What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Donald Trump for President thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Olaf said:
Once you start mixing people who are more different both culturally and genetically...
Click to expand...
- Things the real Olaf would never say.

I don't know about other people but you'd be shocked I've heard this one before, right? This is soft-core eugenics, not (just) racism, eugenics; Duke has peddled it for 40 years now, but Tim is right about its ultimate older derivation, and I swear every time I see it online I think the poster thinks he is the first person to ever try this. Pernicious stuff. Get thee to a chaplain.

 
timschochet said:
Olaf said:
No, they're the same thing because people have different genetic traits and different cultures.  Even if you ask drastically different people to melt into a shared society under a melting pot theory rather than a multicultural approach, drastically different people will be unable to do so as fluidly as people with greater similarities.

People argue that "America is a nation of immigrants."  That's true, but prior to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 nearly all of those immigrants were European and Christian.   In other words, they were genetically and culturally relatively similar.

Once you start mixing people who are more different both culturally and genetically you'll naturally have more difficulty integrating them no matter what model you use.  This is common sense.  All studies support it, and empirical and anecdotal evidence supports it.

I'm not sure why people feel compelled to deny what both research and life shows, but denial coupled with repression of dissenting views will only lead to even greater future conflict.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is a community condensation: IMO

I must be way beyond the curve, because I always figured if you treat me right I'll treat you right.   Why is that so hard to understand for black or white.? 

 
irishidiot said:
I agree.  I don't think that ever was the issue.
Click to expand...
It is with Trump. From the conservative site RedState:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/trump-doubles-racist-attacks-gonzalo-curiel-video/

Trump Doubles Down on Racist Attacks Against Gonzalo Curiel (VIDEO) [...]

CNN just now aired this clip of Trump with Jake Tapper, and you should watch it now in its entirety, because it is truly something to behold.

(video of Tapper interview with Trump at link)

Repeatedly, Trump makes the directly contradictory claims that a) he can have electoral success with Hispanic voters, and b) this judge cannot be trusted to rule fairly where is concerned because he is “Mexican” and Trump supports building a wall. The part of the human brain that controls logic is apparently missing in Trump’s, because if his position on the wall means that no Mexicans can do anything other than hate him, then he is not going to win the Hispanic vote.

But more to the point, Tapper asks him, twice, the most important and self evident question ever: “You say he cannot do his job because he’s Mexican. Isn’t that the dictionary definition of racism?” The first time Trump stumbles around the question. The second time, he answers “I don’t think so,” but never offers a reason why.

Free hint for Trump: yes it is the dictionary definition of racism. If you don’t understand that, maybe that’s why you are under the mistaken belief that you are not a racist.

 
squistion said:
It is with Trump. From the conservative site RedState:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/trump-doubles-racist-attacks-gonzalo-curiel-video/

Trump Doubles Down on Racist Attacks Against Gonzalo Curiel (VIDEO) [...]

CNN just now aired this clip of Trump with Jake Tapper, and you should watch it now in its entirety, because it is truly something to behold.

(video of Tapper interview with Trump at link)

Repeatedly, Trump makes the directly contradictory claims that a) he can have electoral success with Hispanic voters, and b) this judge cannot be trusted to rule fairly where is concerned because he is “Mexican” and Trump supports building a wall. The part of the human brain that controls logic is apparently missing in Trump’s, because if his position on the wall means that no Mexicans can do anything other than hate him, then he is not going to win the Hispanic vote.

But more to the point, Tapper asks him, twice, the most important and self evident question ever: “You say he cannot do his job because he’s Mexican. Isn’t that the dictionary definition of racism?” The first time Trump stumbles around the question. The second time, he answers “I don’t think so,” but never offers a reason why.

Free hint for Trump: yes it is the dictionary definition of racism. If you don’t understand that, maybe that’s why you are under the mistaken belief that you are not a racist.
Click to expand...
Mexicans are not a race.

 
Jim11 said:
Mexicans are not a race.
Click to expand...
True. But Donald has beaten around the racism bush by previously saying Curiel " happens to be Spanish" or calling him "Hispanic". He's a Hoosier who was born in east Chicago. What's the point Donald?

By the way, Curiel is a former prosecutor whose was life was threatened by a Mexican cartel due to a heroin smuggling case. I don't think any Republicans are backing up Trump at all on this case.   

 
squistion said:
Yep, he really said it:

Dr. Tom Martin Ph.D. ‏@DrTomMartinPhD 18m18 minutes ago

Donald Trump on racial statements: Judge Curiel, "What I said isn't racist because "Mexican" isn't a race." #Maddow
Click to expand...
Taking this at face value, ethnic hatred and nationalism is actually worse than racism. Ask Yugoslavia or a myriad of countries where we have seen wars and civil wars over ethnicity. This is something new and horrible in America and creates a problem where there was none. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By contrast, Barrett’s series was the first to take a fine-tooth comb to Trump’s business practices. The reporter focused on two prominent development projects — the Hyatt Hotel in midtown and a proposed convention center on the West Side — and plumbed them in meticulous detail.

The two projects, now 40 years in the past, may seem like ancient history. But they were, in many ways, the deals that made Trump who he is today. He cited these same projects when he announced his candidacy back in June, recounting that “after four or five years in Brooklyn, I ventured into Manhattan and did a lot of great deals — the Grand Hyatt Hotel. I was responsible for the convention center on the West Side. I did a lot of great deals, and I did them early and young.

“I made it the old-fashioned way,” Trump said of his fortune.

But Barrett’s reporting paints a picture of Trump’s background that’s somewhat at odds with the one he paints for himself. Far from that of a self-made billionaire, the image of Trump that emerges from Barrett’s reporting is that of a scion of a wealthy family who got ahead, in large part, thanks to family connections — many of them political. Far from an independent capitalist, Barrett showed, Trump was a businessman who relied heavily on government largesse. “This is a guy whose wealth has been created by political connections,” Barrett says today. And at the time the story was published, even Trump’s political connections came secondhand, through his father. The idea that Trump is a business-world antidote to the world of political entanglement, as he often implies, is “ludicrous,” as Barrett puts it.

The articles described how then-mayor Beame and others at the top of the political establishment bent over backward for Trump to help him develop a property owned by the Penn Central Transportation Company into what was to be a multimillion-dollar convention center. Through hefty tax incentives and guaranteed loans, the city offered the young developer a chance to leverage public risk for his own private profit — without putting up a dollar of his own.
Click to expand...
Trump did make it 'the old-fashioned way' - through family and political connections and government spending.

 
Trump's problem is not so much what he's done, but how he's done it. I decided at the start that I wanted to profile him by describing his deals — not his lifestyle or his personality. After getting to know him, I realized that his deals are his life. He once told me: "I won't make a deal just to make a profit. It has to have flair." Another Manhattan developer said it differently: "Trump won't do a deal unless there's something extra — a kind of moral larceny — in it. He's not satisfied with a profit. He has to take something more. Otherwise, there's no thrill."
Click to expand...

 
cstu said:
You are doing nothing but promoting white supremacist propaganda.  Of course there are biological differences between people but of the tiny 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals 90% of the variation is within a continent and only 10% more between continents.
Click to expand...
There is only a tiny difference between us and chimpanzees too. I'm not well-versed in this branch of science, but there are enough peer-reviewed journals cited here that the body of work seems more scientific than political.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Olaf said:
people have different genetic traits
Click to expand...
And what are those?
Click to expand...


Olaf said:
The sociologists who tell you that there is no biological basis in race or biological differences among races are agenda driven charlatans.
Click to expand...
Ok I looked at the meticulous links and you really did not answer the question, or at least not what I meant. I don't think all that helps you if we can't differentiate the races as you claim. It's all pointless if you cannot identify people by race in the first place.

How do you, personally or scientifically, go about identifying someone by race? Do you have some handy guide for telling what "race" someone belongs to in the first place?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
Trump did make it 'the old-fashioned way' - through family and political connections and government spending.
Click to expand...
I think I posted that article further up this thread or in one of the now defunct ones. The 1978 VV profile is terrific.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
His tendency to view things to his own advantage was made clear to me when I asked him about campaign contributions. He told me he had not contributed to Beame's 1977 campaign. To do so, he said, would have been a conflict because of the Commodore and convention-center deals. But I found $5,000 in Trump-company contributions to the Beame deficit filed at the Board of Elections in 1978.

He angrily denied that he'd ever given a dime to Ohrenstein individually or to his campaign for Senate majority and threatened to sue anyone who said he did. The Trump organization was among the largest contributors to Ohrenstein individually one year and helped bankroll his campaign for Senate majority. Does he lapse into his fiercest denial when he just doesn't know? When I confronted him on the Beame and Ohrenstein contributions, he said the donations must have come from his father.
Click to expand...
 
Same old crap, 40 years ago.
 
timschochet said:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/6/4/11858064/donald-trump-mohammed-ali?client=safari#

Trump: What Muslim athletes? 
Click to expand...
Bernie just briefly mentioned the hypocrisy of Trump regarding his tweet on the death of Mohammed Ali, a Muslim sports hero. There are so many contrasts between Trump and Ali, from their reactions to the Vietnam war, to the way they used their positions of power and oratory skills. This is the ultimate pandering by Trump to try and take advantage of someone's death. Completely self-serving.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok I looked at the meticulous links and you really did not answer the question, or at least not what I meant. I don't think all that helps you if we can't differentiate the races as you claim. It's all pointless if you cannot identify people by race in the first place.

How do you, personally or scientifically, go about identifying someone by race? Do you have some handy guide for telling what "race" someone belongs to in the first place?
Click to expand...
They seem to have no problem in forensic anthropology. There are genetic variations between what we think of as races.

 
SoBeDad said:
Bernie just briefly mentioned the hypocrisy of Trump regarding his tweet on the death of Mohammed Ali, a Muslim sports hero. There are so many contrasts between Trump and Ali, from their reactions to the Vietnam war, to the way they used their positions of power and oratory skills. This is the ultimate pandering by Trump to try and take advantage of someone's death. Completely self-serving.   
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. But this also goes for the 60% of Republicans who support Trump's idea of banning all Muslims from coming here. That's bigotry against a religion, plain and simple, and they don't get to hold that attitude and at the same time mourn Muhammad Ali. It's BS. 

 
bueno said:
They seem to have no problem in forensic anthropology. There are genetic variations between what we think of as races.
Click to expand...
Define them then.

No point to all this racial social engineering if you can't define who belongs to what race and you can't write or enforce a legislative policy unless you legislatively define the races identified and affected.

Please proceed.

 
SoBeDad said:
Bernie just briefly mentioned the hypocrisy of Trump regarding his tweet on the death of Mohammed Ali, a Muslim sports hero. There are so many contrasts between Trump and Ali, from their reactions to the Vietnam war, to the way they used their positions of power and oratory skills. This is the ultimate pandering by Trump to try and take advantage of someone's death. Completely self-serving.   
Click to expand...
Ali is a sports hero that happens to be Muslim. That is subtly different from a Muslim sports hero. He was a sports hero before he was a Muslim BTW.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Define them then.

No point to all this racial social engineering if you can't define who belongs to what race and you can't write or enforce a legislative policy unless you legislatively define the races identified and affected.

Please proceed.
Click to expand...
Do your own research, You can find basic discussion even on something as crappy as Wiki.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The anger that I have received in the Muhammad Ali thread (two people have asked me to die, others have called me all sorts of names) has, I suspect, very little to do with me or with the death of Muhammad Ali. 

What it has to do with is conservatives wanting to have their cake and eat it too. This is a much larger issue than Trump's bigotry towards Muslims and the death of our greatest American Muslim. Conservatives have chosen a bigot and an idiot as their nominee for President, and now they want to pretend that it's all good, that they (conservatives and Republicans) should be treated as normal, given the respect is afforded to one the two great political parties in this country. They want the rest of us to treat Donald Trump as a normal nominee for President, deserving of all respect, and they want us to treat conservatives as deserving of all respect. And any suggestion that they don't deserve this any more is treated with rage. Because deep down they know they screwed up here, they know they are supporting a bigoted buffoon. And they resent being reminded of it. 

 
timschochet said:
The anger that I have received in the Muhammad Ali thread (two people have asked me to die, others have called me all sorts of names) has, I suspect, very little to do with me or with the death of Muhammad Ali. 

What it has to do with is conservatives wanting to have their cake and eat it too. This is a much larger issue than Trump's bigotry towards Muslims and the death of our greatest American Muslim. Conservatives have chosen a bigot and an idiot as their nominee for President, and now they want to pretend that it's all good, that they (conservatives and Republicans) should be treated as normal, given the respect is afforded to one the two great political parties in this country. They want the rest of us to treat Donald Trump as a normal nominee for President, deserving of all respect, and they want us to treat conservatives as deserving of all respect. And any suggestion that they don't deserve this any more is treated with rage. Because deep down they know they screwed up here, they know they are supporting a bigoted buffoon. And they resent being reminded of it. 
Click to expand...
You just don't get it. 

 
timschochet said:
The anger that I have received in the Muhammad Ali thread (two people have asked me to die, others have called me all sorts of names) has, I suspect, very little to do with me or with the death of Muhammad Ali. 

What it has to do with is conservatives wanting to have their cake and eat it too. This is a much larger issue than Trump's bigotry towards Muslims and the death of our greatest American Muslim. Conservatives have chosen a bigot and an idiot as their nominee for President, and now they want to pretend that it's all good, that they (conservatives and Republicans) should be treated as normal, given the respect is afforded to one the two great political parties in this country. They want the rest of us to treat Donald Trump as a normal nominee for President, deserving of all respect, and they want us to treat conservatives as deserving of all respect. And any suggestion that they don't deserve this any more is treated with rage. Because deep down they know they screwed up here, they know they are supporting a bigoted buffoon. And they resent being reminded of it. 
Click to expand...
While there shouldn't be people saying you should die..

That commentary was foolish in that thread.

 
bueno said:
Ali is a sports hero that happens to be Muslim. That is subtly different from a Muslim sports hero. He was a sports hero before he was a Muslim BTW.
Click to expand...
Just wrong.

Cassius Clay was a good athlete, but certainly not a sports hero. Muhammad Ali was a sports and social hero because of sports and politics. And his politics were absolutely due to his religion. 

You are in denial if you think he is a hero that "happened to be Muslim". 

 
 


Donald Trump Tweets Photo Featuring Fake Photo of Black Trump Supporters


It just wouldn’t be a day without Donald Trump doing something lousy on Twitter, but the presumptive Republican presidential nominee got an early start Saturday morning by retweeting a photo meme of a black family with the caption “Thank You Mr. Trump for Standing up for Our Country!”


Donald J. Trump


 
✔ @realDonaldTrump



"@Don_Vito_08: Thank You Mr. Trump for Standing up for Our Country! #VoteTrump2016 JOIN ME ON THE #TrumpTrain http://twitter.com/Don_Vito_08/status/739075864793653248/photo/1pic.twitter.com/zgopGvSEen "


7:49 AM - 4 Jun 2016




The only problem is, that photo is not of a family that supports Trump, it’s from a family reunion in Cincinnati, and the family in the picture told Buzzfeed they definitely don’t support Trump:


Eddie Perrry said the picture of his family that Trump shared was “misleading” and “taken out of context.”

“I’m not saying there aren’t black families who endorse Trump,” he said, “however, this black family didn’t endorse anyone.”



If the name on that retweet looks familiar to you, it’s because that Twitter account was also the source for this now-infamous tweet:  ...
Click to expand...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trump-tweets-photo-featuring-fake-photo-of-black-trump-supporters/

Mark Czerniec ‏@MarkCzerniec 11h11 hours ago
Mark Czerniec Retweeted Donald J. Trump

Seriously shameful: Trump's retweeted photo of "supporters" was lifted from @WCPO http://bit.ly/1U10VvT
Click to expand...

- This is getting quite bizarre and very, very sketchy.

 
 
Gregory Cheadle, a Republican California congressional candidate, confirmed to CNN he was the supporter to whom Trump pointed. He said he was not offended by Trump's comment.
"The overwhelming majority of people felt offense, which kind of startled me. Wow, we're so polarized and sensitive in this country now. It's frightening," Cheadle said Saturday.
Cheadle added he was glad Trump is giving attention to black issues, pointing to Trump's pledge to bring down unemployment among African-Americans.
"I was thrilled that he gave blacks positive press by talking about one of the (supporters) that was at his event ... a black guy who beat up a white guy at his rally," Cheadle said.
 
Click to expand...
 
:lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's got to be a way the GOP can get out of this.   There's no way they can put this guy on stage at the convention.  6 more weeks of his insanity on display and then they're going to throw a big party for the guy and try to convince voters how great he is?   :loco:

 
We are now going on day 3 since HRC tore Trump apart calling him unstable, unprepared, unift and ignorant and still not 1 single GOP official has come to his defense. The RNC will be a #### show...

 
tone1oc said:
"I don't have thin skin, I have very strong, very thick skin okay"
Click to expand...
and then went on to brag about his books, reality TV shows, and real estate to demonstrate his strong temperament.  Didn't bring up Trump U though...

He also again claimed he was against the Iraq war, which there's no evidence to back up...in fact, to the contrary:

Others have looked, but no one else — including PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker — has been able to find any evidence to support his claims, either. Now, BuzzFeed reports that Trump indicated his support for war in a radio interview with shock jock Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002 — a little more than six months before the war started.

Stern asked Trump directly if he supported going to war with Iraq, and Trump hesitantly responded, “Yeah, I guess so.”
Click to expand...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChiefD
⚽️⚽️⚽️OFFICIAL - MLS PLAYOFF THREAD - ⚽️⚽️⚽️
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
NewlyRetired
NewlyRetired
gianmarco
***Official Links to Funny Posts***
Replies
1
Views
95
gianmarco
gianmarco
Anarchy99
Top 250 Best Selling Rock Albums (1967 - 1981)
12 13 14
Replies
675
Views
15K
zamboni
zamboni

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top