• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

"The Problem With Calling Trump a Racist"- Rolling Stone

^Trump has pardoned a number of known criminals. Getting caught up over Hillary at this point is nothing but hypocritical.
 
I'm not saying give investigating Hillary a rest, or anyone who needs to be investigated. I'm saying we're talking about Trump, not Hillary. If someone raises a concern about Trump, and you go "but Hillary!", that is evading the question.

Also, I'm saying that a lot of the stuff said about Hillary is right-wing smear campaign stuff and not real (pizzagate comes to mind). Also from what I read in the declassified document about the uranium thing, it seemed to not be what you're characterizing it as. It alleged that uranium stolen from Russia by another group was discovered/recovered by the US. Since it was Russia's, we gave it back. if we hadn't we'd have been stealing it. It's not like we handed uranium to ISIS or something, we gave back uranium to the country who has about the same amount of nuclear missiles as we do. You think giving Russia back some uranium that was theirs endangers us in any way? I wish I could remember where the link to the document was posted in here, I remember it was fairly recent and I went ahead and read it. Wish I could remember so I could quote the parts of it that led me to what I'm saying now.

That said, I don't support Hillary, she's done stuff I don't like and I think she's part of the corruption that is plaguing most of the system. I mean when you get down to it I think most state and national-level politicians should probably go to jail. I don't see the evidence that Hillary is any worse than many others. I mean maybe if I got all my evidence from far-right sources, and believed them, I'd feel differently.

I wanted to get the bottom of this claim of being "not qualified"
Why not qualified?
Who is more qualified?

Meanwhile this insane, unqualified idiot just convinced North Korea to give up its nukes.

Okay cool, we're talking about Trump now. :) Alright, here is why he's not qualified:

  • He has no previous political experience
  • He doesn't understand how to run a country financially (countries are much different from businesses and he has never been in politics or been involved in governmental policy decisions before)... even in his own businesses he has declared bankruptcy what, 4 times? Screwing over people he owed money to, running businesses into the ground only to get bailed out via bankruptcy. Also some of his ventures have been mired in controversy... Trump university comes to mind.
  • He has not shown himself able to control his impulses. See: Twitter (for example). He offends the rest of the world and it damages our reputation and standing among even our allies. I know many Trump supports like him because they feel he "real talks", but the fact is that as a leader of a nation, you need to be a diplomat, it's just the way it is. His diplomacy skills leave a lot to be desired.
  • He has a long history of corrupt behavior; allegations against him began long before he made any sort of moves towards running for office.

Here are the main things he/his administration have done so far that I strongly disagree with/find concerning. I've already discussed some of these at length recently so I'm going to keep some of them brief:

  • The whole "fake news"/turning the public against the media thing, vilifying every news source while engendering blind trust in a single news source (Fox) which coincidentally is the one who reports favorably on him and his agenda.
  • Repealing of media antitrust laws, allowing Sinclair group to consolidate local news stations across the country, with the clear end goal being a single source of news which is under his/their control/aligned with him/them
  • Inflaming of existing divisions within the country
  • Appointing personal friends and people unqualified for government positions (they call this cronyism - a recent example is promoting the white house physician - who has never had more than a handful of patients - to the head of the VA) to important positions in the government. Appointing people who, in some cases if you look at the history of their careers, are in direct opposition to the protections their new office is supposed to uphold
  • Empowering racial/religious bigotry towards immigrants and muslims (this was particularly bad during his campaign. I've mentioned recently that my good friend went to a Trump rally to check it out, and some of the stuff she told me that he was saying shocked me - it included advocating violence against immigrants).
  • Empowering misogyny (he has a very long history of sexual misconduct that goes way back to when he was much younger and he's really quite blatant about it)

I may be forgetting some as I just got a work call and have to work on something now. But hopefully this lays it out for you.

By the way, as I said before, if the North Korea stuff works out, then I'll happily credit him with doing something good, too. But it won't invalidate or forgive the other stuff.
 
Last edited:
^Trump has pardoned a number of known criminals. Getting caught up over Hillary at this point is nothing but hypocritical.
No, it's just people who make these comments have zero understanding of the Clinton email scandal and the severity of removing classified information from government networks.

I'm not saying give investigating Hillary a rest
You basically are.

I'm saying we're talking about Trump, not Hillary. If someone raises a concern about Trump, and you go "but Hillary!", that is evading the question.
I'll repeat what I wrote in my last post, maybe you can stop evading this question:
"..this does have a bearing on Trump's presidency. What if Trump was caught with classified information on a private, unsecured server? Does Trump get to walk too? Or does he get indicted?"

Also, I'm saying that a lot of the stuff said about Hillary is right-wing smear campaign stuff and not real
Why bring that up? Stick to the facts and evidence. Clinton paid to set up a private server and conducted government business on it without congressional oversight. Removed classified information and above top-secret intelligence and put the files onto the separate server that was unencrypted for 3 months, while also back-upped the files to the cloud at Platte River & Datto. Destroyed subpoena'd evidence.
Felonies out the wazoo.

(pizzagate comes to mind)
Yes Pizzagate would be considered a big bowl of baloney, if it wasn't for the Clintons rescuing a child trafficker instead of helping to punish them.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...candal-and-how-media-attempted-ignorecover-it
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...ment-connected-east-coast-trafficking-network

Also from what I read in the declassified document about the uranium thing, it seemed to not be what you're characterizing it as. It alleged that uranium stolen from Russia by another group was discovered/recovered by the US. Since it was Russia's, we gave it back. if we hadn't we'd have been stealing it. It's not like we handed uranium to ISIS or something, we gave back uranium to the country who has about the same amount of nuclear missiles as we do. You think giving Russia back some uranium that was theirs endangers us in any way? I wish I could remember where the link to the document was posted in here, I remember it was fairly recent and I went ahead and read it. Wish I could remember so I could quote the parts of it that led me to what I'm saying now.
No offence but you have no idea what you are talking about.
What you are referring to is an article that I myself posted showing how Robert Mueller (the man investigating alleged Russia collusion) personally handed over uranium to Russian government officials.
This is separate (probably connected actually) to the Uranium One scandal. When Mueller was the head of the FBI his bureau uncovered Russian agents engaging in bribery, extortion and racketeering to co-opt a transport company which was taking yellowcake uranium out of the US to Canada (and then onto Europe) without an export licence. How did they get the uranium? Obama/Clinton oversaw a deal (which either could have prevented going through) which basically gave the Russian government ownership of 20% of US uranium capacity. Yes they sold nuclear-weapon components to an alleged nuke-crazy enemy dictatorship. Around the same time, Russians linked to the deal 'donated' $150 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton met personally at Putin's house in Russia along with receiving $500,000 for a speech from a Kremlin bank.
Russian collusion anyone?? This is why the Trump/Russia collusion accusations are considered nonsense by anyone who has done their research and isn't a partisan.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (NYTimes)
http://www.startribune.com/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-amid-russian-uranium-deal/301250211/
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show
http://thehill.com/policy/national-...deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show
Obama Admin Lied; New Memos Reveal Uranium One Exports To "Europe And Asia" Via Canada
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017...um-one-yellowcake-exported-europe-and-asia-ca


I don't see the evidence that Hillary is any worse than many others. I mean maybe if I got all my evidence from far-right sources, and believed them, I'd feel differently.
Yes well that's because you're willfully ignoring the evidence, and will probably ignore the points I'm making because you will label me "far-right"

Just have a good listen to what Comey says here for the first 10 mins
https://youtu.be/ghph_361wa0?t=1m26s
FBI Director James Comey FULL STATEMENT on Hillary Clinton Email Investigation (C-SPAN)


He has no previous political experience
Watch Trump's interview on NK in 1999 and tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about. He predicted the mess there and then cleaned it up 20 yrs later. He beat the establishment candidate in a general election with half the money and almost negative media support. The results indicate qualification. He has been intimately connected to political circles for his entire career. The Clintons were at his wedding. He knows what is up and has been carefully observing everyone for decades. He also has excellent advisors and is tight with the military. We are witnessing the swamp drain and it is accelerating.

He doesn't understand how to run a country financially (countries are much different from businesses and he has never been in politics or been involved in governmental policy decisions before)...
I know it's a crazy concept but it's not just the POTUS pulling all the economic strings. In Trump's first year the stock market set a remarkable number of records, adding $5 trillion. The fake news media predicted "a Trump win would sink stocks". The country was even looking at 4% growth in one quarter. Results prove he either knows what he's doing (more likely), or that the man in that position is irrelevant.

even in his own businesses he has declared bankruptcy what, 4 times? Screwing over people he owed money to, running businesses into the ground only to get bailed out via bankruptcy.
Trump has created 515 businesses (268 branded with his name) and only 11 of them failed. that's a 98.64% success rate.
He has a better track record than Elon Musk by an order of magnitude, and that's without the billions of dollars of government funding that Musk received.

He has not shown himself able to control his impulses. See: Twitter (for example). He offends the rest of the world and it damages our reputation and standing among even our allies. I know many Trump supports like him because they feel he "real talks", but the fact is that as a leader of a nation, you need to be a diplomat, it's just the way it is. His diplomacy skills leave a lot to be desired.
Peace through strength. He's a master of persuasion, and never passes up the opportunity to troll his detractors. So far pretty much all of his tweets since the inauguration that the media went bonkers over and called 'conspiracy theories' have been proven to be true. How does Trump manage to stay one step ahead of his opponents and the fake news liberal media? It's not from being stupid or out of control.

He has a long history of corrupt behavior; allegations against him began long before he made any sort of moves towards running for office.
Vague nothings, and considering the state of the previous admins, shouldn't that have helped Trump in the political sphere?


  • The whole "fake news"/turning the public against the media thing, vilifying every news source while engendering blind trust in a single news source (Fox) which coincidentally is the one who reports favorably on him and his agenda. - screw the fake news media. They deserve everything they get and are currently on life support. They are enemies to any Americans that desire the truth.
  • Repealing of media antitrust laws, allowing Sinclair group to consolidate local news stations across the country, with the clear end goal being a single source of news which is under his/their control/aligned with him/them
  • Inflaming of existing divisions within the country - I want to ask for an example but I can already predict the ridiculousness that will ensue "he said good people on both sides"!!!!???
  • Appointing personal friends and people unqualified for government positions (they call this cronyism - a recent example is promoting the white house physician - who has never had more than a handful of patients - to the head of the VA) to important positions in the government. Appointing people who, in some cases if you look at the history of their careers, are in direct opposition to the protections their new office is supposed to uphold - is this a problem with the Bush dynasty? *waits to chuckle at "Dubya was qualified"*. Clinton family? The swamp is deep and there are not many trustworthy candidates available (look at the revolving door of staff so far). Slowly but surely they are cleaning house and weeding out the leakers.
  • Empowering racial/religious bigotry towards immigrants and muslims (this was particularly bad during his campaign. I've mentioned recently that my good friend went to a Trump rally to check it out, and some of the stuff she told me that he was saying shocked me - it included advocating violence against immigrants) - Nonsense. Tough talk on ILLEGAL immigration and Islamic TERRORISM is not bigotry. I shall remind you that Trump received more minority votes than Romney and that was even with the fake news media screaming "TRUMP = RACIST" 24/7 for months. It's only the partisans and never-Trumpers that still buy this bullshit.
  • Empowering misogyny (he has a very long history of sexual misconduct that goes way back to when he was much younger and he's really quite blatant about it) - Trump won the female university-educated vote. His companies had a reputation for having a record number of women in executive-level positions and sometimes getting paid more than their male counterparts based on results. None of the accusations have gone anywhere in court and most have not progressed past accusations. How many settlements has he had regarding sexual misconduct?


By the way, as I said before, if the North Korea stuff works out, then I'll happily credit him with doing something good, too. But it won't invalidate or forgive the other stuff.
"Sure, I mean eliminating the imminent threat of nuclear war in Asia is all well and good, but Trump is still evil for saying some shithole countries are "shitholes"!"
 
Last edited:
Okay... so, I am NOT, in fact, saying that Hilary shouldn't be investigated. Nor should Trump. And if either, or both, is shown to be guilty, they should be indicted. I don't think we can ever get anywhere with this because you think all of my evidence is fake, and I think all of your evidence is fake. THIS is the very problem with the whole "fake news" thing. Neither of us knows the truth, but we no longer respect each others' opinions or listen to each other at all. It's greatly contributed to the frustration and division we feel. I don't trust everything I hear in the media, but I see an agenda being played out. But there is nothing I can do to convince you of that because you've chosen to believe the opposing voice, and you can't convince me of your side either. I think either of us would have to meet these people, be there to personally witness, to be convinced. Sucks but I don't feel like sitting here and refuting every one of your retorts because it'll take time and I've got other things to do... it's not getting anywhere nor will it.

JGrimez said:
  • The whole "fake news"/turning the public against the media thing, vilifying every news source while engendering blind trust in a single news source (Fox) which coincidentally is the one who reports favorably on him and his agenda. - screw the fake news media. They deserve everything they get and are currently on life support. They are enemies to any Americans that desire the truth.
  • Repealing of media antitrust laws, allowing Sinclair group to consolidate local news stations across the country, with the clear end goal being a single source of news which is under his/their control/aligned with him/them

I'll just reply to this though... the top two points on my list, the ones I consider the most alarming (really it's 2 parts of the same point), you have done nothing to refute. The first point you basically said, screw them, which does nothing to answer my concern I stated. And you didn't answer the second one at all.

"Sure, I mean eliminating the imminent threat of nuclear war in Asia is all well and good, but Trump is still evil for saying some shithole countries are "shitholes"!"

You're misrepresenting me. I think Trump is problematic and a president for the points I listed above, not because of some tiny little thing. I think that comment was blown way out of proportion.
 
Hey. all I could say to you is because I know from being an insider they ran out of narratives, they're giving up and throwing in the towel, especially to progress.
All you have to know is that the politicians are getting Tired. Very. Tired.
 
I don't think we can ever get anywhere with this because you think all of my evidence is fake
Did you present any evidence of Trump committing a felony?

and I think all of your evidence is fake. THIS is the very problem with the whole "fake news" thing. Neither of us knows the truth, but we no longer respect each others' opinions or listen to each other at all.
I respect your opinions but not when you're being willfully ignorant. It's not my evidence, it's THE evidence. In that video I linked, James Comey FBI director at the time, lists off some of the crimes that the FBI can prove Clinton is guilty of. The validity of the evidence isn't really up for debate, it's a fact. The only argument around that is whether Clinton should be indicted or not. In my opinion, if you break the law you face the consequences even if you're a powerful politician.

the top two points on my list, the ones I consider the most alarming (really it's 2 parts of the same point), you have done nothing to refute. The first point you basically said, screw them, which does nothing to answer my concern I stated. And you didn't answer the second one at all.
Yes, screw them. For as long as they continue to suppress positive stories and promote misleading lies.

Unprecedented hostility: Broadcast coverage of President Trump still 90% negative, says study

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/

You're misrepresenting me. I think Trump is problematic and a president for the points I listed above, not because of some tiny little thing. I think that comment was blown way out of proportion.
That was a characterization of your mob in general, not you specifically.
At least you are willing to give Trump credit for aiding any future Korean peace agreements.
 
I never claimed Trump committed a felony, he may have, but if he has, that's what the investigation is for (investigations of this magnitude typically take years by the way so the lack of indictments as of yet means nothing). I am claiming Trump is a bad president who does not have our interests at heart. I am not talking about Hillary, she's probably a crook too. My evidence involves executive orders/policy decisions he has made, as well as stories from the media. My point is that I don't believe a word that comes out of Fox News or "truepundit.com" which you like to use as a source, or any of the right wing opinion sites. I am more likely to believe something that comes from CNN, or BBC, but you consider those to be purveyors of fake news, so you don't consider them valid sources, the same as I don't consider yours valid sources because I believe the right is using lies to undermine public trust in the media that isn't Fox, so that Sinclair can achieve a media monopoly and we end up like China and Russia where the media fed to the people is tightly controlled and propagandized (which you still did not address above, instead giving the same non-answer of "fuck them". Okay I get it, you think they deserve to be attacked, but what about Trump constantly tweeting about how you should only trust Fox, while Sinclair group moves towards consolidating the media? Does this concern you? It's an example of something that is objectively fact, it's public record, Trump repealed media antitrust laws when he got into office and Sinclair has been buying up large portions of the local news stations across the country and requiring them to spend time each day reciting their talking points including how you can't trust other news sources. Don't you find this problematic? I know it's about more than Trump but he's the one who repealed the anti-trust laws).

That video is one example, I admit I didn't watch it because I'm not really trying to talk about Hillary right now. I'm talking about the general state of things here. You repeatedly cite sources as evidence of claims that I disbelieve, that's why I call them your facts, because I don't think they're facts. Declassified documents, public records... those are indisputable facts. Content from pundit articles are not facts.

I'm just trying to highlight the difficulty and frustration that both sides feel here, and why. It's because public trust in media has eroded so far that we now have two opposing worldviews being presented to us, and one side believes one of them and the other side believes the other. So how do you get anywhere in debate? I mean you tried to tell me that pizzagate is a real thing the other day. I have never seen a single compelling piece of evidence to suggest it is. I do have an article I found that goes step by step into the evolution of this conspiracy theory and undermines it at every turn:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

But my expectation is that you're going to call this fake news and show me some fake news to try to prove it. Thus making it pointless for me to even bring this up, but I wanted to do it to illustrate my point.
 
I am not talking about Hillary, she's probably a crook too.
You haven't researched her activities so you also ignore the evidence found by the FBI. Otherwise you would agree that Clinton was guilty of mishandling classified information, violating the espionage act and obstruction of justice. "probably a crook" doesn't cut it. Evidence is thing.

but what about Trump constantly tweeting about how you should only trust Fox, while Sinclair group moves towards consolidating the media? Does this concern you? It's an example of something that is objectively fact, it's public record, Trump repealed media antitrust laws when he got into office and Sinclair has been buying up large portions of the local news stations across the country and requiring them to spend time each day reciting their talking points including how you can't trust other news sources. Don't you find this problematic?
Yes I don't completely trust Fox News either. They omit a lot of stuff, just currently they are the cable news source that is closest to reality. Their numbers show this they are #1 in ratings.
I would prefer that there was no political infiltration of media but this has been going on for a very long time.
Also the left complaining about systemic media bias is hilarious. The projection is becoming beyond believable

You repeatedly cite sources as evidence of claims that I disbelieve, that's why I call them your facts, because I don't think they're facts. Declassified documents, public records... those are indisputable facts.
I know you're speaking generally but my evidence above was the FBI press conference on the issue. I also posted The Hill & the NYTimes with articles backing up the Uranium One controversy. Your attempt to discredit is based on an outright false premise.

Content from pundit articles are not facts.
Articles are quite often factually accurate. I don't post false information. You can look through the history of a source, compare their articles to what was discovered later on and then assess their track record.

I mean you tried to tell me that pizzagate is a real thing the other day. I have never seen a single compelling piece of evidence to suggest it is.
Not surprised. You couldn't even find the evidence for Clinton's top-secret server blunder. I'd bet good money you would not be able to describe the actual accusations of pizzagate researchers. You will probably parrot to me the official narrative which is a strawman and misrepresentation of the claims.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

There was a disgusting piece of famous trash called Jimmy Savile who was a host over at the BBC, and who got away with raping a massive number of kids for decades in large part because he had powerful friends that covered up for him or refused to investigate accusations. The man who was running the BBC at the time and covering for Savile was Mark Thompson who is now the head of the NYTimes, and they are the ones trying to tell us that there's no child abuse or any connections to trafficking from the people mentioned in pizzagate. The other source falsely claiming to debunk the scandal is the Washington Post, who hired John Podesta one of the main people implicated. Conflict of interest and we've seen extensive trafficking/pedo scandals involving elites in the past. You can research it properly yourself if you care to. It hasn't actually been debunked and no official investigation was conducted.
 
Last edited:
Top