A Mind That Matters

[IrezumiKiss]

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/400131264a226db46e589621baccee33b7fa0ee3/0_103_3600_3595/master/3600.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none&crop=none

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/11/01/20/91559705-14029929-Jeffrey_Epstein_and_Donald_Trump_placed_bets_on_who_would_sleep_-a-37_1730493484659.jpg

https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/1168875173/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=1722,969,x180,y651,safe&height=600&width=1200&fit=bounds

"There is this thing called the interweb."

https://media4.giphy.com/media/lOKeRX2jFoV2M/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952nw8iluhjov037fj8d2plaqeab7adk4o4loa4xvjy&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

 

[TastySuckToy]

No, it really isn't, especially not coming from someone like you who will put yourself through no end of logical acrobatics to convince yourself Trump isn't racist.

I don't need to convince myself Trump isn't racist. That is starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards.

Those who claim Trump is racist need to present me with compelling evidence and a reasonable case, and so far have failed to do so. It's their burden of proof.

The real test is, all else being equal, would you believe it if a politician you support had said it? I won't try to read your mind, but I sincerely doubt you would.

I'm willing to accept the claim a racist said something racist, when the premise you asserted as absolute fact, and I'm willing to agree with, is that he is a racist.

I'm not giving weight to the claim because the claim exists, I'm giving weight to the claim because of the premise that you asserted and I agreed with.

He may have said that later on, but not in his campaign kickoff speech. He just called them rapists and drug pushers, and left it at that.

Just taking your claim at face value, people are absolutely allowed to clarify what they're actually saying if the initial statements are unclear.

He also later asked a judge to recuse himself from a case because the judge was of Mexican ancestry.

Trump is allowed his opinions on whether he thinks a judge is impartial or not.

He said it in the debate with Biden last year.

If someone points out that any particular ethnicity dominates a particular type of job, that's not racism, that's an observation.

"Very fine people on both sides". "Stand back and stand by".

Two old and debunked examples of Trump's supposed 'racism'.

No, they were singling out Black applicants from square one. Trump's very first job was marking their applications with a C for "colored".

Identifying an individual's ethnicity is no more racist than identifying someone as male is 'sexist'.

Southern strategy 101.

Meaningless reply.

Even if it were that simple, guess what? That's exactly what you're doing with that (likely apocryphal) LBJ quote!

You stated as matter of fact that LBJ is a racist. Based upon that assertion you yourself argued (and I was already familiar with from my submitted source), I'm willing to accept the claim he said something racist.

 

[Politruk]

I don't need to convince myself Trump isn't racist. That is starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards.

Those who claim Trump is racist need to present me with compelling evidence and a reasonable case, and so far have failed to do so. It's their burden of proof.

I'm willing to accept the claim a racist said something racist, when the premise you asserted as absolute fact, and I'm willing to agree with, is that he is a racist.

I'm not giving weight to the claim because the claim exists, I'm giving weight to the claim because of the premise that you asserted and I agreed with.

Just taking your claim at face value, people are absolutely allowed to clarify what they're actually saying if the initial statements are unclear.

Trump is allowed his opinions on whether he thinks a judge is impartial or not.

If someone points out that any particular ethnicity dominates a particular type of job, that's not racism, that's an observation.

Two old and debunked examples of Trump's supposed 'racism'.

Identifying an individual's ethnicity is no more racist than identifying someone as male is 'sexist'.

Meaningless reply.

You stated as matter of fact that LBJ is a racist. Based upon that assertion you yourself argued (and I was already familiar with from my submitted source), I'm willing to accept the claim he said something racist.

