Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Trump’s words have consequences

Page 7 of 13 [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 2:52 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Your response to me talking about having a broader perspective of all things in general is to narrow your focus to a pinpoint.


Call me narrow minded, but you still choose not to answer my question.


Very narrow minded. No one has any control over who endorses them. I am certain many politicians and candidates have endorsements they do not want, nor do they acknowledge them.

And according to Politifact it is a false claim:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -endorsed/

But it seems pretty clear you are not interested in thinking outside your box and challenging what you are spoon-fed.


Even if the KKK periodical was not true, the fact remains that Trump has the support of Alt Right racists all over the country. We have their very testimony, such as the endorsement of Richard Spencer, the king Alt Right sh*t.


Spencer no longer supports Trump. Spencer and perhaps KKK supported Trump originally. But they have since withdrawn their support. Will you perhaps stop for a moment and think that through a little? Maybe go just a millimeter outside your box?


And yet they had supported the Cheeto. Ever care t ask yourself why that was? Or why other right wing racists still do today?


So far you have been wrong about who supports him currently. You obviously have not looked into it. Obviously they had expectations that did not pan out. What if Sanders ends up becoming the democrat who runs against the incumbent and a radical neo-Stalinist party endorses him? You would say it did not matter if some misguided fanatics think Sanders is going to deliver for them. In that case you would be applying logic. But logic should not be confined. It should be applied universally. Personally I am not going to vote based on partisanship. I am going weigh out both candidates with equal measure.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 5:38 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Your response to me talking about having a broader perspective of all things in general is to narrow your focus to a pinpoint.


Call me narrow minded, but you still choose not to answer my question.


Very narrow minded. No one has any control over who endorses them. I am certain many politicians and candidates have endorsements they do not want, nor do they acknowledge them.

And according to Politifact it is a false claim:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -endorsed/

But it seems pretty clear you are not interested in thinking outside your box and challenging what you are spoon-fed.


Even if the KKK periodical was not true, the fact remains that Trump has the support of Alt Right racists all over the country. We have their very testimony, such as the endorsement of Richard Spencer, the king Alt Right sh*t.


Spencer no longer supports Trump. Spencer and perhaps KKK supported Trump originally. But they have since withdrawn their support. Will you perhaps stop for a moment and think that through a little? Maybe go just a millimeter outside your box?


And yet they had supported the Cheeto. Ever care t ask yourself why that was? Or why other right wing racists still do today?


So far you have been wrong about who supports him currently. You obviously have not looked into it. Obviously they had expectations that did not pan out. What if Sanders ends up becoming the democrat who runs against the incumbent and a radical neo-Stalinist party endorses him? You would say it did not matter if some misguided fanatics think Sanders is going to deliver for them. In that case you would be applying logic. But logic should not be confined. It should be applied universally. Personally I am not going to vote based on partisanship. I am going weigh out both candidates with equal measure.


The difference is, Bernie I'm sure would flat out reject such an endorsement (as if radical Stalinists are a danger of any sort in modern America), whereas Trump refused to reject David Duke's endorsement, even saying he knew nothing about the KKK - - as if such a thing were possible. The thing is, I do know Trump. I have weighed how he courts bigots, has a personal history of fraud and deceit, and has a boner for totalitarian strongmen, and find him very lacking as an ideal candidate.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 6:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Your response to me talking about having a broader perspective of all things in general is to narrow your focus to a pinpoint.


Call me narrow minded, but you still choose not to answer my question.


Very narrow minded. No one has any control over who endorses them. I am certain many politicians and candidates have endorsements they do not want, nor do they acknowledge them.

And according to Politifact it is a false claim:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -endorsed/

But it seems pretty clear you are not interested in thinking outside your box and challenging what you are spoon-fed.


Even if the KKK periodical was not true, the fact remains that Trump has the support of Alt Right racists all over the country. We have their very testimony, such as the endorsement of Richard Spencer, the king Alt Right sh*t.


Spencer no longer supports Trump. Spencer and perhaps KKK supported Trump originally. But they have since withdrawn their support. Will you perhaps stop for a moment and think that through a little? Maybe go just a millimeter outside your box?


And yet they had supported the Cheeto. Ever care t ask yourself why that was? Or why other right wing racists still do today?


So far you have been wrong about who supports him currently. You obviously have not looked into it. Obviously they had expectations that did not pan out. What if Sanders ends up becoming the democrat who runs against the incumbent and a radical neo-Stalinist party endorses him? You would say it did not matter if some misguided fanatics think Sanders is going to deliver for them. In that case you would be applying logic. But logic should not be confined. It should be applied universally. Personally I am not going to vote based on partisanship. I am going weigh out both candidates with equal measure.


The difference is, Bernie I'm sure would flat out reject such an endorsement (as if radical Stalinists are a danger of any sort in modern America), whereas Trump refused to reject David Duke's endorsement, even saying he knew nothing about the KKK - - as if such a thing were possible. The thing is, I do know Trump. I have weighed how he courts bigots, has a personal history of fraud and deceit, and has a boner for totalitarian strongmen, and find him very lacking as an ideal candidate.


Your agument has been reduced to that since Trump did not specifically do something a certain way that makes him guilty, which is utter nonsense. This is why I take stff said agaist Trump by liberals with a big grain of salt. Your statements have been inaccurate and ridiculous.

By the way: Trump rebukes David Duke 'as quick as you can say it'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 6:38 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Your response to me talking about having a broader perspective of all things in general is to narrow your focus to a pinpoint.


Call me narrow minded, but you still choose not to answer my question.


Very narrow minded. No one has any control over who endorses them. I am certain many politicians and candidates have endorsements they do not want, nor do they acknowledge them.

And according to Politifact it is a false claim:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -endorsed/

But it seems pretty clear you are not interested in thinking outside your box and challenging what you are spoon-fed.


Even if the KKK periodical was not true, the fact remains that Trump has the support of Alt Right racists all over the country. We have their very testimony, such as the endorsement of Richard Spencer, the king Alt Right sh*t.


Spencer no longer supports Trump. Spencer and perhaps KKK supported Trump originally. But they have since withdrawn their support. Will you perhaps stop for a moment and think that through a little? Maybe go just a millimeter outside your box?


And yet they had supported the Cheeto. Ever care t ask yourself why that was? Or why other right wing racists still do today?


So far you have been wrong about who supports him currently. You obviously have not looked into it. Obviously they had expectations that did not pan out. What if Sanders ends up becoming the democrat who runs against the incumbent and a radical neo-Stalinist party endorses him? You would say it did not matter if some misguided fanatics think Sanders is going to deliver for them. In that case you would be applying logic. But logic should not be confined. It should be applied universally. Personally I am not going to vote based on partisanship. I am going weigh out both candidates with equal measure.


The difference is, Bernie I'm sure would flat out reject such an endorsement (as if radical Stalinists are a danger of any sort in modern America), whereas Trump refused to reject David Duke's endorsement, even saying he knew nothing about the KKK - - as if such a thing were possible. The thing is, I do know Trump. I have weighed how he courts bigots, has a personal history of fraud and deceit, and has a boner for totalitarian strongmen, and find him very lacking as an ideal candidate.


Your agument has been reduced to that since Trump did not specifically do something a certain way that makes him guilty, which is utter nonsense. This is why I take stff said agaist Trump by liberals with a big grain of salt. Your statements have been inaccurate and ridiculous.

By the way: Trump rebukes David Duke 'as quick as you can say it'

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html


He rebuked Duke only when pressed by the mainstream media. Had he not been, he would never have backed down.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 7:58 am

I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.



Shabrem
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2020
Posts: 96

19 Feb 2020, 4:55 pm

EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 5:02 pm

EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


He damn well knew who Duke was. How could anyone who watches TV as much as Trump not know? That's unless you want to make an argument for Trump suffering from dementia.
Trump holds much of his constituency in contempt, and so believes they'll secretly have sympathy for Duke, especially if they're poor whites. Hence, the reason why he wouldn't speak out against Duke for a time is he believed he would alienate part off his base, even if anyone else would realize that isn't reality.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 5:06 pm

Sorry, double post.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Last edited by Kraichgauer on 19 Feb 2020, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 5:11 pm

Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


Trump isn't exceptionally smart, but he is a con man who looks for weakness and gullibility where he thinks it is. And where he believes race hatred is is among his poor and working class supporters, because he doesn't think them capable of anything else. We know his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had privately defended Trump to friends when they had objected to Trump's racist birtherism, saying he personally knows it's not true, but was trying to appeal to bigotry to build his political cred.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Shabrem
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2020
Posts: 96

19 Feb 2020, 6:05 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


Trump isn't exceptionally smart, but he is a con man who looks for weakness and gullibility where he thinks it is. And where he believes race hatred is is among his poor and working class supporters, because he doesn't think them capable of anything else.


