• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

16-Year-Old Black Trump Supporter Schools Black Lives Matter Moron

Captain Adverse said:
WT##?

I posted what he actually said about Muslims. You have provided the edited version to make it seem more damning.

Moreover, YOU are using that statement to draw parallels with something he never said, i.e. all "Mexican immigrants should be deported." He said illegal Mexican immigrants should be deported. Not the same thing nor is that statement equivalent to the one regarding Muslims.
Click to expand...

I never claimed he made the comment that Mexican immigrants should be deported. I said that the comment itself, real or not, is parallel to the outrageousness of the policy that Muslims should be barred from entering the United States. Therefore, if I told someone that Trump had made the first statement, the listener would not have found it shocking or unbelievable in light of his policy on Muslims.
 
Cardinal said:
I never claimed he made the comment that Mexican immigrants should be deported. I said that the comment itself, real or not, is parallel to the outrageousness of the policy that Muslims should be barred from entering the United States. Therefore, if I told someone that Trump had made the first statement, the listener would not have found it shocking or unbelievable in light of his policy on Muslims.
Click to expand...

Okay, I see.

You now admit that you have fabricated a red herring argument to prove something...not sure what exactly although I am leaning toward an attempt to support either the racist or xenophobe labeling most Trump opponents fall back on. :spin:

Since you really have no point, I guess there is nothing to discuss. :coffeepap:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Okay, I see.

You now admit that you have fabricated a red herring argument to prove something...not sure what exactly although I am leaning toward an attempt to support either the racist or xenophobe labeling most Trump opponents fall back on. :spin:

Since you really have no point, I guess there is nothing to discuss. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

No, I'm admitting that you don't actually have any coherent idea of why you decided to participate in this thread with me.
 
Cardinal said:
It's parallel because he's creating a religious test for entering the United States. Why that should be counter to the principles of the Unites States of America was obvious to me, but I didn't take you into account.
Click to expand...

1. What does your so called "religious test" relate to Mexicans who've legally migrated to the US being deported for no reason?

The answer is simple and once again, proves my point. The only reason you or anyone else would think Trump making such a statement fits, is because you buy into the false narrative that Trump is a racist bigot who hates Mexicans and Muslims, and wants to rid them from America. Nothing else makes any sense.

2. A "religious test" implies a person must embrace a certain set of religious beliefs to gain entry into the US, which is not the case at all. This is a matter of being able to effectively screen Muslims who want to migrate to the US, to be sure they have no ties to Islamic terrorist organisations or intend to do harm to American citizens.

3. When a deadly virus outbreak occurs is a certain country or region of the world, Is it counter to American principals to put a temporary travel ban into effect that denies people from that country or region from entry into the United States?

Of course it isn't counter to American principals, it's a measure taken to ensure the safety of American citizens. That is no different than Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US until a more effective screening procedure is in place to prevent those who intend us harm from entering the country.

Motive and intent mean everything and it's obvious that you and so many others on the left either through ignorance, or by intent, completely ignore both. You instead choose to embrace what is most politically advantageous, and motive and intend be damned.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I simply questioned your review of the available material.

Evidence of the answer which can been seen over and over on both anti-Trump and pro-Trump videos of encounter after encounter. Evidence which proves my clearly stated positon as to why most Trump supporters have given up on discourse. In short, I've already answered your redundant question. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

youve given up on civil discourse already? that didnt take much did it? the election hasn't even started yet? trumps not even officially the nominee and youve already given up?...... because an old gay black man yelled at a teenager on the sidewalk?
 
Grim17 said:
I find it interesting that you didn't answer my question... Why is that?

Let me ask you again:

Do you honestly think that there aren't thousands, if not 10's of thousands of democratic voters and supporters, who believe that Donald Trump has said that he wants to deport all Mexican immigrants?
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that i edited one of my posts and you quoted the pre-edited version. I acknowledge that my initial response to your post was inappropriate.

Absentglare said:
I would be unable to honestly apply such obviously flawed reasoning.

I am not inclined to presume what you would or would not be honest in suggesting. Perhaps you genuinely believe that reasoning to be valid, i just don't know.

Edit: i had hoped that exchanging terms would adjust the desirability of the conclusion and thereby illuminate the flaws in your reasoning for you. Clearly, you elected to take it personally rather than trying to understand what i was trying to say. In retrospect, i was pretty snarky and did a very poor job in communicating my criticism. I am sorry my failure in that respect.
Click to expand...

To answer your question directly, i cannot contest that there are perhaps tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of uninformed democratic voters who believe that Trump has said things that he never actually said. I simply don't have data that can disprove that, further, it seems plausible based on the media's perspective on Trump. The media seems prone to taking the worst available interpretation of what Trump literally says and then running with it. I don't think Trump is as bad as the media portrays him to be, so i am skeptical and i do try to understand what Trump said in context.

However, these shortcomings cannot be said to reflect on all liberals. I do try, where i can, to be impartial, and i acknowledge that there are many on the conservative side who provide the same courtesy.
 
Grim17 said:
1. What does your so called "religious test" relate to Mexicans who've legally migrated to the US being deported for no reason?

The answer is simple and once again, proves my point. The only reason you or anyone else would think Trump making such a statement fits, is because you buy into the false narrative that Trump is a racist bigot who hates Mexicans and Muslims, and wants to rid them from America. Nothing else makes any sense.

2. A "religious test" implies a person must embrace a certain set of religious beliefs to gain entry into the US, which is not the case at all. This is a matter of being able to effectively screen Muslims who want to migrate to the US, to be sure they have no ties to Islamic terrorist organisations or intend to do harm to American citizens.

3. When a deadly virus outbreak occurs is a certain country or region of the world, Is it counter to American principals to put a temporary travel ban into effect that denies people from that country or region from entry into the United States?

Of course it isn't counter to American principals, it's a measure taken to ensure the safety of American citizens. That is no different than Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US until a more effective screening procedure is in place to prevent those who intend us harm from entering the country.

Motive and intent mean everything and it's obvious that you and so many others on the left either through ignorance, or by intent, completely ignore both. You instead choose to embrace what is most politically advantageous, and motive and intend be damned.
Click to expand...

Yes, regarding the religious test, and per Trump's position all Muslims will have quite simply failed that test. And as I said, if you don't see a problem with that, the problem is you.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Psh!

I am not trying to sell you on anything. I am pointing out two things:

1. There are more people of color in this country that support Trump than many people realize, and this is likely to show in the election.

2. There are all sorts of reasons people will end up voting for him as opposed to Hillary, and they simply aren't revealing this in polling any more than they did during the Party nomination campaign.

Some of us are tired of facing emotional rants. We'll wait until time to vote...and then see how it all shakes out. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

I hope you are right. A whole lot of us most likely say we are opposed to HOW Trump says what he says and that accounts for his high negatives. At the same time, for millions of us, it is a huge breath of fresh air when somebody finally stands up and says it instead of acquiescing to the political correctness police, And that's why I think the polls are probably not accurate.

Trump may be a perfectly horrible President but I cannot imagine he could or would do the damage that a Hillary Clinton will. So for that reason I will be voting Trump and hope that the best Trump that there is will be the one who shows up on inauguration day. And if not, at least we have a shot at not losing the Supreme Court to a radical left for a generation or more.
 
dimensionallava said:
why is that? why do trump supporters rarely, if ever try to "sell people" on voting for trump, and instead only "defend their voting" for trump
Click to expand...

At least Trump supporters have their reasons for voting for Trump.

And seriously, how many Hillary supporters defend Hillary on her credentials, game plan, track record, or insights? I'm not seeing it. I am seeing them trash Trump and anybody who supports them. And the only reason they seem to have to vote for Hillary is that she has a D after her name.
'
Pot - kettle - and all that you know.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You sir have not been listening to your instructions:
A Donald Trump rally is a homophobic, misogynistic, racist nightmare.


.
Click to expand...
Pure emotions!
I'll bet you cannot back up your accusations up with anything substantial facts.
 
How effective can it really be to form blanket opinions of movements off of a handful of videos on the internet? The number of votes in the general election will be exponentially higher than the number of votes in the primary. Some will go to Trump, but most will probably go to Hillary. We can argue about whether "PC" is some big ugly thing because there a handful of stories about a handful of college kids seeking safe spaces, or just because people can't say what they did 50 years ago without being called on it and change sucks. The point is as members of an online political forum we live in a small bubble. It won't solve any problems to blow a gasket over Breitbart's next piece about Hillary's hidden murders or Huffington Post's next in depth analysis on what Trump's comments about his daughter really mean. It's the internet.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I hope you are right. A whole lot of us most likely say we are opposed to HOW Trump says what he says and that accounts for his high negatives. At the same time, for millions of us, it is a huge breath of fresh air when somebody finally stands up and says it instead of acquiescing to the political correctness police, And that's why I think the polls are probably not accurate.

Trump may be a perfectly horrible President but I cannot imagine he could or would do the damage that a Hillary Clinton will. So for that reason I will be voting Trump and hope that the best Trump that there is will be the one who shows up on inauguration day. And if not, at least we have a shot at not losing the Supreme Court to a radical left for a generation or more.
Click to expand...

Clinton is a radical leftist? That would be welcome news to radical leftists. In fact, that would be welcome news to just about anyone left of center.
 
Cardinal said:
Clinton is a radical leftist? That would be welcome news to radical leftists. In fact, that would be welcome news to just about anyone left of center.
Click to expand...

I believe Clinton will appoint people like Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Those four have already driven the court far more left than it has historically been.

Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
 
AlbqOwl said:
I believe Clinton will appoint people like Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Those four have already driven the court far more left than it has historically been.

Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
Click to expand...

She's overwhelmingly beholden to Wall Street interests, and any decisions she makes with regard to the SC will reflect that. Is it me or does practically every single judge lean liberal as their careers evolve?
 
Cardinal said:
She's overwhelmingly beholden to Wall Street interests, and any decisions she makes with regard to the SC will reflect that. Is it me or does practically every single judge lean liberal as their careers evolve?
Click to expand...

Must just be you. I sure haven't seen evidence that Thomas, Scalia, Alito et al leaned liberal. I don't want to see the court veer to the extreme right either. Keep it in the constitutional middle with decisions addressing existing law and not presuming to make law and I'm a happy camper.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Must just be you. I sure haven't seen evidence that Thomas, Scalia, Alito et al leaned liberal. I don't want to see the court veer to the extreme right either. Keep it in the constitutional middle with decisions addressing existing law and not presuming to make law and I'm a happy camper.
Click to expand...

Look at the graph, nearly every single judge curves down as their careers progress. You can't tell me you don't see that.
 
Cardinal said:
Look at the graph, nearly every single judge curves down as their careers progress. You can't tell me you don't see that.
Click to expand...

Curving down does not say 'more liberal' to me so long as that curve stays within the more moderate range. It might simply mean less extreme in their earlier positions. You only get 'more liberal' when you curve sharply into liberal territory as the current justices I named have done. And they have all become even more extreme as time goes on.

You cannot tell me that all the justices on a Supreme Court that splits 5/4 on most votes are following the letter and intent of the Constitution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Curving down does not say 'more liberal' to me so long as that curve stays within the more moderate range. It might simply mean less extreme in their earlier positions. You only get 'more liberal' when you curve sharply into liberal territory as the current justices I named have done. And they have all become even more extreme as time goes on.

You cannot tell me that all the justices on a Supreme Court that splits 5/4 on most votes are following the letter and intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that when "mellow out," it seems to be invariably toward the liberal direction that away from it. Even Scalia and Thomas did it, though not especially dramatically.

And I can't tell you whether or not they were following the letter and intent of the constitution, because I never said that to begin with. And there have definitely been decisions that have confused the bejeezus out of me, like citizen united, one dealing with asset forfeiture and a very recent one dealing with evidence being admissible even if it's acquired without reasonable cause.
 
What I hear is "propaganda works". The guy has nothing but Clinton fed talking points, and the louder he yells, the more right he thinks he is.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, regarding the religious test, and per Trump's position all Muslims will have quite simply failed that test. And as I said, if you don't see a problem with that, the problem is you.
Click to expand...

1. This isn't a matter of my feelings, it's about you saying how that statement fits Trump, which is only true if a person has embraced the lies about Trump and adopted the false narrative that he's a bigot and a racist.

How about you address #3... Is such a travel ban against American principals or not?
 
Cardinal said:
What's interesting is that when "mellow out," it seems to be invariably toward the liberal direction that away from it. Even Scalia and Thomas did it, though not especially dramatically.

And I can't tell you whether or not they were following the letter and intent of the constitution, because I never said that to begin with. And there have definitely been decisions that have confused the bejeezus out of me, like citizen united, one dealing with asset forfeiture and a very recent one dealing with evidence being admissible even if it's acquired without reasonable cause.
Click to expand...

I don't see moving to a more moderate position the same thing as moving to a liberal position. So we'll just have to amicably disagree on that one. And I wasn't referring to any particular case. All I am saying is that it is reasonable for one or two individuals to disagree with the others on most things. But when you are getting consistent 5/4 splits on decision after decision after decision with the same people voting together on those decisions, one side or the other is not following the letter and intent of the Constitution.

I don't want Supreme Court justices who are loyal to an ideology. I want Supreme Court justices who are loyal to the letter and intent of the Constitution and existing law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom