Well you sure meant to ignore that part and bold the “belief in superiority” bit.

So, TS just gaslights with over the top racism and you are the clean up crew? Acting like you are not the same as TS? Great forum you guys got going already.

Good to see middle left JV pleading for TS to just learn where the line is in this forum by receiving 3 day exiles “to learn”. lol

Strawman

No. your definition was the same I posted except you bolded the superiority part like that was the qualifier.

Yes, but entering the U.S. can be:

Criminal Penalties for Improper Entry to the U.S.

For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.
For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)
But just in case that isn’t enough to deter illegal entrants, a separate section of the law adds penalties for reentry (or attempted reentry) in cases where the person had been convicted of certain types of crimes and thus removed (deported) from the U.S., as follows:
People removed for a conviction of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony (other than an aggravated felony), shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.
People removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony shall be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both.
People who were excluded or removed from the United States for security reasons shall be fined, and imprisoned for up to ten years, which sentence shall not run concurrently with any other sentence.
Nonviolent offenders who were removed from the United States before their prison sentence was up shall be fined, imprisoned for up to ten years, or both.
What’s more, someone deported before a prison sentence was complete may be incarcerated for the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment, without any reduction for parole or supervised release.
(See 8 U.S.C. Section 1326, I.N.A. Section 276.)

The point is with every reasonable definition of "racism" intent and context matters.

So indiscriminately calling someone racist without even bothering to take intent or context into account is irresponsible and counterproductive IMO.

I think it is pretty clear Trump is a pathological liar. Whether by chance or by design, it makes him a pretty good politician. He can just say whatever he wants and because the media has such little credibility there are no actual repercussions.

As far as him being a racist, maybe, but I don't know if that is necessarily the case. He certainly uses racism effectively as a political tool. Maybe that makes him a racist regardless of his personal beliefs?

I definitely feel like racist gets thrown around too liberally here.

Like this guy. TS was exiled, not temp banned. What are you even freaking out about right now? That one person wants the liberal use of racist to slow down? I agree completely. Its like spitting in someones face. Why would either side continue discourse? I'd rather just fight you or **** off at that point. Its also lazy.

Pretty sure TS is just a high level troll and people coming in and posting **** like this is what gets him off. Its strange how rustled people get about someone who has a stupid point of view. The only reason anyone here even entertained the conversation with him was to get a laugh out of his response.

You not thinking a black person can feel superior to a white person is racist. Check yourself.

You still don't get it. Using hate speech against another race IS a sign of hatred and intolerance. We don't need to wait for actual violence, the language is enough.

Ahh, he thinks we were raised by wolves.

I'd challenge you to find one poster who was banned for being racist where the context or intent were not hatred or discrimination against the race they were denigrating.

Or he's SUUUUUPER racist but get's white-knighted for by *******s every time he gets banned.

The Mueller report circus was alway B.S. The Russians never altered one vote or stopped anyone from voting. They used hacking and social media to try to influence the result. So what, we have free speech.

The election of a narcissist, lying, third rate con artist as President demystifies USA superiority and makes is clear that whites (57% voted for Trump) are morally and intellectually inferior to blacks (8% voted for Trump)

So, let me be clear. Its ok to call someone the N word, but only if you are full of anger and have an immediate desire to hurt that person?

Sure, that seems reasonable. My question for metsandfinsfan was more about whether this distinction made much of a difference in our evaluation of Donald Trump, not in general. None of us are trying to persuade Trump himself to change his mind, nor can we do more than guess at his real motivations. What we can evaluate are his racist actions and whether he should be condemned for them, regardless of whether those actions are motivated by racism or some other bad motive.

There’s a difference between being a racist and not being an anti-racist. People who fall into the latter category are oftentimes called the former and I agree with you that they shouldn’t be both because they’re technically not and it’s counter-productive. However, when people have enough wealth and power to impact the lives of a lot of other people with their actions and decisions, merely not being a hood-wearing racist doesn’t give them a pass in my mind. I believe they have an even higher responsibility than the rest of us to be anti-racist. Meaning, they shouldn’t be saying and doing racially offensive things, they should denounce the same when they run across it, and when they see that some action will likely lead to some sort of racial discrimination they should refrain from engaging in it even if their sole motive is profit, political expediency, etc.

In order to understand what is going on, we have to understand against what and whom Trump is fighting. Trump is fighting against Socialism and against Antonio Guterrez.

Antonio Guterrez is the former head of the Socialist International and currently the General Secretary of the United Nations. Socialists want to create a classless society, and their method is redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Socialism in the United Nations means that rich countries share their wealth with poor countries until everyone is equal. That is absolutely great if you live in the 3rd World, it doesn't matter much if you live in the 2nd World, but it means an absolute disaster if you are living in the 1st World. If you share everything with billions of people who got nothing, you will end up with next to nothing. The only thing you can say to yourself in the end is that you were a good person. That may be worth something to you, but it is at least debatable.

This leaves us with the most important question of them all: In which country are you living?

If it's not the USA, you have every right to hate Trump with a passion. If you are living in the USA though, you should probably kiss his feet, because he is the last man standing between you and the poor from the rest of the world who want nothing other than your house, your job, your stuff and your money. They don't care about your fate, in most cases they don't share your values either. You are just in their way.

P.S.: I am not living in the USA and therefore I can't vote for Trump, but I can see what he is doing and I respect him a lot for it. Just imagine for one second that Trump would be replaced by Angela Merkel. You would jump over the wall and flee to Mexico and I couldn't blame you for it!

If the stock market keeps rocketing upwards and S&P is at like 3500+ how likely do you think it becomes that he gets reelected?

I mean, hold the election today and I still don't know that he loses as much as people pretend to hate him.

I'll admit it is a little embarrassing when he says or does some really really stupid **** and my euro friends make fun of me for it, but how has his presidency actually affected our day to day lives? And if he is somehow literally destroying the foundation that this country is standing on then shame on the system for allowing it to happen.

Last I checked his approval rating from those who voted for him is pretty high, especially in key areas like the economy, so I don’t see him losing much there. And I’m sure plenty of people didn’t vote for him because they thought he’d first blow up the economy and then blow up the world; assuming they haven’t blown up by then he might be able to gain some numbers there. So probably a coin-flip unless Sanders is the Dem nominee. If that happens I’d give Trump the edge simply because people usually don’t risk radical change unless they perceive things as radically bad, and as you noted the overwhelming majority of Americans’ day-to-day life isn’t much different then it’s been under Obama, Bush, etc.

Shandrax, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t live in the US if you think that a massive reduction in wealth disparity among US citizens is a potential outcome in the next 50 years.

Weird how you agree with him.

I'm not sure which part of TSs manifesto you believe I agree with. Mind expanding on your post?

The whole “You don’t know Trump is a racist” seems to be a point you and the guy whos trolling us agree on.

I said, "I don't know if that is the case" then conceded that his actions might make him racist de facto.

If you want to argue that "Trump is a sociopath and thus feels superior to literally everyone and that clearly makes him a racist" then I wouldn't have much counter.

Saying "you agree with TS" is a pretty wide net to cast with heavy implications related to people like yours opinion of him.

One thing that I wanted to edit in to my previous post was that another day to day change in my life is there is much more blatant racism on my Facebook feed, and that is definitely a negative and implies a larger overarching problem to what Trump brings to the table

I'll clarify and just lay it out. You say that racist is a serious allegation and as such should be narrowly defined.

I think Biden is a counter example. My person opinion is that busing was an effective and positive way to integrate black and white schools, but was opposed by white people for racist reasons. Biden was initially for busing, but his (mostly white) constituents agitated against it he became one of the most ardent opponents of it.

So, again in my opinion, Biden chose his constituents' racist sentiments over a good policy.

And then later became the VP of the first black president.

So doing racist things actually isn't some death knell. You don't get cast into outer darkness.

Rather being racist or doing racist things is another aspect in the flow of history where people who have done racist things turn out to win at life (or they don't) and people who opposed racist things sometimes fade into obscurity for doing the right thing (or they don't), etc.

It’s just baffling to me that you find it so hard to just say “Trump is a racist” instead of this weird “Oh maybe he’s a ‘de facto racist’ who could possibly say” routine.

I wouldn't even know what Angela Merkel is saying.