CDZ Challenge to Trump Opponents > How Can You Justify the "HATE" Label ?

[protectionist]

Hate is defined as "dislike". Do you normally punch people you like?

He said "I like people who don't get captured". What's the logical conclusion about his opinion of people who get captured? Dislike. Ergo, hate.

Your thread is incredibly stupid. And your mental gymnastics in defending his numerous hateful comments are laughably absurd.

Many words have more than one definition. That's why dictionarys list the definitions by numbers. The word as mentioned in the OP refers to the sign protestors carry, and they aren't talking about just disliking, They are talking about opposition to people based on race and/or ethnicity.

Again, the captured sequence was about McCain, not all people who get captured. This is just more word spinning. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

Would the OP believe that Trump's statement "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" is a compliment or an insult?

OFF TOPIC!!

 

[protectionist]

Is this the type of thread where every example shown you'll just type in caps "Wheres the hate?" over and over?

Do you have a guideline you use for this "hate" label?

Yeah I do. And I just mentioned in Post # 21.

 

[protectionist]

They are exaggerating, just as he is exaggerating about how the illegal hispanics being "sent" by Mexico are drug dealers, rapists and dangerous criminals--some, he assumes, are 'nice people.' Really? Both sides are spewing bs. Your guy doesn't come out of this smelling like a rose, either, so don't pretend he does.

I'm not pretending anything. First, Trump never spoke the word Hispanic (you did), and as a Hispanic myself, let me say that the word Hispanic should be capitalized.

Secondly, You show no evidence at all of your claim that Trump is "exaggerating". Trump said >> “When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us. They’re bringing drugs.They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people! But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting."

Note that Trump didn't say ALL the people that Mexico is sending, he just said "people". So yeah, SOME of the people that Mexico is sending ARE bringing drugs and crime, and SOME ARE rapists. But Trump-bashers distort this to give the impression that Trump has maligned ALL the illegal aliens as fitting these descriptions.

Actually, was more generous to the Mexicans coming to America improperly. Whether they are visa overstayers or criminals crossing the border without inspection by US officials, they are ALL lawbreakers, disrespecting our laws (and therefor us as well), and thus are NOT "good people" as Trump said.

So nothing Trump said was BS.(except maybe calling them "good people"

Man, it's hard to know where to start with a post as ignorant as this.

#1, the "Mexican Government" is not sending illegal aliens to the U.S. To imply that this is what Trump meant is to imply that the Mexican government sent them in an official capacity, and we accepted them in an official capacity, and therefore they are not law-breakers, not illegal, and not "bad people" under your definition.

#2, if we accept that Trump was not referring to all Mexicans, it's also reasonable to accept that his contention - by merely mentioning rapists -- is that rapists are over-represented among the immigrant population. It's irrefutably factual that they are not. So his statement about rapists is horrifically misleading, AT BEST.

#3, Your assertion is that all "law breakers" are "not good people." Everyone who has received a speeding ticket has "broken the law" and is a "bad person." I'd have trouble finding one person over the age of 30 who hasn't been ticketed.

Trump, himself, has broken the law with his private university, with his hiring of illegals, and in countless other business transactions. If you're religious, he's broken "god's law" with adultery. He's not a "good person."

So here and now, you're claiming that if you support Trump, you support a "bad person" under YOUR definition. Accordingly, your position is pretty indefensible given your low opinion of the "bad people" Mexico is sending.

Before you start throwing the word "ignorant" around you should do some research to find out how ignorant YOU ARE.

Mexico has been waging a 21st century style imperialist war on the US for 70 years. They send their poor people to swipe American jobs, and then send the earnings$$$ back to Mexico. So the $$ are extracted out of the US economy and reinserted into the Mexican. Just like medieval Vikings raiding England, except using jobs and bank wires, instead of swords and armor.Mexico rakes in $23 Billion/year in their remittances$$$, and htey are Mexico's # 1 source of income.

To make it all happen, Mexico has devised the matricular consular card to allow illegal aliens to cash their checks and send $$$ wires to Mexico. They also have printed a guidebook for migrants to enable them to travel here and avoid US immigration authorities. I read the whole book in Spanish, have you ? Here are some excerpts from it >>>

2. Ex-Mexican president Vicente Fox has openly bragged & gloated about Mexicans going into the US illegally and sending back remittances$$$, and these being Mexico's # 1 source of income.

Vicente Fox Says Remittances Largest Source Of Revenue Since 2003, Gloats At Getting Illegals And Matricula Consular Into US : Diggers Realm

Oh yes, they have been, and still are SENDING them all right. No doubt about that. This is a clear cut INVASION.

 

[candycorn]

Would the OP agree that insinuating a woman is menstruating is hateful?
Would the OP agree that mocking a man with birth defects is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying “he likes people who don’t get captured” in reference to a man who served in a war (and was captured) is what Trump said is ?
Would the OP agree that commenting negatively on someone’s appearance is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying I don't think "?

I don't think Trump meant to insinuate "menstruating" I think this was just another case of Trump talking loosely and his words being construed to mean that, by the liberal press, whose job it is to smear Trump, as they've been trying diligently to do at every opportunity. I remember a workplace where people were maligned as having said bad things, but it really was just the way other people were defining their words. And Trump didn't say "menstruating". YOU did.

I would agree that making a man with birth defects is improper. I don't think I would call that "hateful" though. I think it is a different kind of impropriety. And I'm not sure if Trump remembered the guy, or know who he was, or if he had an ailment. Remember, Trump was facing thousands of people some of whom may have been drinking, and someone with odd movements could be mistaken for a drunk or drugged person. Not 100% evident

Trump was referring to McCain, not other people who were captured. Once again, we have the media, painting trump's words how they want them to be seen. So, NO, I don't think Trump was maligning others who got captured.

As in the previous post, NO I don't think commenting on an appearance is "hateful" although it isn't quite proper.

No, I don't think "“I would like to punch them in the face” is hateful. Not one bit. I wouldn't even call it improper. It's an expression of what he would like. So what ?

Then you are not prepared for an honest discussion; apparently honesty isn't something you are familiar with.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Would the OP agree that insinuating a woman is menstruating is hateful?
Would the OP agree that mocking a man with birth defects is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying “he likes people who don’t get captured” in reference to a man who served in a war (and was captured) is what Trump said is ?
Would the OP agree that commenting negatively on someone’s appearance is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying I don't think "?

I don't think Trump meant to insinuate "menstruating" I think this was just another case of Trump talking loosely and his words being construed to mean that, by the liberal press, whose job it is to smear Trump, as they've been trying diligently to do at every opportunity. I remember a workplace where people were maligned as having said bad things, but it really was just the way other people were defining their words. And Trump didn't say "menstruating". YOU did.

I would agree that making a man with birth defects is improper. I don't think I would call that "hateful" though. I think it is a different kind of impropriety. And I'm not sure if Trump remembered the guy, or know who he was, or if he had an ailment. Remember, Trump was facing thousands of people some of whom may have been drinking, and someone with odd movements could be mistaken for a drunk or drugged person. Not 100% evident

Trump was referring to McCain, not other people who were captured. Once again, we have the media, painting trump's words how they want them to be seen. So, NO, I don't think Trump was maligning others who got captured.

As in the previous post, NO I don't think commenting on an appearance is "hateful" although it isn't quite proper.

No, I don't think "“I would like to punch them in the face” is hateful. Not one bit. I wouldn't even call it improper. It's an expression of what he would like. So what ?

Then you are not prepared for an honest discussion; apparently honesty isn't something you are familiar with.

Its a perception thread. If he doesnt perceive any hate then there isnt any. Viola!

 

[Arianrhod]

Would the OP believe that Trump's statement "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" is a compliment or an insult?

OFF TOPIC!!

Your topic is Trump and what you feel is undeserved hate. In an effort to explore why rational people might have a problem with what comes out of his mouth, I raised a single issue. At least you're not denying he said it or trying to explain it away, which suggests you take it as a compliment.

No need to even ask you if you feel it's true, because you've already answered it - inadvertently, but you have answered it.

 

[protectionist]

#2, if we accept that Trump was not referring to all Mexicans, it's also . his contention - by merely mentioning rapists -- is that rapists are over-represented among the immigrant population. It's irrefutably factual that they are not. So his statement about rapists is horrifically misleading, AT BEST.

#3, Your assertion is that all "law breakers" are "not good people." Everyone who has received a speeding ticket has "broken the law" and is a "bad person." I'd have trouble finding one person over the age of 30 who hasn't been ticketed.

Trump, himself, has broken the law with his private university, with his hiring of illegals, and in countless other business transactions. If you're religious, he's broken "god's law" with adultery. He's not a "good person."

So here and now, you're claiming that if you support Trump, you support a "bad person" under YOUR definition. Accordingly, your position is pretty indefensible given your low opinion of the "bad people" Mexico is sending.

2. NO, it certainly is NOT "his contention - by merely mentioning rapists -- is that rapists are over-represented among the immigrant population" That is just what YOU are contending that he is contending. Like all the other Trump-basers, you are putting words in his mouth, to suit how you want him to be seen. So NO, his statement about rapists is NOT misleading, at all.

3. There is a huge difference between imperialists invading a country to pillage its jobs, it economy wealth, and tax treasuries (by welfare from the anchor baby racket), and someone getting a speeding ticket. If you want to make an analogy, you could parallel illegal immigration to someone breaking into your house, stealing your valuable property, with the cops paid off to look the other way.

And no I'm not claiming that if you support Trump, you support a "bad person". That is what YOU claim, while sounding like (oh this is the CDZ, isn't it ?) HA HA HA.

 

[protectionist]

Quick question just to settle a bet I'm having here in the office. Are you a Holocaust denier?

I don't usually dignify ridiculous questions with a response, but just this once, no I'm not. Are you ?

 

[protectionist]

What a pathetic attempt at a thread. Why don't you get in a discussion with David Cameron, Angela Merkel and virtually every other European leader, who have reacted to Donald Trump the way one would react to a six foot tall dog turd in an orange wig? Yeah, right, try to pretend it's everyone else who's got Trump wrong.

Angela Merkel is a Muslim-ass kisser who has imperiled her people with her reckless and irresponsible "leadership". She is her own people's worst enemy. I'll bet most Germans right now would love to have Trump over there cleaning up the mess Merkel has created. And Cameron's UK isn't much better. Sharia courts. Oh brother!

Europe ? The whole continent is a Muslim mudhole, with the exception of Italy, which has resisted the stupid Muslim immigration, and they do not acknowledge Islam to be a religion (which it isn't)

 

[protectionist]

Well I'm ba-aaa-aaa-K. And here we are 30 posts into the thread, an no one has presented one shred of evidence of Donald Trump being a hater. Not one iota.

 

[protectionist]

Its a perception thread. If he doesnt perceive any hate then there isnt any. Viola!

DODGE! You could tell us you have no answer just by staying out of the thread.

 

[protectionist]

Your topic is Trump and what you feel is undeserved hate. In an effort to explore why rational people might have a problem with what comes out of his mouth, I raised a single issue. At least you're not denying he said it or trying to explain it away, which suggests you take it as a compliment.

No need to even ask you if you feel it's true, because you've already answered it - inadvertently, but you have answered it.

But the topic isn't about "what comes out of his mouth", so rather than raising an issue about this or that, how about just addressing the the topic ? - the question of the OP.

 

[Arianrhod]

Your topic is Trump and what you feel is undeserved hate. In an effort to explore why rational people might have a problem with what comes out of his mouth, I raised a single issue. At least you're not denying he said it or trying to explain it away, which suggests you take it as a compliment.

No need to even ask you if you feel it's true, because you've already answered it - inadvertently, but you have answered it.

But the topic isn't about "what comes out of his mouth"...

So it's your contention that people hate him for no reason?

 

[protectionist]

Then you are not prepared for an honest discussion; apparently honesty isn't something you are familiar with.

What a coincidence...when I was thinking just that about YOU.

So, you got an example of how Trump is hating somebody ? Let's hear it.

 

[protectionist]

So it's your contention that people hate him for no reason?

NO NO. They have a reason all right. They want the Democrat to win the presidency, and they're trying everything they can to defeat Trump. including stretching the truth into baldfaced lies, while pretending to be honest.

As for why they want a Democrat to win, that is a mystery.

 

[protectionist]

Still no answer to the OP question. I'm still asking >>

What "hate" ? What are you talking about ?

 

[Arianrhod]

So it's your contention that people hate him for no reason?

NO NO. They have a reason all right. They want the Democrat to win the presidency...

Did they have the same reaction to Romney or McCain?

 

[jasonnfree]

The Donald is only advocating for a sane immigration policy like Mexico, and for this he's called a racist by people with no reading comprehension skills.
The anti Trumpers have no problem with the Mexican flag being waved around near Trump rallies. This is what happens when you let people into the USA who have no intention of assimilating in our country. Link below on Mexico's immigration law. Maybe the sob sisters on this board should take the protest to the Mexican Embassy for their 'racist' attitudes instead.

What is Mexico’s Immigration Law? - Tea Party Tribune

 

[Arianrhod]

The Donald is only advocating for a sane immigration policy like Mexico, and for this he's called a racist by people with no reading comprehension skills.

Actually, this is what happens when a candidate who has no sense of decorum, tact, civility, or even an indication that he thinks before he speaks, is running for an office that requires all of those things.

Again I'll ask: Did the "haters" react this way to Romney or McCain?