debate who should be banned or not here. It's off-topic

Sorry, I’m trying to keep it civil here, despite the threats and ridicule.

Ehhhhh. Debate is an honorable enterprise between honorable people, or at least people who follow some rules. Lying destroys the ground of those rules, so is neither debate nor defense, but war by other means, even if in some cases for motives unclear. Nor do I presume to "debate" who should be banned - that's yours not mine. But in fact i did ask. I said I would and I did.

Thus in particular I held his comment to be a lie - not an error or mistake - and invited him to correct the impression, which he has taken care not to do. It's a "fish" in the punch bowl; would you care for a drink?

Lolol! Ty for that! More seriously, though, you have both ruled and taken yourself out of court. That's the price the liar pays, that his words become insignificant sounds. And I not a censor, rather at the moment a goose that's cackling

Ehhhhh. Debate is an honorable enterprise between honorable people, or at least people who follow some rules. Lying destroys the ground of those rules, so is neither debate nor defense, but war by other means, even if in some cases for motives unclear. Nor do I presume to "debate" who should be banned - that's yours not mine. But in fact i did ask. I said I would and I did.

Thus in particular I held his comment to be a lie - not an error or mistake - and invited him to correct the impression, which he has taken care not to do. It's a "fish" in the punch bowl; would you care for a drink?

You asked with and threatened me, I responded in good faith, you went ahead anyways by your own admission. So who is the liar?

Sorry, I’m trying to keep it civil here, despite the threats and ridicule. — NOS4A2

You think being called a liar, with evidence in hand, is ridicule? And you claim civility? You're a walking instruction. It's uncivil to call out the lie? You just want to walk both sides of the street: to lie, and to be immune to the consequences. And it runs deeper than that: yours is the path of the ultimate destruction of both meaning and civility. On that basis I call you out as an enemy and invite you to correct the indictment.

The Russian influence canard is mostly an anti-Trump hoax. — NOS4A2

Given the evidence, make your case.