Trump is not a racist!

[EvMetro]

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt

I have never read or heard anything that Trump has ever said that is racist, yet I have seen lefties imply that he is. I assert that Trump is not a racist, but I will retract this if somebody could post a link to an actual quote of Trump saying something racist. I have seen plenty of allegations that Trump said things that are racist, but never an actual verifiable legitimate quote. Anybody got a link to such a quote?

Have you even attempted to look into the topic? There's plenty of material, really, decades worth.

So link it...you do know you're expected to link to back what you say, right?

No, it would be up to YOU to prove it. You're the ones making the claim he isn't a racist. The Department of Justice says otherwise, and they have the law suits to back it up.

Lawsuits are based on allegations with the need to provide evidence to demonstrate proof which leads to a truth. In case you are unfamiliar with our judicial system, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Liberals have this way of believing because charges are brought that leads to an investigation it must be guilt, without undergoing the legal process of showing proof. The left have it backwards, that the accused must provide facts to prove his or her innocence and that it's the job of the accused to do so, when that is not how our judicial system operates.

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt. So now they feel it's the job of the individual, whom has no clear evidence of wrongdoing, to provide evidence in proving their innocence to satisfy the accuser's lack of attaining any facts to back up their pure assumptions. Now the proper way would be the case of clear emails of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, being released openly in public that brings to question how the need for secured documents can be so easily attained for all to see. This evidence which led to the investigation of her server. How was it secured? A clear question that led to the discovery of her using a personal server. The finding of clear documented evidence that leads to the need to probe further to uncover her failure to secure government documents clearly addressed only to Mrs Clinton, that was improperly handled according to government document standards and procedures. The vast difference between following clear evidence that leads to guilt or misconduct, compared to producing some form of evidence to prove one's innocence of assumed guilt without providing clear uncovered documentated facts that leads to such inquiry.

You understand there was a huge amount of evidence, so the trumps settled. He said it himself he doesn't settle if he's innocent.

Let's see the evidence.

 

[Aries]

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt

Have you even attempted to look into the topic? There's plenty of material, really, decades worth.

So link it...you do know you're expected to link to back what you say, right?

No, it would be up to YOU to prove it. You're the ones making the claim he isn't a racist. The Department of Justice says otherwise, and they have the law suits to back it up.

Lawsuits are based on allegations with the need to provide evidence to demonstrate proof which leads to a truth. In case you are unfamiliar with our judicial system, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Liberals have this way of believing because charges are brought that leads to an investigation it must be guilt, without undergoing the legal process of showing proof. The left have it backwards, that the accused must provide facts to prove his or her innocence and that it's the job of the accused to do so, when that is not how our judicial system operates.

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt. So now they feel it's the job of the individual, whom has no clear evidence of wrongdoing, to provide evidence in proving their innocence to satisfy the accuser's lack of attaining any facts to back up their pure assumptions. Now the proper way would be the case of clear emails of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, being released openly in public that brings to question how the need for secured documents can be so easily attained for all to see. This evidence which led to the investigation of her server. How was it secured? A clear question that led to the discovery of her using a personal server. The finding of clear documented evidence that leads to the need to probe further to uncover her failure to secure government documents clearly addressed only to Mrs Clinton, that was improperly handled according to government document standards and procedures. The vast difference between following clear evidence that leads to guilt or misconduct, compared to producing some form of evidence to prove one's innocence of assumed guilt without providing clear uncovered documentated facts that leads to such inquiry.

You understand there was a huge amount of evidence, so the trumps settled. He said it himself he doesn't settle if he's innocent.

Let's see the evidence.

Go look it up the prosecution sent whites and minorities to rent from him. Every minority was told there was "no room at the inn" while every white person was immediately shown an apartment. Seems like donnie would have turned Jesus himself away.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt

I have never read or heard anything that Trump has ever said that is racist, yet I have seen lefties imply that he is. I assert that Trump is not a racist, but I will retract this if somebody could post a link to an actual quote of Trump saying something racist. I have seen plenty of allegations that Trump said things that are racist, but never an actual verifiable legitimate quote. Anybody got a link to such a quote?

Have you even attempted to look into the topic? There's plenty of material, really, decades worth.

So link it...you do know you're expected to link to back what you say, right?

No, it would be up to YOU to prove it. You're the ones making the claim he isn't a racist. The Department of Justice says otherwise, and they have the law suits to back it up.

Lawsuits are based on allegations with the need to provide evidence to demonstrate proof which leads to a truth. In case you are unfamiliar with our judicial system, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Liberals have this way of believing because charges are brought that leads to an investigation it must be guilt, without undergoing the legal process of showing proof. The left have it backwards, that the accused must provide facts to prove his or her innocence and that it's the job of the accused to do so, when that is not how our judicial system operates.

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt. So now they feel it's the job of the individual, whom has no clear evidence of wrongdoing, to provide evidence in proving their innocence to satisfy the accuser's lack of attaining any facts to back up their pure assumptions. Now the proper way would be the case of clear emails of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, being released openly in public that brings to question how the need for secured documents can be so easily attained for all to see. This evidence which led to the investigation of her server. How was it secured? A clear question that led to the discovery of her using a personal server. The finding of clear documented evidence that leads to the need to probe further to uncover her failure to secure government documents clearly addressed only to Mrs Clinton, that was improperly handled according to government document standards and procedures. The vast difference between following clear evidence that leads to guilt or misconduct, compared to producing some form of evidence to prove one's innocence of assumed guilt without providing clear uncovered documentated facts that leads to such inquiry.

You understand there was a huge amount of evidence, so the trumps settled. He said it himself he doesn't settle if he's innocent.

That's a lot of responses from a simple fact liberals love to claim guilt based on the need to start an investigation without any evidence, to try and seek out and create facts. Like I said, it's innocent until concrete documented facts LEAD towards guilt or wrongdoing, that's our judicial system. Hillary Clinton obviously clearly couldn't keep her emails secured, as we had the first Secretary of State in US History where everyone knew of her business and government correspondence. Hell we had "evidence" (you may need a clear definition of what that is) even had her emails on a personal computer of an individual not even entitled to receive them, in a private home for any simpleton off the street to come in and see.

Oh and Trump did not ... "settle" ... nor was there ever a huge amount of evidence surrounding the left's need to find a Trump / Russia connection. My reply was clearly directed towards the liberals insistence that Trump HAD to be conspiring with Russia because there was no way all those oversampled democrat polls showing a Hillary lead could possibly be wrong. Hillary was such a shoe in for president. What an embarrasment it must be for much of the liberal media..

 

[jillian]

Okay you're a lively crew! We can start from the beginning of his career. Under daddy (kkk) dearests wing, they discriminated against minorites and wouldn't rent to black people.. were sued.

you don't have to go that far back. you can look to his appointment of jeffrey beauregard sessions as AG

 

[Aries]

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt

Have you even attempted to look into the topic? There's plenty of material, really, decades worth.

So link it...you do know you're expected to link to back what you say, right?

No, it would be up to YOU to prove it. You're the ones making the claim he isn't a racist. The Department of Justice says otherwise, and they have the law suits to back it up.

Lawsuits are based on allegations with the need to provide evidence to demonstrate proof which leads to a truth. In case you are unfamiliar with our judicial system, an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Liberals have this way of believing because charges are brought that leads to an investigation it must be guilt, without undergoing the legal process of showing proof. The left have it backwards, that the accused must provide facts to prove his or her innocence and that it's the job of the accused to do so, when that is not how our judicial system operates.

The perfect example is this Trump / Russia connection, which is based on assumptions that they allege must be true based on what they hope to find, but have absolutely no concrete evidence that supports their allegations of guilt. So now they feel it's the job of the individual, whom has no clear evidence of wrongdoing, to provide evidence in proving their innocence to satisfy the accuser's lack of attaining any facts to back up their pure assumptions. Now the proper way would be the case of clear emails of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, being released openly in public that brings to question how the need for secured documents can be so easily attained for all to see. This evidence which led to the investigation of her server. How was it secured? A clear question that led to the discovery of her using a personal server. The finding of clear documented evidence that leads to the need to probe further to uncover her failure to secure government documents clearly addressed only to Mrs Clinton, that was improperly handled according to government document standards and procedures. The vast difference between following clear evidence that leads to guilt or misconduct, compared to producing some form of evidence to prove one's innocence of assumed guilt without providing clear uncovered documentated facts that leads to such inquiry.

You understand there was a huge amount of evidence, so the trumps settled. He said it himself he doesn't settle if he's innocent.

That's a lot of responses from a simple fact liberals love to claim guilt based on the need to start an investigation without any evidence, to try and seek out and create facts. Like I said, it's innocent until concrete documented facts LEAD towards guilt or wrongdoing, that's our judicial system. Hillary Clinton obviously clearly couldn't keep her emails secured, as we had the first Secretary of State in US History where everyone knew of her business and government correspondence. Hell we had "evidence" (you may need a clear definition of what that is) even had her emails on a personal computer of an individual not even entitled to receive them, in a private home for any simpleton off the street to come in and see.

Oh and Trump did not ... "settle" ... nor was there ever a huge amount of evidence surrounding the left's need to find a Trump / Russia connection. My reply was clearly directed towards the liberals insistence that Trump HAD to be conspiring with Russia because there was no way all those oversampled democrat polls showing a Hillary lead could possibly be wrong. Hillary was such a shoe in for president. What an embarrasment it must be for much of the liberal media..

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
Try again.

 

[Aries]

Okay you're a lively crew! We can start from the beginning of his career. Under daddy (kkk) dearests wing, they discriminated against minorites and wouldn't rent to black people.. were sued.

you don't have to go that far back. you can look to his appointment of jeffrey beauregard sessions as AG

Every decade that trump has been in the public eye, there has been accusations, evidence, lawsuits, and witnesses that back up his racism. The fact that republicans run around saying it doesn't exist is deeply disturbing.

 

[EvMetro]

Go look it up the prosecution sent whites and minorities to rent from him. Every minority was told there was "no room at the inn" while every white person was immediately shown an apartment. Seems like donnie would have turned Jesus himself away.

Do you really think that this is the first time that I have seen this come up? You are attempting to use allegations again. Were these allegations that you have brought up taken to court? What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

Aeries, the problem that you are having when you search for the evidence, is that you are confusing articles that satisfy your confirmation bias with actual evidence. If you want to beat me in this thread, you will need to understand what evidence is, what racism is, and most importantly, what confirmation bias is. Confirmation bias is what is making it so difficult for you to focus on what exactly "evidence" and "racism" are. If you can eliminate your confirmation bias, it will free your mind to be able to differentiate evidence from allegations.

 

[EvMetro]

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
Try again.

What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

 

[Aries]

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
Try again.

What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

They settled with the agreement of not being discriminatory anymore.... meaning that they were being discriminatory.

 

[EvMetro]

They settled with the agreement of not being discriminatory anymore.... meaning that they were being discriminatory.

If you sign an agreement to not be discriminatory, does this prove that you had been discriminating up to the point where you sign an agreement to not be that way.

If you sign an agreement to not murder people, does this somehow prove that you had been murdering people up until you signed an agreement to not murder people?

What SPECIFIC legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

 

[Aries]

They settled with the agreement of not being discriminatory anymore.... meaning that they were being discriminatory.

If you sign an agreement to not be discriminatory, does this prove that you had been discriminating up to the point where you sign an agreement to not be that way.

If you sign an agreement to not murder people, does this somehow prove that you had been murdering people up until you signed an agreement to not murder people?

What SPECIFIC legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

Sometimes I enjoy engaging you as you are endlessly amusing. Sometimes I do not have the patience/energy.
You're right dear. Trump is not a racist.
Bye bye now!

 

[EvMetro]

Every decade that trump has been in the public eye, there has been accusations, evidence, lawsuits, and witnesses that back up his racism. The fact that republicans run around saying it doesn't exist is deeply disturbing.

There has not been evidence. If you know of some, post it here, and I will retract this.

 

[Dragonlady]

Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
Try again.

What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

Donald did the usual - he settled without admitting liability. But there the Justice Department kept tabs on Donnie and laid charges again a few years later.

 

[EvMetro]

Sometimes I enjoy engaging you as you are endlessly amusing. Sometimes I do not have the patience/energy.
You're right dear. Trump is not a racist.
Bye bye now!

I have done enough homework on this, that I knew you would not be willing to post the answer to "What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?" I already know that no legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices.

Yes, it has been fun debating with you, and it is interesting to see your unusual way of handling the loss of the debate. Usually, when a lefty is in checkmate, he will call me a racist, say he is putting me on ignore, or call me a troll.

 

[Dragonlady]

They settled with the agreement of not being discriminatory anymore.... meaning that they were being discriminatory.

If you sign an agreement to not be discriminatory, does this prove that you had been discriminating up to the point where you sign an agreement to not be that way.

If you sign an agreement to not murder people, does this somehow prove that you had been murdering people up until you signed an agreement to not murder people?

What SPECIFIC legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?

Sometimes I enjoy engaging you as you are endlessly amusing. Sometimes I do not have the patience/energy.
You're right dear. Trump is not a racist.
Bye bye now!

Trump promoted the idea that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States and was an "illegitimate President", which was patently false and which Trump knew was false. It is a very racist position to take, especially when you know it's a lie.

Trump's refusal to give up the birther lie, even after Obama produced his birth certificate, is proof positive of his racism. His refusal to attend the White House seder on Passover, is prove positive of his racism, as his refusal to condemn the recent nazi attacks on synagogues, and his suggestion that they were "false flag" attacks to gain sympathy for Jews, is racist. Trump's refusal to mention the murder of Jews in the Holocaust, is racist.

The examples go on and on. To deny that Donald Trump is racist is to be wilfully deaf, dumb and blind.

 

[Aries]

Sometimes I enjoy engaging you as you are endlessly amusing. Sometimes I do not have the patience/energy.
You're right dear. Trump is not a racist.
Bye bye now!

I have done enough homework on this, that I knew you would not be willing to post the answer to "What legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices?" I already know that no legal decision was made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices.

Yes, it has been fun debating with you, and it is interesting to see your unusual way of handling the loss of the debate. Usually, when a lefty is in checkmate, he will call me a racist, say he is putting me on ignore, or call me a troll.

The question is: is trump a racist
my answer is yes
yours is no

Im not the loser here kiddo, no matter how you spin it. The correct answer is yes.

 

[EvMetro]

Donald did the usual - he settled without admitting liability. But there the Justice Department kept tabs on Donnie and laid charges again a few years later.

And what specific legal decision was ever made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices? Aeries would love to have some legitimate evidence to post here, can you help him out?

 

[Aries]

Donald did the usual - he settled without admitting liability. But there the Justice Department kept tabs on Donnie and laid charges again a few years later.

And what specific legal decision was ever made about whether or not "Trump Management Corporation" did engage in discriminatory practices? Aeries would love to have some legitimate evidence to post here, can you help him out?

him is a her-
and he said himself if he wasn't guilty he wouldn't settled, he settled. Either hes a liar or hes guilty of discrimination (or both). Which is it?

 

[EvMetro]

The question is: is trump a racist
my answer is yes
yours is no

Im not the loser here kiddo, no matter how you spin it. The correct answer is yes.

Emotional assertions from you or Paul Ryan do not make Trump a racist. I will re post my opening post below, so you can see what the question really is:

I have never read or heard anything that Trump has ever said that is racist, yet I have seen lefties imply that he is. I assert that Trump is not a racist, but I will retract this if somebody could post a link to an actual quote of Trump saying something racist. I have seen plenty of allegations that Trump said things that are racist, but never an actual verifiable legitimate quote. Anybody got a link to such a quote?

 

[postman]

You understand there was a huge amount of evidence, so the trumps settled. He said it himself he doesn't settle if he's innocent.

Let's see the evidence.

There's a pattern. Trump also settled the Trump University lawsuit for $25 million plus an additional $1 million in penalties. You don't do that if you're innocent, and have a shit load of lawyers on the payroll.