10 ms·

Trumps record speaks for itself when it comes to racism. Whether it’s his full page add in the nytimes condemning the Central Park five. His history of evicting

Trumps record speaks for itself when it comes to racism. Whether it’s his full page add in the nytimes condemning the Central Park five. His history of evicting people of color. His continual refusal to condemn white supremacy, or “very fine people on both sides”. He’s not a full blown white supremacist, he is willing to work with people of color when it suits him. But the idea that the media is lying about his racist tendencies is a refusal of facts. Which is a core trait of Trump, to refuse facts. That he won in a “landslide” despite losing the popular vote in 2016, he claimed today to have won the election right when it was called. Trump lies at such a high rate that you appear biased if you always correct him.

nemo44x 6y ago
He won an NAACP award.
- sophacles 6y ago
  An NAACP award that had nothing to do with him being a racist or not: > Trump was among the first group of Americans to be given the award, which recognized people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who have made significant contributions to the country, Otto Coca, communications director for the Ellis Island Honors Society told The Associated Press Monday. But Trump was honored for his work as a successful developer in New York City and his German heritage, Coca said, not for helping inner city youth. From: https://apnews.com/article/2601590439 https://apnews.com/article/2601590439
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    EIHS seems to be unaffiliated with the NAACP.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    What does that have to do with it? Why would they give an award, or any recognition, to a racist? So you have to help inner city youth to not be a racist? Why would the NAACP give a racist anything?
yeetman21 6y ago
I voted for Biden but lets get it clear, Trump evicts poor people (black or white) for not paying rent and Harris locked up more black people for minor drug offenses than Trump ever did.
fairity 6y ago
Unfortunately, calling someone a racist always involves a degree of mind reading that’s impossible to prove. You’re claiming that his racist remarks prove he holds racist beliefs. It’s possible that his racist remarks are driven entirely by his desire to appear blasphemous and be divisive.
Consultant32452 6y ago
The fine people video you watched was a cleverly edited hoax. In the same breath, without prompting he said he wasn't referring to neo-nazis or white supremacists who should be "condemned totally.". Here's the proof: https://finepeople.org/ https://finepeople.org/ Here's a compilation of 38 times he condemned racism and white supremacy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it appears you've been systematically misled on this issue.
- question000 6y ago
  I'm sorry, no you've been hoaxed. We saw the debates and post-Charlottesville terrorist act press conference where he outright refused to condemn white supremacy. It also doesn't matter if you threaten to kill me once, then say you didn't 38 times, I still won't believe you, I just know you're a lying.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    If you believe he failed to condemn white supremacy in the post Charlottesville press conference, then you clearly didn't watch it. That finepeople.org link has the unedited clip where he says they should be condemned totally. His worst response on this issue was the debates where he said "sure" to whether he'd condemn white supremacy. And then he was asked about the Proud Boys which are a multi racial group with a black leader.
    - question000 6y ago
      I did watch it. He didn't. There were audible gasps in the room when he refused. Literally everyone I know who saw it had the same reaction. I'm not going to stand for this revisionist history.
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53858940 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53858940 >According to a transcript of a press conference on 15 August, President Trump did say - when asked about the presence of neo-Nazis at the rally - "you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." During the same press conference, Mr Trump went on to say "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."
skinkestek 6y ago
> His continual refusal to condemn white supremacy, There exists compilation videos of him condemning white supremacy. > or “very fine people on both sides”. This is a hoax that has been debunked and can be easily debunked again by anyone who cares by looking up that video, rewind to a few seconds before that quote and listening to a few seconds after the quote. So this is actually a good proof of what was mentioned above: while Trump wasn't a nice guy he's been under constant misinformation attacks on top of that. No wonder he looks like a really bad guy!
mikeshank 6y ago
how silly
CMay 6y ago
I had looked into those claims around the Central Park Five last year that have since been repeated in Netflix documentaries and on news segments, carefully reading the ad itself. Didn't see strong evidence that the ad was racist as claimed or that it demanded that they be sent to death as often claimed, so I think it was another case of people interpreting it in a way they thought would be politically favorable to them. A quote from the ad states "Many New York families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk...", so there's reasonable inclusion there. It does go onto say "Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers.", which can be interpreted a few ways. Nobody was murdered, so it could be referring more generally to murders which have degraded a sense of public safety as a trend since the death penalty was abolished. Still, it would have been better phrased to temper the trend of guilty until proven innocent to prevent reactive unjust violence, but at the same time you don't want everyone to be so apathetic about reported crimes that nothing gets done. It's no secret that Trump was not a fan of the Central Park Five which is something he was free to express, but when the guilty charge for rape was lifted there still existed other significant evidence of wrongdoing that makes it harder to justify them being rebranded primarily as victims themselves. More controversially it states "They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes." The Central Park Five did not kill and as a result, bringing back the death penalty would not have caused them to be executed. It seems more geared towards suggesting the reinstatement of the death penalty as a stronger disincentive to those who would commit violent crimes that could result in death. The better argument against the ad in general is that the justice system is imperfect and while intense anti-crime passions are understandable, there may be enough noise in the system that the ability to formally execute people is probably something it shouldn't be trusted with. It's one of those cases where I disagree with a central point the ad is making, but also disagree with people's claims about the ad.

