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

[protectionist]

There is your challenge, Trump-bashers. We keep seeing signs held by Trump opponents at Trump rallies. They say "STOP THE HATE". What "hate" ? What are you talking about ? Be prepared to present specifics, and back them up with source/link evidence. Forget hollow rhetoric attacks. All they do is show you have no substance to present, thereby minimizing your stance, and becoming more victories for Trump.

You have the floor. You think you have evidence of Trump hating somebody ? Here's your chance to put it out here. Tell us HOW. Let's hear it.

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[Elvis Obama]

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 bullshit. Your guy doesn't come out of this smelling like a rose, either, so don't pretend he does.

The difference being between the stupid nonsense that some random person on the street says or some Democratic spin-master says and what the candidates say.

 

[DGS49]

I have issued this "challenge" several times on this board and never got a coherent response.

Trump's critics are as stupid and gullible as they suppose his supporters are.

Trump talks about illegal immigrants from Mexico, and they hear it as "Trump hates Mexicans," or "Trump hates immigrants."

There is no logic to it; just plain idiocy.

Same with his criticism of individual women (e.g., Rosie O'Donnell). Calling her out as a fat, ugly, jerk is "proof" that Trump is a misogynist.

There is no thought or logic.

Of course, no one who values truth could ever support HRC, so it all fits together, doesn't it?

 

[Elvis Obama]

There is your challenge, Trump-bashers. We keep seeing signs held by Trump opponents at Trump rallies. They say "STOP THE HATE". What "hate" ? What are you talking about ? Be prepared to present specifics, and back them up with source/link evidence. Forget hollow rhetoric attacks. All they do is show you have no substance to present, thereby minimizing your stance, and becoming more victories for Trump.

You have the floor. You think you have evidence of Trump hating somebody ? Here's your chance to put it out here. Tell us HOW. Let's hear it.

What would be the point of discussing hate speech with you? You don't believe that hate speech exists.

You want to go around issuing ridiculous challenges? OK, you first. Give me one example of what you believe is hate speech. I'm sure Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa or Shirley Temple must have said something you regard as hate speech. Give us your best example.

 

[GaryDog]

There is your challenge, Trump-bashers. We keep seeing signs held by Trump opponents at Trump rallies. They say "STOP THE HATE". What "hate" ? What are you talking about ? Be prepared to present specifics, and back them up with source/link evidence. Forget hollow rhetoric attacks. All they do is show you have no substance to present, thereby minimizing your stance, and becoming more victories for Trump.

You have the floor. You think you have evidence of Trump hating somebody ? Here's your chance to put it out here. Tell us HOW. Let's hear it.

I wonder how it is you can miss the irony of this statement given that Donald Trump has not bothered to "present substance" behind any of his policy views (to the extent he has policy views) throughout his joke of a campaign.

Donald Trump thinks he's an entertainer, and he thinks the job of the Presidency is akin to being a reality show subject. And Trump supporters are buying into this, because they, too, do not have a comprehensive understanding of what it means to be head of our government. They don't understand the implications of someone who cannot coherently communicate a policy position (without completely changing his mind, often on the same day) sitting down to negotiate with Putin, Angela Merkel, or the president of Iran.

As for the "hate", I think it's pretty clear there is hatred behind the following stated proposals/facts, as understood or proffered by Trump:

1. Banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
2. Killing all family members of suspected terrorists.
3. Referring to all Mexican immigrants as rapists/criminals
4. Referring to a woman doing a distinctly feminine thing (such as breastfeeding) as "disgusting".
5. Constantly referencing the worth of certain women by virtue of their appearance, etc. etc.

It goes on and on. If you don't identify any of this as hate, then we have to disagree, respectfully or not. Blanketly imposing punishment on an entire group of people merely because of their ideology/religion/gender/race, is, indeed, hatred. Whether you want it to be or not.

 

[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 hateful to those who were captured, injured, or killed?
Would the OP agree that commenting negatively on someone’s appearance is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying “I would like to punch them in the face” is hateful?

 

[GaryDog]

Nation Unable To Recall If Trump Said He’d Personally Fund Abortion Bombings Or If That Just Sounds Right

 

[Arianrhod]

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 hateful to those who were captured, injured, or killed?
Would the OP agree that commenting negatively on someone’s appearance is hateful?
Would the OP agree that saying “I would like to punch them in the face” is hateful?

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?

 

[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"

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is your challenge, Trump-bashers. We keep seeing signs held by Trump opponents at Trump rallies. They say "STOP THE HATE". What "hate" ? What are you talking about ? Be prepared to present specifics, and back them up with source/link evidence. Forget hollow rhetoric attacks. All they do is show you have no substance to present, thereby minimizing your stance, and becoming more victories for Trump.

You have the floor. You think you have evidence of Trump hating somebody ? Here's your chance to put it out here. Tell us HOW. Let's hear it.

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?

 

[protectionist]

What would be the point of discussing hate speech with you? You don't believe that hate speech exists.

You want to go around issuing ridiculous challenges? OK, you first. Give me one example of what you believe is hate speech. I'm sure Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa or Shirley Temple must have said something you regard as hate speech. Give us your best example.

Sorry but I asked you first. So get back in line. After you answer my question which came first, THEN I'll be glad to answer yours, which came second. You have the floor. Speak your ANSWER (not a DODGE)

 

[GaryDog]

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.

 

[protectionist]

I wonder how it is you can miss the irony of this statement given that Donald Trump has not bothered to "present substance" behind any of his policy views (to the extent he has policy views) throughout his joke of a campaign.

Donald Trump thinks he's an entertainer, and he thinks the job of the Presidency is akin to being a reality show subject. And Trump supporters are buying into this, because they, too, do not have a comprehensive understanding of what it means to be head of our government. They don't understand the implications of someone who cannot coherently communicate a policy position (without completely changing his mind, often on the same day) sitting down to negotiate with Putin, Angela Merkel, or the president of Iran.

As for the "hate", I think it's pretty clear there is hatred behind the following stated proposals/facts, as understood or proffered by Trump:

1. Banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
2. Killing all family members of suspected terrorists.
3. Referring to all Mexican immigrants as rapists/criminals
4. Referring to a woman doing a distinctly feminine thing (such as breastfeeding) as "disgusting".
5. Constantly referencing the worth of certain women by virtue of their appearance, etc. etc.

It goes on and on. If you don't identify any of this as hate, then we have to disagree, respectfully or not. Blanketly imposing punishment on an entire group of people merely because of their ideology/religion/gender/race, is, indeed, hatred. Whether you want it to be or not.

Even though the first part of your post (dealing with "substance") is off topic from the thread, I will respond to it with a link to an entire OP/thread which refutes your claim that "Trump has not bothered to "present substance" behind any of his policy views"

Liberals: Shut Up About Trump's "Substance" !

Trump Has No Substance ? Check THIS Out !

1. Banning Muslims from the US, is merely a protectionist policy to PROTECT the American people (a president's # 1 duty) If it could possibly be seen as "hate", it could only be a hate of hatred. That being the hatred of Islam, and its Koran, which preaches the hatred of non-Muslims, and the killing of them. No different than hating Hitler and his forces, despite there being many Germans who wished us no ill will in the 1940s, we could not chance allowing Germans to immigrate here while they were at war against us. In case you don't know, Islam is at war not only with us, but with the entire non-Muslim world and has been for 1400 years, killing 240 million people during that time, including the present. Ever read the Koran ? It is genocide, cover to cover.

2. This is another example of the left STRETCHING Trump's words to try to make him look bad. Like many in our leftist media, you used the word "Killing". Trouble is, Trump didn't. His words were "Take out". That is one of those expressions that can be taken more than one way. It's no suprise that the Trump-bashers chose to define it as "killing", when actually Trump meant simply to incapacitate terrorists' family members from harming us, which could be a variety of things ranging from deportation, to home arrest confinement, to taking them out of security risk employment, etc.

3. Trump didn't say the word "all" YOU did (as I explained in Post # 10)

4. Some people might consider public breastfeeding as disgusting. Babies (as wonderful as they are) aren't known to have the best table manners in town.

5. I not comfortable with what he said about Carly Fiorina, but I accept that no candidate is going to please me 100%, and I am willing to take the relatively minor annoyances for the benfit of the major ones (ex. defending the US from ISIS and nuclear annihilation)

So NO, I don't think you showed any "hate" other than a hatred of hatred (ie the Koran) and its threat to America, which is simply meeting the responsibility of a president to PROTECT the people.

 

[GaryDog]

I wonder how it is you can miss the irony of this statement given that Donald Trump has not bothered to "present substance" behind any of his policy views (to the extent he has policy views) throughout his joke of a campaign.

Donald Trump thinks he's an entertainer, and he thinks the job of the Presidency is akin to being a reality show subject. And Trump supporters are buying into this, because they, too, do not have a comprehensive understanding of what it means to be head of our government. They don't understand the implications of someone who cannot coherently communicate a policy position (without completely changing his mind, often on the same day) sitting down to negotiate with Putin, Angela Merkel, or the president of Iran.

As for the "hate", I think it's pretty clear there is hatred behind the following stated proposals/facts, as understood or proffered by Trump:

1. Banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
2. Killing all family members of suspected terrorists.
3. Referring to all Mexican immigrants as rapists/criminals
4. Referring to a woman doing a distinctly feminine thing (such as breastfeeding) as "disgusting".
5. Constantly referencing the worth of certain women by virtue of their appearance, etc. etc.

It goes on and on. If you don't identify any of this as hate, then we have to disagree, respectfully or not. Blanketly imposing punishment on an entire group of people merely because of their ideology/religion/gender/race, is, indeed, hatred. Whether you want it to be or not.

Even though the first part of your post (dealing with "substance") is off topic from the thread, I will respond to it with a link to an entire OP/thread which refutes your claim that "Trump has not bothered to "present substance" behind any of his policy views"

Liberals: Shut Up About Trump's "Substance" !

Trump Has No Substance ? Check THIS Out !

1. Banning Muslims from the US, is merely a protectionist policy to PROTECT the American people (a president's # 1 duty) If it could possibly be seen as "hate", it could only be a hate of hatred. That being the hatred of Islam, and its Koran, which preaches the hatred of non-Muslims, and the killing of them. No different than hating Hitler and his forces, despite there being many Germans who wished us no ill will in the 1940s, we could not chance allowing Germans to immigrate here while they were at war against us. In case you don't know, Islam is at war not only with us, but with the entire non-Muslim world and has been for 1400 years, killing 240 million people during that time, including the present. Ever read the Koran ? It is genocide, cover to cover.

2. This is another example of the left STRETCHING Trump's words to try to make him look bad. Like many in our leftist media, you used the word "Killing". Trouble is, Trump didn't. His words were "Take out". That is one of those expressions that can be taken more than one way. It's no suprise that the Trump-bashers chose to define it as "killing", when actually Trump meant simply to incapacitate terrorists' family members from harming us, which could be a variety of things ranging from deportation, to home arrest confinement, to taking them out of security risk employment, etc.

3. Trump didn't say the word "all" YOU did (as I explained in Post # 10)

4. Some people might consider public breastfeeding as disgusting. Babies (as wonderful as they are) aren't known to have the best table manners in town.

5. I not comfortable with what he said about Carly Fiorina, but I accept that no candidate is going to please me 100%, and I am willing to take the relatively minor annoyances for the benfit of the major ones (ex. defending the US from ISIS and nuclear annihilation)

So NO, I don't think you showed any "hate" other than a hatred of hatred (ie the Koran) and its threat to America, which is simply meeting the responsibility of a president to PROTECT the people.

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

 

[Elvis Obama]

What would be the point of discussing hate speech with you? You don't believe that hate speech exists.

You want to go around issuing ridiculous challenges? OK, you first. Give me one example of what you believe is hate speech. I'm sure Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa or Shirley Temple must have said something you regard as hate speech. Give us your best example.

Sorry but I asked you first. So get back in line. After you answer my question which came first, THEN I'll be glad to answer yours, which came second. You have the floor. Speak your ANSWER (not a DODGE)

Nonsense. You asked me nothing. You have presented nothing worth debating about. I am giving you an undeserved opportunity to put this thread on a rational basis.

1- If you want to discuss hate speech DEFINE IT FIRST. Otherwise this is just lazy, anti-intellectual garbage.

2- Demonstrate that you believe hate speech exists. Otherwise you're not asking me about Donald Trump. You're asking me to prove the existence of hate speech to you. Why would I want to bother doing that?

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.

 

[protectionist]

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 ?

 

[GaryDog]

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 ?

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.

 

[rdean]

I have issued this "challenge" several times on this board and never got a coherent response.

Trump's critics are as stupid and gullible as they suppose his supporters are.

Trump talks about illegal immigrants from Mexico, and they hear it as "Trump hates Mexicans," or "Trump hates immigrants."

There is no logic to it; just plain idiocy.

Same with his criticism of individual women (e.g., Rosie O'Donnell). Calling her out as a fat, ugly, jerk is "proof" that Trump is a misogynist.

There is no thought or logic.

Of course, no one who values truth could ever support HRC, so it all fits together, doesn't it?

I know, right? It's not women he hates, it's lesbians.

 

[protectionist]

Nation Unable To Recall If Trump Said He’d Personally Fund Abortion Bombings Or If That Just Sounds Right

Tell about being ABLE, nor UNABLE.