The dishonest piece of shit who denies Trump is a rapist also denies Trump is a racist. What else?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/400131264a226db46e589621baccee33b7fa0ee3/0_103_3600_3595/master/3600.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none&crop=none

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/11/01/20/91559705-14029929-Jeffrey_Epstein_and_Donald_Trump_placed_bets_on_who_would_sleep_-a-37_1730493484659.jpg

https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/1168875173/0x0.jpg?format=jpg&crop=1722,969,x180,y651,safe&height=600&width=1200&fit=bounds

"There is this thing called the interweb."

https://media4.giphy.com/media/lOKeRX2jFoV2M/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952nw8iluhjov037fj8d2plaqeab7adk4o4loa4xvjy&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Another fucking idiot…


Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips?

 

[YDB95]

I don't need to convince myself Trump isn't racist. That is starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards.

Which is exactly what you always do with your conviction that he is not racist. That makes it a whole lot easier to convince yourself things he did and said are somehow not racist, as you always do.

Those who claim Trump is racist need to present me with compelling evidence and a reasonable case, and so far have failed to do so. It's their burden of proof.

Yes and no. I mean, that's reasonable enough out of context, but the context is that he has decades of racist comments, actions and affiliations to his name, and you simply dismiss those because they don't fit what you want to believe about the man.

I'm willing to accept the claim a racist said something racist, when the premise you asserted as absolute fact, and I'm willing to agree with, is that he is a racist.

Racist by today's standards, that's a very important caveat, which you have conveniently ignored. I also asserted - as absolute fact - that he was a famously brilliant politician. Therefore, no matter how racist he was, it would make no sense at all for him to boast about cornering the votes of 17% of the population, when he knew and said it would hurt his party with the other 83%. History has shown that's exactly what happened, too. No Democratic nominee, not even Clinton, has won a majority of the white vote since then.

I'm not giving weight to the claim because the claim exists, I'm giving weight to the claim because of the premise that you asserted and I agreed with.

Which is not sufficient evidence on its own, unless you really, really want to believe he said it.

Just taking your claim at face value, people are absolutely allowed to clarify what they're actually saying if the initial statements are unclear.

True, but even if he did make that clarification - and I don't even know for a fact that he did - it's textbook Southern strategy to offer up some non-racist explanation after the fact, when the racists have already heard the original comment loud and clear, as was definitely the case here.

Trump is allowed his opinions on whether he thinks a judge is impartial or not.

Yes, but there's really no question here that the basis of that opinion was that his history of racist comments would hurt him in the judge's eyes. He never even really pretended otherwise.

If someone points out that any particular ethnicity dominates a particular type of job, that's not racism, that's an observation.

Depends on just why they dominate that type of job, but that's beside the point. The point is, he thought of menial labor jobs that require no education to speak of, and his mind went straight to "Black jobs". That is in fact racist.

Two old and debunked examples of Trump's supposed 'racism'.

They're not debunked; he said both and there's proof that he said both.

Identifying an individual's ethnicity is no more racist than identifying someone as male is 'sexist'.

If it's done with the purpose of finding any excuse whatsoever to exclude that application - as was the case here - then of course it's racist.

Meaningless reply.

Just because you either disagree with my point or failed to grasp it does not make it meaningless. To pretend race wasn't a major factor in the Central Park Five case is a classic example of the Southern strategy.

You stated as matter of fact that LBJ is a racist. Based upon that assertion you yourself argued (and I was already familiar with from my submitted source), I'm willing to accept the claim he said something racist.

If it were that simple, you would also have accepted long ago that Trump is racist as well. Here, you're just cherrypicking and ignoring all context that doesn't fit your preconceived thesis.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Which is exactly what you always do with your conviction that he is not racist. That makes it a whole lot easier to convince yourself things he did and said are somehow not racist, as you always do.

Am I convinced that Trump isn't racist? Absolutely. Everything I've seen, read and heard paints the picture he is not at all racist. Anyone claiming he is racist has failed to present me with any compelling case or evidence to the contrary.

You can cry all you want that what convinces you doesn't convince me.

Yes and no. I mean, that's reasonable enough out of context, but the context is that he has decades of racist comments, actions and affiliations to his name, and you simply dismiss those because they don't fit what you want to believe about the man.

I dismiss them because none of them are convincing or compelling.

Racist by today's standards, that's a very important caveat, which you have conveniently ignored.

Oh, so if Trump is accused of past racist remarks and behaviors, they can be handwave dismissed with "by today's standards'. Good to know.

I also asserted - as absolute fact - that he was a famously brilliant politician. Therefore, no matter how racist he was, it would make no sense at all for him to boast about cornering the votes of 17% of the population, when he knew and said it would hurt his party with the other 83%.

I don't recall the claim of what he said including him saying it in front 83% of the population.

Which is not sufficient evidence on its own, unless you really, really want to believe he said it.

Here's a funny thing: you don't get to decide for me what evidence I find compelling or convincing about anything.

True, but even if he did make that clarification - and I don't even know for a fact that he did - it's textbook Southern strategy to offer up some non-racist explanation after the fact, when the racists have already heard the original comment loud and clear, as was definitely the case here.

His comments were not at all racist, as his clarifications clearly showed.

Repeated attempts on your part to play mind reader on Trump aren't going to sway me.

Yes, but there's really no question here that the basis of that opinion was that his history of racist comments would hurt him in the judge's eyes. He never even really pretended otherwise.

So your argument is said judge believes Trump is racist and would judge him unfairly on that notion. So then Trump was absolutely correct on wanting the judge recused.

Depends on just why they dominate that type of job, but that's beside the point. The point is, he thought of menial labor jobs that require no education to speak of, and his mind went straight to "Black jobs". That is in fact racist.

Again with your attempt at mind reading Trump. I reject any and all claims on your part about what Trump is thinking.

They're not debunked; he said both and there's proof that he said both.

He said both, sure. You just quoted them completely out of context and isolation, and expect everyone to accept your interpretation.

If it's done with the purpose of finding any excuse whatsoever to exclude that application - as was the case here - then of course it's racist.

Just another arbitrary assertion by you.

Just because you either disagree with my point or failed to grasp it does not make it meaningless. To pretend race wasn't a major factor in the Central Park Five case is a classic example of the Southern strategy.

I'm not interested in your appeals to "Southern Strategy". The subject at hand is Trump.

If it were that simple, you would also have accepted long ago that Trump is racist as well.

I'll accept Trump is racist when a compelling case and convincing evidence is presented.

you're just cherrypicking and ignoring all context that doesn't fit your preconceived thesis.

My preconceived thesis is that I will not consider Trump (or anyone at all) racist until a compelling case and convincing evidence is presented.

 

[grey228]

Another fucking idiot…

View attachment 2479240
Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips?

I like how people forget that God-Emperor Trump was looked into for eight years, and if there was paedophilia/ebephilia involved, the F-B-Lie would've had his ass out on that charge instead of the weak sauce crap that needs a corrupt judiciary, malicious Soros-backed prosecutors, and totally compromised / threatened & cowed jury to "convict".

 

[Politruk]

the F-B-Lie

You are an idiot.

malicious Soros-backed prosecutors

Doubly.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I like how people forget that God-Emperor Trump was looked into for eight years, and if there was paedophilia/ebephilia involved, the F-B-Lie would've had his ass out on that charge instead of the weak sauce crap that needs a corrupt judiciary, malicious Soros-backed prosecutors, and totally compromised / threatened & cowed jury to "convict".

To be honest, the fact they put Trump under that big a microscope and the best they could come up with was all the absurd bullshit they made up speaks volumes on Trump's positive character.

Anyone paying attention would notice this, and further explains why he got such a massive win in the election.

 

[Politruk]

Another fucking idiot…

View attachment 2479240
Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips?

That's long since been debunked.

 

[Politruk]

all the absurd bullshit they made up

You are a liar. As usual.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Another fucking idiot…

View attachment 2479240
Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips

Another fucking idiot? Yes, you are.

He's not the current President and we didn't know about Epstein's crap then. You fucking knew it and voted for the sexual assaulter 3 times.

 

[YDB95]

Am I convinced that Trump isn't racist? Absolutely. Everything I've seen, read and heard paints the picture he is not at all racist. Anyone claiming he is racist has failed to present me with any compelling case or evidence to the contrary.

That's because you start from a very firm conviction that he isn't racist, and there's no depth of rationalization you won't stoop to in order to keep it that way. We've all seen you do that again and again and again.

You can cry all you want that what convinces you doesn't convince me.

Don't flatter yourself.

I dismiss them because none of them are convincing or compelling.

Not if you've already made up your mind from square one that he's not racist, anyway.

Oh, so if Trump is accused of past racist remarks and behaviors, they can be handwave dismissed with "by today's standards'. Good to know.

Nope, not even close to what I said.

I don't recall the claim of what he said including him saying it in front 83% of the population.

I can't tell whether you honestly missed my point so completely or are just pretending to. Either way, here's what I said that you're responding to here:

I also asserted - as absolute fact - that he was a famously brilliant politician. Therefore, no matter how racist he was, it would make no sense at all for him to boast about cornering the votes of 17% of the population, when he knew and said it would hurt his party with the other 83%.

Nothing whatsoever to do with whom he was speaking to at the time. After he signed the Civil Rights Act, LBJ predicted it would throw the South to the Republicans for a generation, and he was right. Given that he was aware of that, no matter how racist he was, it makes no sense that he would boast about cornering the Black vote when he knew it would cost his party dearly with the white vote.

Here's a funny thing: you don't get to decide for me what evidence I find compelling or convincing about anything.

If that's your only rationale for believing such a poorly sourced story, well, that says it all.

His comments were not at all racist, as his clarifications clearly showed.

They showed no such thing, especially since he could easily have included them in the first place. That he didn't do so made it very, very easy for the racists out there to conclude he was one of them - something they've stuck with ever since.

So your argument is said judge believes Trump is racist and would judge him unfairly on that notion. So then Trump was absolutely correct on wanting the judge recused.

Nice try, but my argument is that Trump assumed the judge wouldn't be able to be impartial given Trump's own history of racist remarks.

Again with your attempt at mind reading Trump. I reject any and all claims on your part about what Trump is thinking.

Lest we forget, this is concerned with Trump's categorization of low-paid, menial jobs as "Black jobs". He said it; mind-reading has nothing to do with it.

He said both, sure. You just quoted them completely out of context and isolation, and expect everyone to accept your interpretation.

Oh, I'll be happy to remind you of the context: every time Trump denounces any racist or otherwise extreme group of people, he always, always, always has to toss out an aside that amounts to winking at the group in question that he's really on their side or at least is sympathetic to them. Those are simply the two most pungent examples thereof.

Just another arbitrary assertion by you.

Nothing arbitrary about it; Trump and his father did have a record of discrimination, and they were sued over it.

I'm not interested in your appeals to "Southern Strategy". The subject at hand is Trump.

Yes, Trump who paid for a full-page ad demanding the death penalty for five young men of color who were accused of raping a white woman, and who we now know were completely innocent. To pretend race wasn't a factor in that case is to deny reality, period.

I'll accept Trump is racist when a compelling case and convincing evidence is presented.

No, you won't. Everyone here knows that.

My preconceived thesis is that I will not consider Trump (or anyone at all) racist until a compelling case and convincing evidence is presented.

If that were true, you wouldn't have kicked off this exchange with that likely-apocryphal LBJ quote!

 

[Politruk]

No, he isn't, he's a supply-sider. Economic equivalent of a flat Earther.

This is all that really matters here.

 

[TastySuckToy]

That's because you start from a very firm conviction that he isn't racist, and there's no depth of rationalization you won't stoop to in order to keep it that way.

Nope, you don't get to sit there and tell me how much time I've spent investigating the issue or that I started with the premise he isn't racist.

Not if you've already made up your mind from square one that he's not racist, anyway.

I've certainly been convinced Trump is in no way a racist, and I highly doubt he ever was.

You constantly crying that my mind is made up isn't an argument.

I can't tell whether you honestly missed my point so completely or are just pretending to. Either way, here's what I said that you're responding to here:

Nothing whatsoever to do with whom he was speaking to at the time. After he signed the Civil Rights Act, LBJ predicted it would throw the South to the Republicans for a generation, and he was right. Given that he was aware of that, no matter how racist he was, it makes no sense that he would boast about cornering the Black vote when he knew it would cost his party dearly with the white vote.

We agree he's a racist, we agree there is a claim he made a racist comment, and I'm willing to give that claim weight based upon the established and agreed upon premise he's a racist.

There is nothing more to that argument than that.

They showed no such thing, especially since he could easily have included them in the first place. That he didn't do so made it very, very easy for the racists out there to conclude he was one of them - something they've stuck with ever since.

You don't speak for Trump, and I don't care what racists think and believe.

my argument is that Trump assumed the judge wouldn't be able to be impartial given Trump's own history of racist remarks.

Again, you're arguing Trump had a rational reason to want the judge recused: Trump suspected the judge thought of him as a racist and it would negatively impact the judge's impartiality.

That's an entirely justifiable position to hold, and it would be so even if Trump was in fact a racist.

Lest we forget, this is concerned with Trump's categorization of low-paid, menial jobs as "Black jobs". He said it; mind-reading has nothing to do with it.

You're interpreting it as a racist remark, I interpret it as an observational one.

every time Trump denounces any racist or otherwise extreme group of people,

Glad you admit Trump does this.

he always, always, always has to toss out an aside that amounts to winking at the group in question that he's really on their side or at least is sympathetic to them. Those are simply the two most pungent examples thereof.

That's your claim and your interpretation. Neither is evidence for anything other than their own existence.

Nothing arbitrary about it; Trump and his father did have a record of discrimination, and they were sued over it.

Being sued for discrimination doesn't prove anything.

Yes, Trump who paid for a full-page ad demanding the death penalty for five young men of color who were accused of raping a white woman, and who we now know were completely innocent. To pretend race wasn't a factor in that case is to deny reality, period.

Correction: you think race was a factor and you attribute your thinking to Trump. You're not Trump and what you think isn't evidence of what Trump thinks.

No, you won't. Everyone here knows that.

You don't speak for me, and I reject your claim you can speak for anyone or everyone else.

If that were true, you wouldn't have kicked off this exchange with that likely-apocryphal LBJ quote!

You started this exchange with me, not I.

And if you truly think I cannot be convinced by compelling and reasonable arguments, then you are simply highlighting your own stupidity by engaging in the first place.

Let me give you some advice: if you think someone cannot be convinced with compelling and reasonable arguments, don't waste time engaging with them.

 

[Politruk]

Thomas Sowell is not a mind that matters.

 

[YDB95]

Nope, you don't get to sit there and tell me how much time I've spent investigating the issue or that I started with the premise he isn't racist.

All I know is what you have shown us again and again and again, which indicates you haven't spent any time at all giving it any serious thought.

We agree he's a racist, we agree there is a claim he made a racist comment, and I'm willing to give that claim weight based upon the established and agreed upon premise he's a racist.

There is nothing more to that argument than that.

There's your trouble: you're basing the claim entirely on his history of racism, ignoring the equally important factor that his political acumen makes the comment very implausible. It's a textbook case of ignoring context that interferes with the conclusion you want to arrive at.

You don't speak for Trump, and I don't care what racists think and believe.

We've noticed.

Again, you're arguing Trump had a rational reason to want the judge recused: Trump suspected the judge thought of him as a racist and it would negatively impact the judge's impartiality.

That's an entirely justifiable position to hold, and it would be so even if Trump was in fact a racist.

Not the point. The point is why the judge would consider him a racist in the first place.

Let me give you some advice: if you think someone cannot be convinced with compelling and reasonable arguments, don't waste time engaging with them.

I'm not trying to convince you. I know that's hopeless. I just want to drive home the point for others who might read this, that the LBJ quote is most likely apocryphal.

 

[TastySuckToy]

All I know is what you have shown us again and again and again, which indicates you haven't spent any time at all giving it any serious thought.

Again with your ridiculous position of claiming to know how much time I've spend thinking and investigating this issue, or any other for that matter.

There's your trouble: you're basing the claim entirely on his history of racism, ignoring the equally important factor that his political acumen makes the comment very implausible. It's a textbook case of ignoring context that interferes with the conclusion you want to arrive at.

It's not a conclusion I "want" to arrive at. It's simply the conclusion I have arrived at.

The point is why the judge would consider him a racist in the first place.

Judges are just as susceptible to mistakes, bias, bad intentions and false information as any other human being.

I'm not trying to convince you. I know that's hopeless. I just want to drive home the point for others who might read this, that the LBJ quote is most likely apocryphal.

"I think the LBJ quote is most likely apocryphal."

So you spent a couple of pages babbling uselessly, by your own admission, when you could've expressed your point in the above eight words.

 

[Bn2f]

Another fucking idiot…

View attachment 2479240
Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips?

Yes!
Please post the manifest!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Another fucking idiot…

https://zenklub.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/zenklub-sa%C3%BAde-financeira-n%C3%A3o.gif

Now, now, Humpty.

If your photos are supposed to be proof of something you're claiming, then so are those.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o6Ztl2oaGrYaWGtVK/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ywogk5vya0nckqfc88abd66fkiyvji9ir5pr2e0d&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Do I need to post the aircraft manifest for his 28 or was it 30 trips?

You think I give a fuck about Bill Clinton's bonafides?

Please do post the manifest, Clouseau.

https://media.tenor.com/5GsMlP7E2gwAAAAM/do-it-sophie.gif

 

[grey228]

To be honest, the fact they put Trump under that big a microscope and the best they could come up with was all the absurd bullshit they made up speaks volumes on Trump's positive character.

Anyone paying attention would notice this, and further explains why he got such a massive win in the election.

Sometimes, I'm wondering if people have been so insulated from reality, it takes the total destruction of their life and abode to make them aware of the danger the WEF-aligned globalist cabal is to them ... like how the Pacific Palisades are no longer around due to decades of forestry, fire control, water resource, and zoning control mismanagement.

 

[Bn2f]

Sometimes, I'm wondering if people have been so insulated from reality, it takes the total destruction of their life and abode to make them aware of the danger the WEF-aligned globalist cabal is to them ... like how the Pacific Palisades are no longer around due to decades of forestry, fire control, water resource, and zoning control mismanagement.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, dude!
Slow down!
NO need at all to rush to the front to say the things you are saying.
They are ALL dumb fuckups over there to the right ----------> We don't consider this anything worthy of standout. You're being another face in the crowd.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

That's long since been debunked.

It hasn’t been debunked. You’re lying your ass off. The only thing that will debunk this is releasing the Epstein files. Period.

It’ll never happen as there’s waaaaaay too many prominent democrats on it, to included Ol’ Slikie up there, but more importantly Bill Gates.

I bet you still think Epstein killed himself…

 

[HisArpy]

That's because you start from a very firm conviction that he isn't racist, and there's no depth of rationalization you won't stoop to in order to keep it that way. We've all seen you do that again and again and again.

I think that most people will start from a position that someone accused of something is innocent of that accusation UNLESS THERE'S PROOF to the contrary.

What I see in your argument is that your position is opposite to that. You begin with insisting that Trump is a racist yet provide no incontrovertible evidence of that conclusion. Rather, you point to others and claim "look at all these other racists, therefore Trump must be one too." You use factually debunked arguments designed to sway emotion rather than provide clarity or proof of the claim. And you assert that those who don't believe you, must themselves be racists too.

It is a very poorly presented argument on your part. To the point one wonders why.

The answer to that question rests in your own words.

 

[Politruk]

the WEF-aligned globalist cabal

You are an idiot.