We had posters in here who bought China propaganda? Wow
You don’t understand the words you use, huh? Amplified isn’t created. Trump was called a white supremacist from the onset, due to his first foray into the media was over a racial discrimination suit and a father who was arrested at a KKK rally, then went after the Central Park 5 calling for their deaths and then when they proved they weren’t responsible, he didn’t care.
Of course, you’re stating that as a projection considering all the Russian misinformation you hold so dearly.
Show me 1 article written about Trump, prior to the day he walked down the escalator to announce his run, where he was called a racist, white supremacist or any other racially pejorative description.
1 story. And then I’ll accept your premise.
1973 - the very first time he was ever quoted in a paper. How’s that
Warden, here’s a hint: He’ll never accept your premise.
GSC claims to be a fact-seeker, but he ignores what goes against his thinking, and he forgives a lot in whatever agrees with him.
Lol - what was the ruling to this federal case and why didn’t anyone ever accuse him of this for the next 50 years?
There’s an old saying in logic. The EXCEPTION PROVES THE RULE.
One claim in 50 years. Then, he runs for office and suddenly 8,000,000,000,000 claims. Use your brain son. Youse your brain!
That’s not at all what this saying means, but don’t feel bad - almost nobody uses it correctly.
I only mention the above to say that using a saying incorrectly hardly proves your point.
It’s absolutely what the expression means.
When you find an anomaly is proves the contrary.
The guy found ONE… ONE article in Trump’s lifetime before he ran for office that claims his company (not even him mind you) committed discrimination. In the 70’s.
Proves my point.
If Trump were a known racist all these rappers and entertainers wouldn’t be caught dead with him… but he may be the most iconic man in the nation and everyone loved him.
Before he ran. Before he revealed his politics.
Disgusting and you guys fell for it because China and our deepstate pushed it.
No, that doesn’t make sense.
You’re saying, “Look, this early incident of racism proves Trump isn’t racist.” That’s nonsensical. (And btw, I didn’t read those sources and don’t personally think of Trump as racist.)
You asked him to find something before he entered politics. You can’t blame him for going old.
If his was an exhaustive search and he couldn’t find anything else, then you might have a point, but he had no obligation to give you every incident that existed.
Related, but your challenge to him asked him for “1” source. You asked him for “1” source TWICE. Which means he fulfilled your challenge.
Look at what happened. You asked him specifically for “1” source, and when he gives you “1” you say, “ha, since it’s only “1” that means it doesn’t count!” In other words, ANY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION WOULD’VE BEEN INSUFFICIENT.
It’s still a technically incorrect usage of the phrase “the exception that proves the rule.” There is no rule being proved here, and an incident of possible racism is hardly proof that someone is not racist.
It absolutely does.
What I’m actually saying is 1 example of something over 50 years, that is followed by, not only the absence of more of that thing, but the opposite of that thing, proves my point.
The exception proves the rule.
If Trump were a racist in 73, he’d have been a racist in 75, and 81, and 87, and 92, and 2001, and 2011… but guess what. No one ever thought that.
Because my argument is much more powerful than yours. I have 50 years of evidence to prove it.
They did. Further, you asked for 1 single example, which you were provided, and then you dismissed because - as always, you show you don’t actually have any integrity. It’s your baseline.
He was called a racist throughout the 80s and 90s…from hiring practices, to the central park 5 cases, etc.
Like always, you show you have no conviction, no principles and zero integrity.
WRONG - I didn’t find 1. You asked for 1. You received. it. You dismissed it because again, you’re without a shred of integrity, whatsoever.
Your exact words: Show me 1 article written about Trump, prior to the day he walked down the escalator to announce his run, where he was called a racist, white supremacist or any other racially pejorative description.
1 story. And then I’ll accept your premise.
Lol…He was “called”
Give a fuck who is called a racist by people like you and Jamele Hill. Another one of your m.o.
You don’t know one fucking thing about integrity you piece of shit. You don’t have a shred of it.
Seriously, you claim you want 1 source that shows Trump was called a racist and you’ll accept “the premise.” I presented you with literally the first story ever printed about him and he was being called a racist and you dismissed that. You got a second story. You dismissed that. THEN, you dismissed all stories calling him a racist because anyone can call anyone anything.
Again, you are wholly, entirely, and overwhelmingly without a shred of integrity, whatsoever. What worthless piece of trash
But you would need to first establish that there was only one incident. You can’t specifically ask for 1 and then use the fact that he gave you 1 as ammunition against him.
Again, he has literally ZERO integrity. It’s what defines him
Trump was right about the Central Park Five. They were thugs who terrorized people in the park battering them and stealing their property. The trial was a complete farce. The judge’s ruling was ridiculous. But worst of all, was that these thugs were undeservedly rewarded in a post trial lawsuit.
If you want the other side of story, all you need to do is read Ann Coulter’s rendition of what transpired which I find wholly compelling.