Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mumbles said:
A person who "exploits racism for political gain" is, in fact, a racist. A person who exploits nonwhite people for financial gain is a white supremacist - regardless of whether or not they "truly believe" that they're somehow superior. That belief was mere justification, not the central reason to travel across an ocean just to buy or kidnap people for cheap labor - and certainly not a reason to torture, kill, and rob people.
Click to expand...

Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, congressional black caucus?
 
Mumbles said:
A person who "exploits racism for political gain" is, in fact, a racist. A person who exploits nonwhite people for financial gain is a white supremacist - regardless of whether or not they "truly believe" that they're somehow superior. That belief was mere justification, not the central reason to travel across an ocean just to buy or kidnap people for cheap labor - and certainly not a reason to torture, kill, and rob people.
Click to expand...

It's perhaps a semantic quibble, but no.

A person who exploits racism for political gain is a damned foul person, but he is not one who necessarily believes that different skin tone denotes different value. Neither does enslaving, say, black folk entail a belief in the superiority of white folk (though there's a damned strong correlation, of course).

From what you say, I don't think that you and I disagree on anything more than semantics, but in my book, racism requires believing that different races are different, and white supremacy requires believing that those of roughly European descent are better. There are all sorts of other reasons to mistreat folk, even by virtue of their skin tone, but these other reasons aren't racism. They're bad, obviously, should be shunned, etc., but unless there's a sincere belief about the differences of the races, they're not racist in the plainest meaning of the term.

Really, at this point, we've moved from a semantic issue over "explicitly" to one over "racist". It's probably not worth going much further here. It's not as if you and I disagree that mistreatment based on skin color is a very, very bad thing, after all. We're just disagreeing over the word used to describe this bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
CNN just played a clip of Rudy Giuliani saying the $130k paid to Stormy Daniels was not a campaign contribution, since Trump repaid Cohen for it.

Discussion followed on Anderson Cooper 360° about the implications.
Click to expand...

In related news, Michael Avenatti just ordered another case of champagne.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
CNN just played a clip of Rudy Giuliani saying the $130k paid to Stormy Daniels was not a campaign contribution, since Trump repaid Cohen for it.

Discussion followed on Anderson Cooper 360° about the implications.
Click to expand...

I bet that's the last time that CNN says anything about it.

Not really...

I bet the PDJT is unraveling like the inside of a golf ball.
 
Last edited:
Trump's former physician Harold Bornstein says that Trump dictated that doctor's note.

Harold Bornstein, who was Donald Trump's personal doctor for decades, acknowledges that his over-the-top statement about Trump's health in 2015 was not written by him — but by the then-presidential candidate.
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
I can point to expert opinion

http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/I-Only-Roast-the-Ones-I-Love/Jeffrey-Ross/9781439102794
Click to expand...

Cleon said:
Jeffrey Ross has made a career out of appearing on Comedy Central roasts.

If anyone in the world is an expert on roasts, it's him. At least with Greg Giraldo dead.
Click to expand...

Apparently Jeffrey Ross really needs to have a talk with Jeffrey Ross about Roasts because when talking about the actual current WHCA roast controversy he seems to hold the exact opposite opinion that people like Bob and Cleon insist he must have.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Who knows?

Was it spontaneous and off the rails, or carefully orchestrated towards some end?
Click to expand...

Certainly that was the first thing that occurred to me. "talking head, you're a fool if you think this was some rambling faux pas on Guiliani's part".

It sounded to me like he was getting Cohen off the campaign finance charge and setting up a "meh, I don't review every transaction" excuse for Trump wrt repayment of the 'loan'. If that's true, then you'd think that that charge might be the best leverage available against Cohen at this stage. That's possible, but difficult to believe.

I would imagine that Giuliani has arrived at the conclusion that since nothing can stick to Trump, what's another would-be scandal? We've seen Trump just bluster his way through dozens of things that would normally sink political fortunes. Maybe people just want to believe that this will be different.
Too stormy in one teacup.
 
The President of the USA hawking bookson the internet?

Like he ever read a book.

"Ainsley Earnhardt, a truly great person, just wrote a wonderful book, “The Light Within Me,” which is doing really well. She is very special and so is her new book...bring it to number one!"
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, you are and it comes off as denial when people go out of their way to downplay Trump's racism.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that clear cut. Using the word "explicit" suggests to me an action or statement that unambiguously supports the assertion. While I have absolutely no doubt that Trump holds racist views, I don't think his words and deeds rise to the level of "unambiguous" but I can also see why others might hold a different view.
 
TofuFighter said:
I would imagine that Giuliani has arrived at the conclusion that since nothing can stick to Trump, what's another would-be scandal? We've seen Trump just bluster his way through dozens of things that would normally sink political fortunes. Maybe people just want to believe that this will be different.
Click to expand...
Sounds right to me (some elaboration in the other thread.) It's almost impossible to form any coherent narrative.

Just trying is giving me brain damage. There's a strategy in there somewhere, probably.
 
beren said:
Again, how does that address the post you responded to?

First, I don't recall making any such claim about Richard Spencer, so the relevance is lost on me.

Second, I see no reason why someone's beliefs cannot be inferred from their actions, and have never argued otherwise.
Click to expand...

You made claims about ignorance to someones white supremacy based on them not making sufficiently explicit white supremacist statements. So Spencer is a useful test case for you system.
 
Mumbles said:
A person who "exploits racism for political gain" is, in fact, a racist.
Click to expand...

That kind of crazy talk is what gets people thinking George Wallace was a racist. He was clearly just a man proudly representing his constituency in the views of most here.
 
Trump commenting at length about Cohen and Stormy and the NDA


"Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are....."

"...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......"

"...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump commenting at length about Cohen and Stormy and the NDA


"Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are....."

"...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......"

"...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction."
Click to expand...

I thought Trump knew nothing about this payment?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom