• 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!

What is the definition of a racist? Someone winning an argument with a liberal.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign knocked Trump for using a "blatantly anti-Semitic image" and criticized the de facto GOP nominee for refusing to apologize for the tweet.

Okay, did Trump deliberately post that image with the star of David to be anti-Semitic? Nobody knows but him...and so we should not make that assumption.

But what we DO know is that he got that image from a white supremacist website...and so you have to ask yourself why is he going on white supremacist websites...and why is he retweeting information from white supremacist websites...

...and why are YOU defending a guy who not only visits white supremacist websites but retweets information from there?

THAT - and not the image of the star of David itself - is the real issue here.
 
Okay, did Trump deliberately post that image with the star of David to be anti-Semitic? Nobody knows but him...and so we should not make that assumption.

But what we DO know is that he got that image from a white supremacist website...and so you have to ask yourself why is he going on white supremacist websites...and why is he retweeting information from white supremacist websites...

...and why are YOU defending a guy who not only visits white supremacist websites but retweets information from there?

THAT - and not the image of the star of David itself - is the real issue here.

Absurd, it is NOT a start of David and I was unaware that Disney gave exclusive rights to their publications to white supremacists.
 
Okay, did Trump deliberately post that image with the star of David to be anti-Semitic? Nobody knows but him...and so we should not make that assumption.

But what we DO know is that he got that image from a white supremacist website...and so you have to ask yourself why is he going on white supremacist websites...and why is he retweeting information from white supremacist websites...

...and why are YOU defending a guy who not only visits white supremacist websites but retweets information from there?

THAT - and not the image of the star of David itself - is the real issue here.

I dunno Glen..... that piece seems a little tin foil to me.

Believe me...... I would be the first to criticize if I thought it were true.
 
I dunno Glen..... that piece seems a little tin foil to me.

Believe me...... I would be the first to criticize if I thought it were true.

It's not a matter of CT, and you don't even have to believe the fact-checking site I linked to. Research it for yourself - he DID get the image from a white supremacist site, and he DID retweet that image from that white supremacist site.

This is the same kind of stuff that drove me away from the GOP to begin with - I had to make a choice whether to stick with what I'd believed all my life, that my family strongly believed...or to look at the actual hard-and-cold facts, the actual evidence. Is Trump innocent or guilty? Follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Even then, if the evidence shows that he was just being a hardheaded dumbass - like Hillary was with her e-mail server - that's one thing...but going to a white supremacist website and reposting information from there when his campaign has already been dogged with accusations of - ahem - a bit too much tolerance for racism...

...that shows not just a deliberate choice, but a pattern of conduct. And it's those three words - "pattern of conduct" - that should be most troubling to you. You've been around the block - hell, you helped build the doggone block just as I did - and you do know what I mean.
 
It's not a matter of CT, and you don't even have to believe the fact-checking site I linked to. Research it for yourself - he DID get the image from a white supremacist site, and he DID retweet that image from that white supremacist site.

This is the same kind of stuff that drove me away from the GOP to begin with - I had to make a choice whether to stick with what I'd believed all my life, that my family strongly believed...or to look at the actual hard-and-cold facts, the actual evidence. Is Trump innocent or guilty? Follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Even then, if the evidence shows that he was just being a hardheaded dumbass - like Hillary was with her e-mail server - that's one thing...but going to a white supremacist website and reposting information from there when his campaign has already been dogged with accusations of - ahem - a bit too much tolerance for racism...

...that shows not just a deliberate choice, but a pattern of conduct. And it's those three words - "pattern of conduct" - that should be most troubling to you. You've been around the block - hell, you helped build the doggone block just as I did - and you do know what I mean.

It is in fact the second time he retweeted an image from a white supremacist. The guy sure does spend an awful lot of time going through white supremacist websites.
 
Absurd, it is NOT a start of David and I was unaware that Disney gave exclusive rights to their publications to white supremacists.

I don't really care about whether it's a star of David. I DO care that he got the image from a white supremacist website. THAT, sir, is the real issue.
 
I don't really care about whether it's a star of David. I DO care that he got the image from a white supremacist website. THAT, sir, is the real issue.

Would you care if Donald Trump did something illegal and then got away with it? Simple question, do not deflect. Would it bother you if Donald Trump did something illegal and got away with it? Once again, this is about Donald Trump and only Donald Trump. Let's see if you can handle this simple question.
 
Would you care if Donald Trump did something illegal and then got away with it? Simple question, do not deflect. Would it bother you if Donald Trump did something illegal and got away with it? Once again, this is about Donald Trump and only Donald Trump. Let's see if you can handle this simple question.

Deflect? That's what you're doing, deflecting away from the issue of this thread. But I'll play. How about this? Have you ever done something illegal? I sure as heck have, and I was lucky to get away with some of the things I've done...

...and the same goes for most men I've known over the years. We all do stupid crap sometimes. Hillary did - she was a hardheaded dumbass with her e-mail server, and your question is OBVIOUSLY a set-up to gripe about Hillary. But was there malice involved? Was it her intent to put classified information at risk? THAT, sir, is the question you should be asking yourself...and then think back to the stupid things that most guys (almost certainly including you) have done over the years - did most guys do stupid crap with the intent to do that which they know is very wrong? No.

And that's the FBI Director's point - the intent to do that which is wrong was not demonstrably there. There was no apparent malicious intent.

For some time, I was the shipboard equivalent of the chief of police, and at other times I was the lead investigator and even served as the acting legal officer...all of which is unusual for a steam plant engineer. But I was trusted with those positions because the command knew I did. not. assume. I did not allow my personal feelings and prejudices get in the way of following the evidence. When it comes to what Hillary did, if the same thing had happened on board the ship, would the one who did it have been "fired"? NO. It wouldn't have gone to court-martial, and it's doubtful that it would have gone to the administrative proceeding known as "Captain's Mast". It would have boiled down to the gut feelings of whoever was in charge, but the most likely outcome would have been a serious "counseling chit" and a preferably-legendary ass-chewing that the one concerned would remember for the rest of his career. But "fired"? No.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: It depends. What was the intent? Was there malice involved? You cannot make a blanket statement as to what should happen when a crime is committed, because every single case may be (and usually is) different. Were there mitigating factors? What is the evidence for or against? But one of the most important factors is, "What was the intent?"

NOW, let's get back to the subject of this thread: why is Trump not just going to white supremacist websites, but even retweeting information from white supremacist websites? A presidential candidate going to white supremacist websites shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do. A presidential candidate retweeting information from a white supremacist website shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do.

Hillary's actions were stupid. Trump's actions support that which is evil. That, sir, is the difference.

I answered your question - so now you answer mine.
 
Deflect? That's what you're doing, deflecting away from the issue of this thread. But I'll play. How about this? Have you ever done something illegal? I sure as heck have, and I was lucky to get away with some of the things I've done...

...and the same goes for most men I've known over the years. We all do stupid crap sometimes. Hillary did - she was a hardheaded dumbass with her e-mail server, and your question is OBVIOUSLY a set-up to gripe about Hillary. But was there malice involved? Was it her intent to put classified information at risk? THAT, sir, is the question you should be asking yourself...and then think back to the stupid things that most guys (almost certainly including you) have done over the years - did most guys do stupid crap with the intent to do that which they know is very wrong? No.

And that's the FBI Director's point - the intent to do that which is wrong was not demonstrably there. There was no apparent malicious intent.

For some time, I was the shipboard equivalent of the chief of police, and at other times I was the lead investigator and even served as the acting legal officer...all of which is unusual for a steam plant engineer. But I was trusted with those positions because the command knew I did. not. assume. I did not allow my personal feelings and prejudices get in the way of following the evidence. When it comes to what Hillary did, if the same thing had happened on board the ship, would the one who did it have been "fired"? NO. It wouldn't have gone to court-martial, and it's doubtful that it would have gone to the administrative proceeding known as "Captain's Mast". It would have boiled down to the gut feelings of whoever was in charge, but the most likely outcome would have been a serious "counseling chit" and a preferably-legendary ass-chewing that the one concerned would remember for the rest of his career. But "fired"? No.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: It depends. What was the intent? Was there malice involved? You cannot make a blanket statement as to what should happen when a crime is committed, because every single case may be (and usually is) different. Were there mitigating factors? What is the evidence for or against? But one of the most important factors is, "What was the intent?"

NOW, let's get back to the subject of this thread: why is Trump not just going to white supremacist websites, but even retweeting information from white supremacist websites? A presidential candidate going to white supremacist websites shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do. A presidential candidate retweeting information from a white supremacist website shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do.

Hillary's actions were stupid. Trump's actions support that which is evil. That, sir, is the difference.

I answered your question - so now you answer mine.

No you did not answer my question. You went on a rant to defend Hillary, and then asked more questions of your own. It was a simple yes or no question.

If you cannot handle this incredibly easy task of answering "yes" or "no", I just proved a wonderful milestone in hypocrisy.
 
Absurd, it is NOT a start of David and I was unaware that Disney gave exclusive rights to their publications to white supremacists.
I dunno Glen..... that piece seems a little tin foil to me.
Believe me...... I would be the first to criticize if I thought it were true.
The image came from 4Chan's /pol/ forum.

4Chan, if you remember, is one of the scummiest sites on the internet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#Controversies
 
Deflect? That's what you're doing, deflecting away from the issue of this thread. But I'll play. How about this? Have you ever done something illegal? I sure as heck have, and I was lucky to get away with some of the things I've done...

...and the same goes for most men I've known over the years. We all do stupid crap sometimes. Hillary did - she was a hardheaded dumbass with her e-mail server, and your question is OBVIOUSLY a set-up to gripe about Hillary. But was there malice involved? Was it her intent to put classified information at risk? THAT, sir, is the question you should be asking yourself...and then think back to the stupid things that most guys (almost certainly including you) have done over the years - did most guys do stupid crap with the intent to do that which they know is very wrong? No.

And that's the FBI Director's point - the intent to do that which is wrong was not demonstrably there. There was no apparent malicious intent.

For some time, I was the shipboard equivalent of the chief of police, and at other times I was the lead investigator and even served as the acting legal officer...all of which is unusual for a steam plant engineer. But I was trusted with those positions because the command knew I did. not. assume. I did not allow my personal feelings and prejudices get in the way of following the evidence. When it comes to what Hillary did, if the same thing had happened on board the ship, would the one who did it have been "fired"? NO. It wouldn't have gone to court-martial, and it's doubtful that it would have gone to the administrative proceeding known as "Captain's Mast". It would have boiled down to the gut feelings of whoever was in charge, but the most likely outcome would have been a serious "counseling chit" and a preferably-legendary ass-chewing that the one concerned would remember for the rest of his career. But "fired"? No.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: It depends. What was the intent? Was there malice involved? You cannot make a blanket statement as to what should happen when a crime is committed, because every single case may be (and usually is) different. Were there mitigating factors? What is the evidence for or against? But one of the most important factors is, "What was the intent?"

NOW, let's get back to the subject of this thread: why is Trump not just going to white supremacist websites, but even retweeting information from white supremacist websites? A presidential candidate going to white supremacist websites shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do. A presidential candidate retweeting information from a white supremacist website shows INTENT to do that which NO presidential candidate should do.

Hillary's actions were stupid. Trump's actions support that which is evil. That, sir, is the difference.

I answered your question - so now you answer mine.

What a brilliant answer, Glen.

No you did not answer my question. You went on a rant to defend Hillary, and then asked more questions of your own. It was a simple yes or no question.
If you cannot handle this incredibly easy task of answering "yes" or "no", I just proved a wonderful milestone in hypocrisy.

You better come up with something better than that. Glen very intelligently answered your question.
 
No you did not answer my question. You went on a rant to defend Hillary, and then asked more questions of your own. It was a simple yes or no question.

If you cannot handle this incredibly easy task of answering "yes" or "no", I just proved a wonderful milestone in hypocrisy.

Because the answer can neither be "yes" or "no". I gave you my first-hand experience concerning investigations and prosecutions, and why every single case is and must be approached differently. It's not my fault that you can't allow yourself to accept the obvious answer I gave.
 
It's not a matter of CT, and you don't even have to believe the fact-checking site I linked to. Research it for yourself - he DID get the image from a white supremacist site, and he DID retweet that image from that white supremacist site.

This is the same kind of stuff that drove me away from the GOP to begin with - I had to make a choice whether to stick with what I'd believed all my life, that my family strongly believed...or to look at the actual hard-and-cold facts, the actual evidence. Is Trump innocent or guilty? Follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

Even then, if the evidence shows that he was just being a hardheaded dumbass - like Hillary was with her e-mail server - that's one thing...but going to a white supremacist website and reposting information from there when his campaign has already been dogged with accusations of - ahem - a bit too much tolerance for racism...

...that shows not just a deliberate choice, but a pattern of conduct. And it's those three words - "pattern of conduct" - that should be most troubling to you. You've been around the block - hell, you helped build the doggone block just as I did - and you do know what I mean.

From my understanding, he didn't create the tweet, someone on his staff did. And, I don't believe any evidence to support that it came from a white supremacy website exists (just speculation and made up stuff). I think the whole thing is nothing more than made up propaganda. The left has so little to pull out of their hats that a star used only to include captions inside, is made out to be some symbol of racism. I make adds all the time for my small business and I'd never think twice about pulling a star into the flyer. I think the world needs to focus on more important issues personally.
 
From my understanding, he didn't create the tweet, someone on his staff did.

So instead of defending the tweet, why would he not publicly state that he'd investigate how it happened and take appropriate action against whoever on his staff was going on white supremacist websites and retweeting information from white supremacist websites?

And, I don't believe any evidence to support that it came from a white supremacy website exists (just speculation and made up stuff).

In other words, you really don't want to research it for yourself. You really don't want to examine the evidence from all sides of the story. You just want to deny the evidence without going to the trouble to actually find out whether or not the evidence is factual.

