Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 139 of 181 FirstFirst ... 3989129137138139140141149 ... LastLast
Results 2,071 to 2,085 of 2712
  1. #2071
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I mean that's subjective, considered by who? At the very least it had been part of his history in multiple ways (legally, the central park 5) and he then got his initial boost of momentum off pushing birthirism. So it was in his history and he took racist/bigoted approaches over the years/while campaigning to gain further support politically. I think it's reasonable to point this out when comparing them, Trump seemed to have wanted to further this approach in his campaigning which is on him and could by why more people connected the dots in his history to actually being racist as opposed to questionable instances.
    Birthism had nothing to do with race. That's one of those instances where injecting racism where it doesn't belong only makes real cases of racism go unnoticed.

  2. #2072
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,355
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    There's a difference between being a racist and having your company sued for racist pract8ces. I believe in this particular lawsuit, Trumps company was sued along with several others. It would be like saying McDonald's makes you fat and sue rat crock for fat shaming.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...-race.amp.html

    The Trump business was sued directly, and then after the case was settled they were sued again for continuing to discriminate after the agreement from the first lawsuit.

  3. #2073
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,355
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Birthism had nothing to do with race. That's one of those instances where injecting racism where it doesn't belong only makes real cases of racism go unnoticed.
    Why do you think Obama was the only Presidential candidate in history to have his citizenship questioned via his birth?

  4. #2074
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...-race.amp.html

    The Trump business was sued directly, and then after the case was settled they were sued again for continuing to discriminate after the agreement from the first lawsuit.
    Again, ray crock didnt spill coffee on that ladys lap either. A company being sued is different than a person.

  5. #2075
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,355
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Again, ray crock didnt spill coffee on that ladys lap either. A company being sued is different than a person.
    Sure, but itís literally his fatherís company and he worked directly with those apartments at that time the discrimination was occurring. He either was the most unaware manager in history, or he was complicit.

  6. #2076
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Why do you think Obama was the only Presidential candidate in history to have his citizenship questioned via his birth?
    Because his father wasnt born in the US. Id say his name had something to do with it as well. That may be prejudice but we aren't talking about a john smith here.

    Jesse Jackson ran for president and no one question his birth place.

  7. #2077
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Sure, but itís literally his fatherís company and he worked directly with those apartments at that time the discrimination was occurring. He either was the most unaware manager in history, or he was complicit.
    Also, i believe the company settled without the presumption of guilt. A company settling does not mean they are guilty.

  8. #2078
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    57,760
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Also, i believe the company settled without the presumption of guilt. A company settling does not mean they are guilty.
    Do you think they were innocent? If not what is your point?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  9. #2079
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12,119

    The Cult of Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Birthism had nothing to do with race. That's one of those instances where injecting racism where it doesn't belong only makes real cases of racism go unnoticed.
    I think pointing out his bigotry actually would be relevant in discussing if heís going to be largely viewed as racist if he also has previous issues too is the point (it also isnít for sure it wasnít based on race). If you have done racist things in the past and then actively push bigoted rhetoric/ideas in this way currently people can easily start perceiving what happened previously as more legitimate issue due to new context. The more borderline racist, clearly bigoted etc things he does and says and continues despite it being pointed out as an issue the more likely people are going to be to see it as an issue and call it out. The more popular he got using and continuing these tactics, the more it reinforced the questionable history as likely racism from trump.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-16-2021 at 05:41 PM.

  10. #2080
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    14,556
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    There's a difference between being a racist and having your company sued for racist pract8ces. I believe in this particular lawsuit, Trumps company was sued along with several others. It would be like saying McDonald's makes you fat and sue rat crock for fat shaming.
    But McDonald still sold you that Big Mac regardless of your color.. They didn't force you to buy the bruger that got you fat. What it does prove is a systemic racial discriminatory practices is wide spread within that industry. Thus the crack down to stop it. But some how to you, if your company does racial discrimination things, that doesn't make you a racist.


    Plus, as I understood the case there were a code word place on the application indicating the prospect where colored. So they had a system in place to discriminate against blacks.

    Besides if Trump was unaware of this, the first time fine should have waken his arse up and make changes so this wouldn't happen again. Guess what? It happen a second time. Either he had no control over his employees or he endorse the practice. If you pick the former, than we have another thread on how lousy a business man he is for letting his employees damage his company "good" name.
    Last edited by WES445; 05-16-2021 at 06:52 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  11. #2081
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    14,556
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Because his father wasnt born in the US. Id say his name had something to do with it as well. That may be prejudice but we aren't talking about a john smith here.

    Jesse Jackson ran for president and no one question his birth place.
    You just state the reason why they didn't pull that on Jackson, his father wasn't a foreigner and his name is american as apple pie.

    Dude, let it go. Defending an undefendable position will make a utter fool out of you.

    But please continue, I am sure it will get even funnier as you go.
    Last edited by WES445; 05-16-2021 at 06:37 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  12. #2082
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,279
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First Bolded: The thing that prevents them from equalizing them is because they frequency and severity is nowhere near the same. This is flawed logic. When one does it far more than the other, it is unfair to think of their behavior as equally as bad.
    You're missing my point. It's possible to s--t on two people. I agree with you that the frequency in which Trump would spew stupid stuff was higher than Biden. Where I would argue is that it has effective our laws to a greater degree than what Biden has done. Trump actually address a huge need for criminal justice... the sad part is, it was not even close to being enough. Biden never did anything for criminal justice reform but rather made it worse.

