Mental Illness: Who Is Perpetuating Racial Hate and Animosity?

[mudwhistle]

He has condemned Duke and white supremacists many times.

YOu focus on the one time he tried to blow off the question, and pretend that that is some form of support.


You are part of the problem.

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

His messes?

Don't you mean the messes that are created by a hostile press?

Don't you mean the espionage committed by the former administration?

Look up the definition of "SABOTAGE".

Here, i' ll do it for you:

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity, effort or organization through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. Saboteurs typically try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions.​

No, I mean the endless string of dumb and embarrassing things that he has said, that the press cannot make up. Because he actually says them.
.

In what way is what he says such a mess?

I believe the crap Obama said this weekend only illustrated where this false belief comes from. A belief that Trump isn't the solution but instead part of the problem.
Fact is Obama and his officials ARE the source of problems in Washington. Not the other way around.

 

[Vastator]

He has condemned Duke and white supremacists many times.

YOu focus on the one time he tried to blow off the question, and pretend that that is some form of support.


You are part of the problem.

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

That’s a gross oversimplification, that does little to nothing to help ameliorate, or resolve contentions regarding “the race issue”.

Well yes, any sentence on a complicated issue that includes just a few words could be considered a "gross oversimplification". Stipulated.

In the long run, race relations will only be improved by people who can see, understand and appreciate both ends of the issue.

If ever.

Those who can only point the finger at the "other side" will continue to stand in the way of progress.
.

The over simplification to which I refer; is the belief that it is a binary, or merely two sided issue. I don’t think it is.

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

 

[Mac1958]

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

His messes?

Don't you mean the messes that are created by a hostile press?

Don't you mean the espionage committed by the former administration?

Look up the definition of "SABOTAGE".

Here, i' ll do it for you:

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity, effort or organization through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. Saboteurs typically try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions.​

No, I mean the endless string of dumb and embarrassing things that he has said, that the press cannot make up. Because he actually says them.
.

I what way is what he says such a mess?

I believe the crap Obama said this weekend only illustrated where this false belief comes from. A belief that Trump isn't the solution but instead part of the problem.
Fact is Obama and his officials ARE the source of problems in Washington. Not the other way around.

Obama has nothing to do with what Trump says.

Zero, nothing.
.

 

[Mac1958]

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

That’s a gross oversimplification, that does little to nothing to help ameliorate, or resolve contentions regarding “the race issue”.

Well yes, any sentence on a complicated issue that includes just a few words could be considered a "gross oversimplification". Stipulated.

In the long run, race relations will only be improved by people who can see, understand and appreciate both ends of the issue.

If ever.

Those who can only point the finger at the "other side" will continue to stand in the way of progress.
.

The over simplification to which I refer; is the belief that it is a binary, or merely two sided issue. I don’t think it is.

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

 

[Vastator]

That’s a gross oversimplification, that does little to nothing to help ameliorate, or resolve contentions regarding “the race issue”.

Well yes, any sentence on a complicated issue that includes just a few words could be considered a "gross oversimplification". Stipulated.

In the long run, race relations will only be improved by people who can see, understand and appreciate both ends of the issue.

If ever.

Those who can only point the finger at the "other side" will continue to stand in the way of progress.
.

The over simplification to which I refer; is the belief that it is a binary, or merely two sided issue. I don’t think it is.

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the ends; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

 

[Mac1958]

Well yes, any sentence on a complicated issue that includes just a few words could be considered a "gross oversimplification". Stipulated.

In the long run, race relations will only be improved by people who can see, understand and appreciate both ends of the issue.

If ever.

Those who can only point the finger at the "other side" will continue to stand in the way of progress.
.

The over simplification to which I refer; is the belief that it is a binary, or merely two sided issue. I don’t think it is.

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the nds; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

Who do you feel has done that?

My take on it is that no one is forcing us to do anything, no one is forcing us to self-divide like this - this is a choice we're making, a self-inflicted wound.
.

 

[Vastator]

The over simplification to which I refer; is the belief that it is a binary, or merely two sided issue. I don’t think it is.

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the nds; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

Who do you feel has done that?

My take on it is that no one is forcing us to do anything, no one is forcing us to self-divide like this - this is a choice we're making, a self-inflicted wound.
.

Indeed. No one is forcing us to divide. It is in our nature to do so. The friction is not arising from forced division. It is coming from forced association, under the false dogma of “equality”, and “sameness”.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Clearly, clearly, whatever problems that exist among blacks and black families is fully supported by blacks generally and black leadership in particular. Not only supported, but fatherlessness, criminality, lack of education is desired as optimum social responsibility.

How do I know this? Because a suggestion of black responsibility resulted in some ethereal and esoteric injection of whether Trump spoke favorably about David Duke years ago.

Sorry but pulling Trump racism out of your ass is not going to make black men law abiding and responsible.

 

[Correll]

Not ever issue has two sides. Sometimes, one side is clearly in the wrong.

From your perspective.

I get precisely the same claim from the other end.
.

They are wrong. I am right, and have demonstrated this many times. To the point that you actively refuse to discuss several issues with me, such as the myth of the Southern Strategy, or the lie about "good people on both sides".

 

[Correll]

Both ends.
.

He has condemned Duke and white supremacists many times.

YOu focus on the one time he tried to blow off the question, and pretend that that is some form of support.


You are part of the problem.

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

That’s a gross oversimplification, that does little to nothing to help ameliorate, or resolve contentions regarding “the race issue”.

Well yes, any sentence on a complicated issue that includes just a few words could be considered a "gross oversimplification". Stipulated.

In the long run, race relations will only be improved by people who can see, understand and appreciate both ends of the issue.

If ever.

Those who can only point the finger at the "other side" will continue to stand in the way of progress.
.

Unless you're wrong, and one side is predominately the source of the problem.

THEN, your insistence that both sides have to work at it, is counter productive.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

His messes?

Don't you mean the messes that are created by a hostile press?

Don't you mean the espionage committed by the former administration?

Look up the definition of "SABOTAGE".

Here, i' ll do it for you:

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity, effort or organization through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. Saboteurs typically try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions.​

No, I mean the endless string of dumb and embarrassing things that he has said, that the press cannot make up. Because he actually says them.
.

I what way is what he says such a mess?

I believe the crap Obama said this weekend only illustrated where this false belief comes from. A belief that Trump isn't the solution but instead part of the problem.
Fact is Obama and his officials ARE the source of problems in Washington. Not the other way around.

Obama has nothing to do with what Trump says.

Zero, nothing.
.

Weird.

Trump supposedly says terrible things and does remarkable things.

Obama did nothing but talk and take credit for whatever good happened while refusing to take blame for the mess he made in Washington.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure, there are gray areas in most of the major issues. Right now, unfortunately, like most issues, this issue is pretty binary.

We do love to split ourselves into tribes. Keeps it simple.
.

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the nds; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

Who do you feel has done that?

My take on it is that no one is forcing us to do anything, no one is forcing us to self-divide like this - this is a choice we're making, a self-inflicted wound.
.

Indeed. No one is forcing us to divide. It is in our nature to do so. The friction is not arising from forced division. It is coming from forced association, under the false dogma of “equality”, and “sameness”.

Not ever issue has two sides. Sometimes, one side is clearly in the wrong.

From your perspective.

I get precisely the same claim from the other end.
.

They are wrong. I am right, and have demonstrated this many times. To the point that you actively refuse to discuss several issues with me, such as the myth of the Southern Strategy, or the lie about "good people on both sides".

I don't know why these two individual topics are so important to you, or why you think they're representative of something larger. I don't think the Southern Strategy issue has any relevance to what is happening right now, today, so I just don't care. If you want a big debate, I'm sure there's plenty of left wingers who will play with you.

I look at Trump's "good people on both sides" comment in the same vein as his "I don't know anything about David Duke" comments: He was clumsily hedging his bets to keep his base happy.

I have no idea why these two things are so important to you. I never discuss them.

And i'm sure you feel you have demonstrated you are right many times. The other side tells me the same thing. I don't know why I can't get that across to you either.

If you have an actual point to make, make it. Just come out and say it so that I can know what it is. Because I don't know right now.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

His messes?

Don't you mean the messes that are created by a hostile press?

Don't you mean the espionage committed by the former administration?

Look up the definition of "SABOTAGE".

Here, i' ll do it for you:

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening a polity, effort or organization through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. Saboteurs typically try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions.​

No, I mean the endless string of dumb and embarrassing things that he has said, that the press cannot make up. Because he actually says them.
.

I what way is what he says such a mess?

I believe the crap Obama said this weekend only illustrated where this false belief comes from. A belief that Trump isn't the solution but instead part of the problem.
Fact is Obama and his officials ARE the source of problems in Washington. Not the other way around.

Obama has nothing to do with what Trump says.

Zero, nothing.
.

Weird.

Trump supposedly says terrible things and does remarkable things.

Obama did nothing but talk and take credit for whatever good happened while refusing to take blame for the mess he made in Washington.

Well, you can talk about Obama or Hillary or anyone you want. I'm just talking about Trump.
.

 

[IM2]

He has condemned Duke and white supremacists many times.

