TheBigIguana
Player Valuation: £100m
I know I'm going to be told that but whatever that list is extensive and everything has a link to somewhere else. He said he likes links.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Haha. The New York Times is a left center source, but their information is heavily fact checked and usually very reliable.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
I note with interest the article is positioned under the "opinion" section
Just playing. You and @verreauxi have a case, certainly. I'm happy to agree or at least understand where yous are coming from. I agree he has brash, obnoxious, disrespectful, wild and childish views on non-white people. Actual racist? It's not easy to disagree. My big things for would be David Duke's & Roseanne Barr's endorsement and Trump being anti the bend-the-knee protests, plus the things yous have linked. Against? That he's just plain stupid? Gotta admit the case for looks stronger. Tho' this video supports the "stupid" angle:
I also found this from 1989, tho' I don't think it qualifies as "racist", but it does reveal Trump was foaming at the mouth wanting blood even back then. For the record I'm 100% against the death penalty in all cases, but for harsh penalties for harsh crimes.
I note with interest the article is positioned under the "opinion" section
Just playing. You and @verreauxi have a case, certainly. I'm happy to agree or at least understand where yous are coming from. I agree he has brash, obnoxious, disrespectful, wild and childish views on non-white people. Actual racist? It's not easy to disagree. My big things for would be David Duke's & Roseanne Barr's endorsement and Trump being anti the bend-the-knee protests, plus the things yous have linked. Against? That he's just plain stupid? Gotta admit the case for looks stronger. Tho' this video supports the "stupid" angle:
I also found this from 1989, tho' I don't think it qualifies as "racist", but it does reveal Trump was foaming at the mouth wanting blood even back then. For the record I'm 100% against the death penalty in all cases, but for harsh penalties for harsh crimes.
So Trump hasn't said anything racist, but you were quick to pull the racism card wrongly when someone used the word white to accurately describe a photo.
The logic hoops you jump through to be a contrarian are wild and entertaining.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
What gives you the idea I don't think he's said anything racist? I asked for evidence. The first post came up short, but the second one delivered the goods.
Some of yous have very strange ways of debating. Yous don't read properly, then accuse the other of not reading properly. Yous avoid the point, then accuse the other of avoiding the point. And I bet money yous don't even realise you're doing it.
Case in point, the post you replied to and quoted where you imply I said Trump hasn't said anything racist was this, and I've marked in bold where I essentially agree he's saying racist things.
Psychologists would have a field day in this thread.
Selective quoting how lame. I really enjoyed the part where you pulled the racism card wrongly and didn't have the nerve to admit you made a mistake.
Funny how that didn't make your multiple quoting of my post. Afraid to admit you were wrong or afraid to admit you weren't?
I note with interest the article is positioned under the "opinion" section
Just playing. You and @verreauxi have a case, certainly. I'm happy to agree or at least understand where yous are coming from. I agree he has brash, obnoxious, disrespectful, wild and childish views on non-white people. Actual racist? It's not easy to disagree. My big things for would be David Duke's & Roseanne Barr's endorsement and Trump being anti the bend-the-knee protests, plus the things yous have linked. Against? That he's just plain stupid? Gotta admit the case for looks stronger. Tho' this video supports the "stupid" angle:
I also found this from 1989, tho' I don't think it qualifies as "racist", but it does reveal Trump was foaming at the mouth wanting blood even back then. For the record I'm 100% against the death penalty in all cases, but for harsh penalties for harsh crimes.
Snopes did a piece on him here it is. all of the incidents well before he was president of perceived racism.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-racist-meme/
Randell Pinkett a winner of the apprentice has also accused him of racism. It is said that Trump never wanted him as the winner of the apprentice and called him the N word during the show and also lazy. Google his name there are articles before and after Trump became the Potus. I'm sure his comments will be ignored seen as he went onto work for Cory Booker.
There are many more examples from various legitimate news sources.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
"Selective quoting" when I quote your entire relevant post, correct you on your mistake and ignore irrelevant mention of an entirely different thread. You then focus on that irrelevancy instead of what we're supposed to be discussing (I stand by what I said in that thread, by the way).
I think this is what the kids call trolling. Either that, or I fear for your brain cells.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Who's Cory Booker?
Anyway, I'm roughly on board with yous regarding Trump's crappy attitude towards non-white people. As I said earlier.
A Democrat who serves in the senate.
I gathered you didn't know who he was, that comment is directed at the right leaning American folk on here, who would likely dismiss Randell Pinkett's claim due to him being a democrat.
Wow. @Groucho
He's standing by his stance that invoking the word white to accurately describe a photo as racist is OK in his book.
Holliday you are a blatant racist apologist. You defend them to the hilt to try to prove a point that the left in the world has gone too far in your eyes and have done it wrong along the way.
I like that you've gone back to actual debate rather than spending your life defending a weird Canadian who offers nothing new...hardly a nuance if you step back and actually listen.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Now you're tagging in a mod to try to win an argument from another thread? Poor form. And you're inaccurately describing the offending post too. And now you're calling me a "blatant racist apologist", saying I "defend them to the hilt" which is really poor form, and totally innacurate.
Disappointed in you.
As I said previously, the posts in question were not racist.
Seeing as you say you stand by your false accusations of racism, there’s three options on the table - agree to disagree and drop it, take it to PM, or accept the infraction points for continuing to falsely accuse someone of racism.
It’s ok to disagree with folk without following up with accusations, and it’s also on to admit to being wrong.
I expect this to be the end of it and will not look favourably on any replies to this in any form. No one wants to read squabbles.
End of.
*bed
I've tried to put in some more signposts so you can see what I'm talking about. Under Trump's bill, when taking into account the effects of the bill in toto, low earners are worse off:
To be clear, this is NOT a partisan analysis, you can go here to see for yourself:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/11...estimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdf
The above link is to a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that studied Trump's tax bill. Scroll down to page 10 and look at the chart; it shows that low earners for each yearly column are paying more into the Federal revenues (meaning they're being taxed more, when taking into account what the government spends on them) than wealthy people (more simply: negative numbers mean being taxed less, positive numbers mean being taxed more). This occurs (mostly) because the tax cuts are packaged along with the repeal of the individual healthcare mandate, so people opting not to buy health insurance would no longer receive tax credits to do so; thus Trump's tax bill+ repeal of individual health care mandate is analyzed for its overall effects on different income brackets. All bipartisan reports (by the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT) point to overall negative effect for low earners, even if it is the case that low earners might pay less in taxes over the next few years. Some Republicans had cried foul as to why the effects of tax cuts and health care repeal were analyzed together, but in fact, this is a House Concurrent Resolution (meaning it was approved by both House and Senate) that was Republican sponsored, of which the relevant portion is below:
"...the Joint Committee on Taxation to the Congressional Budget Office...for major legislation considered in the Senate shall, to the greatest extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such major legislation."
So when you wrote, "It's a fact there are benefits for low earners" this is neither true nor tribalism, only simple facts that are backed up by bipartisan reports by the JCT and CBO.
- Status