You are entitled to your opinion. I don't share it, however.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 9:04 pm

Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


He doesn't. But it is vitally important to the democrats that he be associated with them. And also that they are seen as a gigantic threat "the US is crawling with rabid racists". That is why Kraichgauer talks about racism several times a day 7 days a week. He is basically a CNN bot.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 9:24 pm

EzraS wrote:
Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


He doesn't. But it is vitally important to the democrats that he be associated with them. And also that they are seen as a gigantic threat "the US is crawling with rabid racists". That is why Kraichgauer talks about racism several times a day 7 days a week. He is basically a CNN bot.


Of course the Klan are a marginalized group, and so are the multitude of other hate groups. And yet the FBI recognizes them collectively as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat currently in America. Oh, that's right, the FBI are part of the deep state conspiracy, aren't they? :P :P :P
It's been said the new racism is denial that it's still a problem in our country. It's just that group of people with such a belief who make up Trump's base.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 9:53 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


He doesn't. But it is vitally important to the democrats that he be associated with them. And also that they are seen as a gigantic threat "the US is crawling with rabid racists". That is why Kraichgauer talks about racism several times a day 7 days a week. He is basically a CNN bot.


Of course the Klan are a marginalized group, and so are the multitude of other hate groups. And yet the FBI recognizes them collectively as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat currently in America. Oh, that's right, the FBI are part of the deep state conspiracy, aren't they? :P :P :P
It's been said the new racism is denial that it's still a problem in our country. It's just that group of people with such a belief who make up Trump's base.


No the new racism is the pretense that it is totally out of control and that we need democrats running the entire government to save us from it. The new racism is the political exploitation of it by the left. And you as such a loyal unquestioning follower therefore talk about it several times a day seven days a week like someone with a pathological obsession.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Feb 2020, 9:55 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


He doesn't. But it is vitally important to the democrats that he be associated with them. And also that they are seen as a gigantic threat "the US is crawling with rabid racists". That is why Kraichgauer talks about racism several times a day 7 days a week. He is basically a CNN bot.


Of course the Klan are a marginalized group, and so are the multitude of other hate groups. And yet the FBI recognizes them collectively as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat currently in America. Oh, that's right, the FBI are part of the deep state conspiracy, aren't they? :P :P :P
It's been said the new racism is denial that it's still a problem in our country. It's just that group of people with such a belief who make up Trump's base.


No the new racism is the pretense that it is totally out of control and that we need democrats running the entire government to save us from it. The new racism is the political exploitation of it by the left. And you as such a loyal unquestioning follower therefore talk about it several times a day seven days a week like someone with a pathological obsession.


From your last post - I don't think the word "racism" means what you think it means.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

19 Feb 2020, 10:09 pm

We are talking about the new version of it.



Shabrem
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2020
Posts: 96

19 Feb 2020, 10:59 pm

EzraS wrote:
Shabrem wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I did a half assed look into that. He actually denounced Duke back in 2000. When asked about Duke 16 years later he said he would have to figure out who Duke was before making an offcial statement. Now one can either come up with a conspiracy theory for that or chalk it up to Trump not keeping track of everyone, which he has been pretty consistent with. The accusations from the left of him being in league with the KKK alt.right etc is simply insubstantial.


Isn't the KKK a fringe group?
I imagine there wouldn't be many votes in it from that area, and the political damage wouldn't be worth it.
I think Trump is politically smarter than to actively align himself to such an extremist group.


He doesn't. But it is vitally important to the democrats that he be associated with them. And also that they are seen as a gigantic threat "the US is crawling with rabid racists". That is why Kraichgauer talks about racism several times a day 7 days a week. He is basically a CNN bot.


Kraichgauer does seem to be quite politically partisan.