YOu focus on the one time he tried to blow off the question, and pretend that that is some form of support.


You are part of the problem.

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

You ignored the vast majority of his comments on the issue, and focused on the one time he responded differently and are ignoring the obvious conclusion (blowing off asshole question) to assume that he was sending a message of supporting racism.


That is you encouraging hate and animosity.

I do wish people here would comment on things I actually say, rather than fabricating positions.

I didn't say "he was sending a message of supporting racism", as you claim. What I actually think is that he was afraid to directly answer the question because he knows the nature of many of his supporters, and clumsily danced around it.

I see both sides of this issue. You see only one. If you want to pretend that means I'm "encouraging hate and animosity", that's fine with me. I truly do believe that you truly do believe that, by the way.
.

I see both sides, but there is only that is correct. U say this from thorough examination of both sides. You see, Trump isn't just the president of his supporters, he is president if the entire nation. His supporters are 30 percent of the country. And if he wasn't trying to send a message of supporting racism, he would not care about losing the racists who support him because he would gain more general support from the public. Maybe if he decided not to be "afraid" he would get the support of the majority of the American people. So you have to ask why he choose differently. And no matter how much you claim to see both sides there is only one answer.

 

[IM2]

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the nds; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

Who do you feel has done that?

My take on it is that no one is forcing us to do anything, no one is forcing us to self-divide like this - this is a choice we're making, a self-inflicted wound.
.

Indeed. No one is forcing us to divide. It is in our nature to do so. The friction is not arising from forced division. It is coming from forced association, under the false dogma of “equality”, and “sameness”.

Not ever issue has two sides. Sometimes, one side is clearly in the wrong.

From your perspective.

I get precisely the same claim from the other end.
.

They are wrong. I am right, and have demonstrated this many times. To the point that you actively refuse to discuss several issues with me, such as the myth of the Southern Strategy, or the lie about "good people on both sides".

I don't know why these two individual topics are so important to you, or why you think they're representative of something larger. I don't think the Southern Strategy issue has any relevance to what is happening right now, today, so I just don't care. If you want a big debate, I'm sure there's plenty of left wingers who will play with you.

I look at Trump's "good people on both sides" comment in the same vein as his "I don't know anything about David Duke" comments: He was clumsily hedging his bets to keep his base happy.

I have no idea why these two things are so important to you. I never discuss them.

And i'm sure you feel you have demonstrated you are right many times. The other side tells me the same thing. I don't know why I can't get that across to you either.

If you have an actual point to make, make it. Just come out and say it so that I can know what it is. Because I don't know right now.
.

The southern strategy is why there is a right now.

 

[Mac1958]

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

You ignored the vast majority of his comments on the issue, and focused on the one time he responded differently and are ignoring the obvious conclusion (blowing off asshole question) to assume that he was sending a message of supporting racism.


That is you encouraging hate and animosity.

I do wish people here would comment on things I actually say, rather than fabricating positions.

I didn't say "he was sending a message of supporting racism", as you claim. What I actually think is that he was afraid to directly answer the question because he knows the nature of many of his supporters, and clumsily danced around it.

I see both sides of this issue. You see only one. If you want to pretend that means I'm "encouraging hate and animosity", that's fine with me. I truly do believe that you truly do believe that, by the way.
.

I see both sides, but there is only that is correct. U say this from thorough examination of both sides. You see, Trump isn't just the president of his supporters, he is president if the entire nation. His supporters are 30 percent of the country. And if he wasn't trying to send a message of supporting racism, he would not care about losing the racists who support him because he would gain more general support from the public. Maybe if he decided not to be "afraid" he would get the support of the majority of the American people. So you have to ask why he choose differently. And no matter how much you claim to see both sides there is only one answer.

Well, there ya go.

You two hash this out.
.

 

[Correll]

Indeed. But there are more than two tribes. Being tribal is intrinsic to our being. It’s how we’ve survived. To deny our very nature is not only a recipe for frustration. It’s also a hindrance to the progress of our tribe. While some believe that it is indeed binary... They do what I consider the most damage. They denigrate what others find important; to assuage their own desire for the path of least resistance. Yet resistance and conflict is in laaarge part what made us who we are today. This false dogma of “equality” is erroneously pitted against so called “hate”.
While left out of the conversation are those who not only recognize, but respect the differences amongst us and desire that each are given the chance to make the most of those differences.

Sure, I think of them as the vast middle. The two tribes still represent the minority overall, but unfortunately, they're the loudest, angriest and most influential.

Hence the first line of my sig.
.

If each of those sides had a place to call their own the forced friction that generates the loud protest would subside dramatically, but the “vast middle” equality pimps; who try to convince everyone that “we’re all the same” will have none of it. Freedom of association has been stripped from those at the nds; and they have every right to be pissed about it.

Who do you feel has done that?

My take on it is that no one is forcing us to do anything, no one is forcing us to self-divide like this - this is a choice we're making, a self-inflicted wound.
.

Indeed. No one is forcing us to divide. It is in our nature to do so. The friction is not arising from forced division. It is coming from forced association, under the false dogma of “equality”, and “sameness”.

Not ever issue has two sides. Sometimes, one side is clearly in the wrong.

From your perspective.

I get precisely the same claim from the other end.
.

They are wrong. I am right, and have demonstrated this many times. To the point that you actively refuse to discuss several issues with me, such as the myth of the Southern Strategy, or the lie about "good people on both sides".

I don't know why these two individual topics are so important to you, or why you think they're representative of something larger. I don't think the Southern Strategy issue has any relevance to what is happening right now, today, so I just don't care. If you want a big debate, I'm sure there's plenty of left wingers who will play with you.

I look at Trump's "good people on both sides" comment in the same vein as his "I don't know anything about David Duke" comments: He was clumsily hedging his bets to keep his base happy.

I have no idea why these two things are so important to you. I never discuss them.
...
.

Because the "something larger" is the "perpetuating racial hate and animosity", and the bitter partisan divide.


It is unreasonable and bigoted to think that Trump has to hedge his bets with White Supremacists to "keep his base happy".

 

[Mac1958]

It is unreasonable and bigoted to think that Trump has to hedge his bets with White Supremacists to "keep his base happy".

I didn't specify White Supremacists, you did. You keep doing that.
.

 

[Correll]

You must have missed the "both ends" part.

I know. That's how the game is played.
.

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

You ignored the vast majority of his comments on the issue, and focused on the one time he responded differently and are ignoring the obvious conclusion (blowing off asshole question) to assume that he was sending a message of supporting racism.


That is you encouraging hate and animosity.

I do wish people here would comment on things I actually say, rather than fabricating positions.

I didn't say "he was sending a message of supporting racism", as you claim. What I actually think is that he was afraid to directly answer the question because he knows the nature of many of his supporters, and clumsily danced around it.

I see both sides of this issue. You see only one. If you want to pretend that means I'm "encouraging hate and animosity", that's fine with me. I truly do believe that you truly do believe that, by the way.
.

I see both sides, but there is only that is correct. U say this from thorough examination of both sides. You see, Trump isn't just the president of his supporters, he is president if the entire nation. His supporters are 30 percent of the country. And if he wasn't trying to send a message of supporting racism, he would not care about losing the racists who support him because he would gain more general support from the public. Maybe if he decided not to be "afraid" he would get the support of the majority of the American people. So you have to ask why he choose differently. And no matter how much you claim to see both sides there is only one answer.

He has sent no "messages" of supporting racism.


Try to be less divisive and hateful.


We disagree with you on policy. We should be able to do that, and debate it.


But you libs have to demonize anyone that disagrees with you.

 

[Correll]

No, I caught that.


It does not change the fact that you were just very, very unfair to President Trump.

I just quoted the guy. I realize how often his messes have to be cleaned up, but hopefully at some point his followers will begin holding him responsible for his own words.

The "party of responsibility" 'n stuff.
.

You ignored the vast majority of his comments on the issue, and focused on the one time he responded differently and are ignoring the obvious conclusion (blowing off asshole question) to assume that he was sending a message of supporting racism.


That is you encouraging hate and animosity.

I do wish people here would comment on things I actually say, rather than fabricating positions.

I didn't say "he was sending a message of supporting racism", as you claim. What I actually think is that he was afraid to directly answer the question because he knows the nature of many of his supporters, and clumsily danced around it.

I see both sides of this issue. You see only one. If you want to pretend that means I'm "encouraging hate and animosity", that's fine with me. I truly do believe that you truly do believe that, by the way.
.

I see both sides, but there is only that is correct. U say this from thorough examination of both sides. You see, Trump isn't just the president of his supporters, he is president if the entire nation. His supporters are 30 percent of the country. And if he wasn't trying to send a message of supporting racism, he would not care about losing the racists who support him because he would gain more general support from the public. Maybe if he decided not to be "afraid" he would get the support of the majority of the American people. So you have to ask why he choose differently. And no matter how much you claim to see both sides there is only one answer.

Well, there ya go.

You two hash this out.
.

Libs TODAY, claim that the South is Republicans because of racism.


That make it relevant.


You can't have any healing, if half the country, assumes racism, every time a third of the country disagrees with them.