nemo44x 6y ago

He won an NAACP award.

sophacles 6y ago
An NAACP award that had nothing to do with him being a racist or not: > Trump was among the first group of Americans to be given the award, which recognized people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds who have made significant contributions to the country, Otto Coca, communications director for the Ellis Island Honors Society told The Associated Press Monday. But Trump was honored for his work as a successful developer in New York City and his German heritage, Coca said, not for helping inner city youth. From: https://apnews.com/article/2601590439 https://apnews.com/article/2601590439
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  EIHS seems to be unaffiliated with the NAACP.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  What does that have to do with it? Why would they give an award, or any recognition, to a racist? So you have to help inner city youth to not be a racist? Why would the NAACP give a racist anything?

yeetman21 6y ago

I voted for Biden but lets get it clear, Trump evicts poor people (black or white) for not paying rent and Harris locked up more black people for minor drug offenses than Trump ever did.

fairity 6y ago

Unfortunately, calling someone a racist always involves a degree of mind reading that’s impossible to prove. You’re claiming that his racist remarks prove he holds racist beliefs. It’s possible that his racist remarks are driven entirely by his desire to appear blasphemous and be divisive.

Consultant32452 6y ago

The fine people video you watched was a cleverly edited hoax. In the same breath, without prompting he said he wasn't referring to neo-nazis or white supremacists who should be "condemned totally.". Here's the proof: https://finepeople.org/ https://finepeople.org/ Here's a compilation of 38 times he condemned racism and white supremacy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it appears you've been systematically misled on this issue.

question000 6y ago
I'm sorry, no you've been hoaxed. We saw the debates and post-Charlottesville terrorist act press conference where he outright refused to condemn white supremacy. It also doesn't matter if you threaten to kill me once, then say you didn't 38 times, I still won't believe you, I just know you're a lying.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  If you believe he failed to condemn white supremacy in the post Charlottesville press conference, then you clearly didn't watch it. That finepeople.org link has the unedited clip where he says they should be condemned totally. His worst response on this issue was the debates where he said "sure" to whether he'd condemn white supremacy. And then he was asked about the Proud Boys which are a multi racial group with a black leader.
  - question000 6y ago
    I did watch it. He didn't. There were audible gasps in the room when he refused. Literally everyone I know who saw it had the same reaction. I'm not going to stand for this revisionist history.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53858940 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53858940 >According to a transcript of a press conference on 15 August, President Trump did say - when asked about the presence of neo-Nazis at the rally - "you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides." During the same press conference, Mr Trump went on to say "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

skinkestek 6y ago

> His continual refusal to condemn white supremacy, There exists compilation videos of him condemning white supremacy. > or “very fine people on both sides”. This is a hoax that has been debunked and can be easily debunked again by anyone who cares by looking up that video, rewind to a few seconds before that quote and listening to a few seconds after the quote. So this is actually a good proof of what was mentioned above: while Trump wasn't a nice guy he's been under constant misinformation attacks on top of that. No wonder he looks like a really bad guy!

mikeshank 6y ago

how silly

CMay 6y ago

I had looked into those claims around the Central Park Five last year that have since been repeated in Netflix documentaries and on news segments, carefully reading the ad itself. Didn't see strong evidence that the ad was racist as claimed or that it demanded that they be sent to death as often claimed, so I think it was another case of people interpreting it in a way they thought would be politically favorable to them. A quote from the ad states "Many New York families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk...", so there's reasonable inclusion there. It does go onto say "Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancor should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers.", which can be interpreted a few ways. Nobody was murdered, so it could be referring more generally to murders which have degraded a sense of public safety as a trend since the death penalty was abolished. Still, it would have been better phrased to temper the trend of guilty until proven innocent to prevent reactive unjust violence, but at the same time you don't want everyone to be so apathetic about reported crimes that nothing gets done. It's no secret that Trump was not a fan of the Central Park Five which is something he was free to express, but when the guilty charge for rape was lifted there still existed other significant evidence of wrongdoing that makes it harder to justify them being rebranded primarily as victims themselves. More controversially it states "They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes." The Central Park Five did not kill and as a result, bringing back the death penalty would not have caused them to be executed. It seems more geared towards suggesting the reinstatement of the death penalty as a stronger disincentive to those who would commit violent crimes that could result in death. The better argument against the ad in general is that the justice system is imperfect and while intense anti-crime passions are understandable, there may be enough noise in the system that the ability to formally execute people is probably something it shouldn't be trusted with. It's one of those cases where I disagree with a central point the ad is making, but also disagree with people's claims about the ad.