I think the whole thing is nothing more than made up propaganda. The left has so little to pull out of their hats that a star used only to include captions inside, is made out to be some symbol of racism. I make adds all the time for my small business and I'd never think twice about pulling a star into the flyer. I think the world needs to focus on more important issues personally.

And this is how prejudice (not racism, but prejudice - note the difference) spreads: don't examine the evidence, assume the evidence is just "propaganda".

The real issue isn't the star itself. The real issue is, why is he (or his staff) going onto white supremacist websites, and why is he (or they) retweeting information from white supremacist websites?
 
The real issue isn't the star itself. The real issue is, why is he (or his staff) going onto white supremacist websites, and why is he (or they) retweeting information from white supremacist websites?

oh well if that's the real issue then it could be something as simple as - DJT: oh i want to search for an image of something on google.. oh there it is on the Images search page, i'll just save that and use it on my tweet.. NEVER KNOWING what website it came from, really.

why couldn't that be what happened? how the hell do you know from this what Trump's intent or anything else was?
 
oh well if that's the real issue then it could be something as simple as - DJT: oh i want to search for an image of something on google.. oh there it is on the Images search page, i'll just save that and use it on my tweet.. NEVER KNOWING what website it came from, really.

why couldn't that be what happened? how the hell do you know from this what Trump's intent or anything else was?
Look at the established pattern of scummy dogwhistles. It's his M.O. Say something rancid, then row it back, then deny you ever said it. Rinse, repeat.
 
Look at the established pattern of scummy dogwhistles. It's his M.O. Say something rancid, then row it back, then deny you ever said it. Rinse, repeat.

I have no idea what you just said , but if that image is all they are talking about, then this borders on the absurd.

EDIT: actually, no , it's fallen off the absurd cliff.
 
Would you care if Donald Trump did something illegal and then got away with it? Simple question, do not deflect. Would it bother you if Donald Trump did something illegal and got away with it? Once again, this is about Donald Trump and only Donald Trump. Let's see if you can handle this simple question.

If you don't think that all of us, ESPECIALLY Donald Trump have gotten away with doing something illegal, you're naive. Obviously, he is not an icon of human virtue.

I don't care if he exceeded the speed limit and got away with it. I don't care if he ripped the tag off of a mattress and got away with it. I care, though, that he is drawing from racist groups for his material. Why don't you?

Oh, that's right. You care more about whether Hillary is qualified to set up her own mail server. Well, if Trump goes goose-stepping into the white house because Hillary's emails are a greater concern, this country will get what it deserves.

I would rather have Hillary, with her SMTP issues, than Trump with his KKK issues.
 
What a brilliant answer, Glen.



You better come up with something better than that. Glen very intelligently answered your question.

The question was a simple yes or no. Not a pro-Hillary "maybe". This was about Trump. What are you contributing? lol
 
Because the answer can neither be "yes" or "no". I gave you my first-hand experience concerning investigations and prosecutions, and why every single case is and must be approached differently. It's not my fault that you can't allow yourself to accept the obvious answer I gave.
You gave me a bunch of whiney HIllary Clinton BS. This was about Trump. If Trump broke the law, and obviously got away, you would be fine with it?
You failed to answer, meaning you're a hypocrite.
 
You gave me a bunch of whiney HIllary Clinton BS. This was about Trump. If Trump broke the law, and obviously got away, you would be fine with it?
You failed to answer, meaning you're a hypocrite.

You're wanting a simple answer to a question that cannot be simply answered.

Have you not raised a child? Children want simple answers...and they get really frustrated when the parent tells them that the answer cannot be answered simply, that there are many factors that must be considered.

You will never get a black-and-white answer when most of the factors are shades of gray.
 
If you don't think that all of us, ESPECIALLY Donald Trump have gotten away with doing something illegal, you're naive. Obviously, he is not an icon of human virtue.

I don't care if he exceeded the speed limit and got away with it. I don't care if he ripped the tag off of a mattress and got away with it. I care, though, that he is drawing from racist groups for his material. Why don't you?

Oh, that's right. You care more about whether Hillary is qualified to set up her own mail server. Well, if Trump goes goose-stepping into the white house because Hillary's emails are a greater concern, this country will get what it deserves.

I would rather have Hillary, with her SMTP issues, than Trump with his KKK issues.

This is a manufactured non-issue if ever there was one, this is no different than the 9 year old that was accused of racism because he made a comment about a brownie. Hillary on the other hand put or national security at risk.

This is a Star of David:

SOD.png

Notice how it doesn't say anything about stickers
 
I have no idea what you just said , but if that image is all they are talking about, then this borders on the absurd.

EDIT: actually, no , it's fallen off the absurd cliff.

It fits within his pattern of behaviour. And his apologists.
 
Back
Top Bottom