    You aren't getting my point if you bite your tongue on Biden but you're capable of seeing and speaking out on Trumps shortcomings. I'm glad you can see Trumps, but people who are sheep of a political team will only ever see one side and try to justify why the person on their team made fundamental mistakes. In this case, Biden's crime bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    The example I use is that everyone lies, but not everyone is considered a liar. It must pass a certain threshold for people to label you a liar as opposed to just someone who has lied.

    When it comes to lying and saying stupid things, Trump absolutely dwarfs Biden (or really most other politicians) in this regard.
    I agree that Trump is worse when it comes to stuff they say, but I would compare this to murder instead of a lie. If someone murders someone, even just one person, they are a murderer. What Biden passed was so toxic and harmful to Black community, yet he doesn't get any crap for it. This is swept under the rug and there is no justification for this no matter how many times you want to try by saying the Republicans wanted something worse. That not how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Second Bolded: The only reason Trump is not as guilty is because of the mechanisms and people in place who stop him from implementing what he wants. You shouldn't give credit to Trump for not passing stuff when his intent and desire was to pass worse stuff and other people stopped him. If Trump had carte blanche, he would have prohibited Muslims from entering the country and much worse. Intent matters.
    I think this is a somewhat fair point. I believe he does have people who would reel him back into reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Third Bolded: I agree the bill was bad. I'm not saying it should be immune from criticism. But you weren't criticizing the bill, you were partisanly using the bill to vilify Biden. I was pointing out the context so that your criticism could more reflect the reality as opposed to the fictional narrative that it was all Biden at fault (which is absolutely what you were trying to do).
    Biden helped write it though... He should get a lion's share of the blame for it. I acknowledge the problem existed prior to him, but that bill should have disqualified him from ever being VP and especially President. If we want criminal justice reform and police reform, we don't pick the guy who wrote the most discriminating and hurtful bill to the Black community in our lifetime.

    You tried using Republicans wanting a harsher bill as an excuse for Biden's racist and damaging bill, but that only proves Biden has a history of being a people pleaser and not a mind of his own. He either had a mind of his own and he fully believed in his bill, or he created a trash bill to appease the people to stay in office. Either way, he was a worse pick if criminal justice reform is at the top of our list.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Fourth Bolded: You can talk in all your independent language you want, based on the posts I've seen you are absolutely apart of a team and engage as such. A good litmus test is to look at people's posts who claims they are not on a side, if all their posts are in defense of one side and against another (as yours are), they are lying to either themselves or others.
    This is what people say to real independents though. I get told something similar all the time in real life. Conservatives think I'm a liberal, and liberals think I'm a conservative. When people ask me what I am politically, I just say I'm a social liberal, but fiscal conservative... but I might be the only fiscally conservative person who is for universal health care. I don't really fit in anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    We do agree on a lot, but I have yet to see you post of your own volition anything critical of anything conservative and have consistently posted against liberal or Democratic ideas and politicians. The only difference between how we think, is one is in denial about how they think.
    The most critical thing I have spoken out of conservatives: corporate welfare, catering to big pharma, allowing insurances to make billions upon billions screwing people out of health care, and the big push to convince everyone, included the Dems, to go into Iraq. If those discussions ever get brought up, I would tear a new hole into Republicans.
    2015 Bull's Mock Trade Game Championship Team

    San Antonio Spurs

    PG: Chris Paul | Patty Mills | Jose Calderon
    SG: Khris Middleton | J.J. Redick | Iman Shumpert
    SF: DeMarre Carroll | P.J. Tucker | Anthony Morrow
    PF: Tim Duncan | Carlos Boozer | Kyle O'Quinn
    C : Al Horford | Rudy Gobert

  13. #2083
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    98,548
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Because his father wasnt born in the US. Id say his name had something to do with it as well. That may be prejudice but we aren't talking about a john smith here.

    Jesse Jackson ran for president and no one question his birth place.
    You should look up where Mitt Romney's father was born...when you do, you'll see why no one is going to pay a moment's worth of credibility to the rest of this "post".
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  14. #2084
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Do you think they were innocent? If not what is your point?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    My point is companies settle without admitting guilt all the time because it's cheaper for them to do so.

  15. #2085
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    13,664
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I think pointing out his bigotry actually would be relevant in discussing if heís going to be largely viewed as racist if he also has previous issues too is the point (it also isnít for sure it wasnít based on race). If you have done racist things in the past and then actively push bigoted rhetoric/ideas in this way currently people can easily start perceiving what happened previously as more legitimate issue due to new context. The more borderline racist, clearly bigoted etc things he does and says and continues despite it being pointed out as an issue the more likely people are going to be to see it as an issue and call it out. The more popular he got using and continuing these tactics, the more it reinforced the questionable history as likely racism from trump.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    First of all, i think most people above a certain age (60-70) have done something throughout their life we would consider racist in 2021. Its whether or not you choose to put the label of "racist" on that person or not. It's why no one cares that biden has done racist stuff.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •