Bill Clinton says 'Make America Great Again' is racist

a reply to: UKTruth

So I think his policy ideas are great and I see nothing wrong with his rhetoric.

Ok. Many people had supported George Wallace, had no problem with his rhetoric and saw nothing racist about him. But we saw how that all went, did we not?

George Wallace's own daughter compared Trump to Wallace's approach.

www.usatoday.com...

But she even goes as far to note that even Wallace knew how far he could go.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: introvert

Peanut butter may appeal to racists.
Let's ban it. It's obviously racist.
It's all about context. I bet Trump likes peanut butter. Racist.

That's just stupid.

Don't waste my time.

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: imsoconfused

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships

Well, did you?

Damn, you guys are so lazy when it comes to debate.

So, exactly what is the valid point again?

Trump's campaign slogan, in context with his campaign-style, may appeal to white racists/bigots.

We can clearly see that in its proper context Hillary Clinton used racial slurs and was promoting Make America Great Again. What, No comment on that again?

Was that statement used to propel a campaign based on racial overtones?

There is not denying she made that statement, but was her campaign in part based on the same premise?

This is America everything is based on racial overtones. They said the exact same thing I mean cmon you guys are so gullible.

Do you even hear yourself LMAO?

Do you even have a valid point to make?

Again, being lazy.

My point is you are being deliberately obtuse. If its racism for Trump its racism for Clinton you cant have it both ways.

For those that are simple-minded and do not understand context, you are completely correct.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

So I think his policy ideas are great and I see nothing wrong with his rhetoric.

Ok. Many people had supported George Wallace, had no problem with his rhetoric and saw nothing racist about him. But we saw how that all went, did we not?

George Wallace's own daughter compared Trump to Wallace's approach.

www.usatoday.com...

But she even goes as far to note that even Wallace knew how far he could go.

This is the problem - you are linking opinions.
The country is split on Trump.
What makes one half correct and gives them the right to change the English language to the meaning that suits their opinions?

If you want to believe he is racist then fine, that is your right, but leave the English language alone.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
There is not denying she made that statement, but was her campaign in part based on the same premise?

I posted the video of Bill saying it himself. Did you listen to it?

What does the racial slur "Super Predator" mean?

Hillary Clinton wanted a wall herself, deportation of illegals,
no jobs for them, no drivers licenses.

So yes, exactly the same if not more so

Hillary Cinton Wanted a Wall, Deportation of Illegals, No Jobs etc...

So are you saying Clinton is a racist?

If so, I'll agree for the sake of argument if you state that Trump is one as well.

Even I did not say Trump is a racist, but that appears to be the corner you painted yourself in to.

a reply to: introvert

Hillary's slogan is "I'm With Her". She has proposed going after men who don't pay women enough, and tons of other womens issues.

I find the slogan to be an example of misandry, taken in context with her postions. I mean, maybe she isn't engaging in misandry, but she is appealing to them.

See how that works.

a reply to: UKTruth

Who's changing the English language?

Just because you are refusing to discuss the issue of context does not mean a language is being changed.

That's actually quite a silly argument.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Hillary's slogan is "I'm With Her". She has proposed going after men who don't pay women enough, and tons of other womens issues.

I find the slogan to be an example of misandry, taken in context with her postions. I mean, maybe she isn't engaging in misandry, but she is appealing to them.

See how that works.

Yes, she is. I do not disagree.

Are you saying that appealing to women is the same as appealing to racists?

a reply to: introvert

No that isn't what misandry is. Misandry is hating men.

Yes, I am saying that hating a group of people for how they were born is bad, no matter if it be for their race or sex.

Do you think misogynists are better people than racists? If not why would misandrist be any better?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Who's changing the English language?

Just because you are refusing to discuss the issue of context does not mean a language is being changed.

That's actually quite a silly argument.

We've already discussed context.
It is exactly the same and the only explanation you have come up with is regarding policy and rhetoric.
This we disagree on.
So, we''re back to the words. You are changing the English language (in this context the meaning of words) to suit your own views.

originally posted by: introvert

I am not all for using patriotism as a tool to rally people in to doing stupid things.
.

Yet you are for using the specter of racism to rally people in to doing stupid things.

a reply to: introvert

No, I think we're saying that if you say the rhetoric from one candidate is racist, then you don't get to turn around and declare the exact same rhetoric from another candidate to not be racist.

The only possible context allowed there is that you like one candidate and not the other.

It's like confronting people with Obama's anti-gay marriage position and then being told that "we knew he really didn't mean it ..." No, you just didn't care what he was saying.

So, whatever, you are a HIllary supporter and you hate Trump with the fiery passion of a thousand burning hells, but don't take the exact same rhetoric from each candidate and then say it's racist for one and not the other.

a reply to: Grambler

She is not proposing going after men. She is proposing equal pay. She doesn't go on about how all men are rapists and murderers. She doesn't go on about how we shouldn't let any more men come into the country until we "get this pay thing figured out". She doesn't subscribe to some tough feminist who claims she can get rid of the "men problem" in 10 days.

a reply to: Grambler

Going after employers who don't pay women and men equally is not misandry.

You are taking things out of context.

How is equal pay comparable to racism?

False equivalence?

a reply to: introvert
How is demanding that people follow our border laws racist?

a reply to: UKTruth

You agree with the policy and rhetoric. That says more about you than me.

My statements still stand.

a reply to: introvert

Of course she did.

She's a Democrat afterall.

originally posted by: introvert


So are you saying Clinton is a racist?

Well, based on her racial slur, the context of her
campaign to Make America Great Again, in the context
of her immigration stance that was to deport illegals,
deprive them of drivers license, jobs...she must have
certainly appealed to racists. Lets not forget her
KKK buddy Senator. So she must have appealed to
White Supremacists as well.

If so, I'll agree for the sake of argument if you state that Trump is one as well.

No, I wont agree Trump is racist, nor do I think his campaign is.

Even I did not say Trump is a racist, but that appears to be the corner you painted yourself in to.

So, you concede Trump is not racist?

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert

I am not all for using patriotism as a tool to rally people in to doing stupid things.
.

Yet you are for using the specter of racism to rally people in to doing stupid things.

I've done no such thing.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is a difference between rhetoric and a campaign slogan.