Presidential Race 2016

[Dave2512]

But can we be real, there is no reason to be pedantic about obvious racism. You know it when you see/hear it. Deflecting or defending it with semantics is freakin' silly. There was no grey area with Trump's comments.

When was the last time someone referred to you as a German, Italian, Irishman or whatever...And if it happened was  it qualified with demeaning intent. 

He's a Mexican I am building a wall , a twelve minute diatribe about the judge's heritage FFS. Definition of racism maybe not, but is it offensive fa-q'ing A. Nobody says shit like that without derogatory intent. 

[Chilli Dipper]

 

24 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I have to agree, American is not a race. England is not a race. Mexico is not a race. Race, is a social construct based on groups of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. Though it was originally used to define nationality. Race can encompass many nationalities. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States#Racial_makeup_of_the_U.S._population

---

In technical terms he was not specifically talking about a person's race since he was talking about a specific nationality. I don't think he cares if that person was actually from Panama, Peru, or any Latin American country as long as they crossed the border he would probably classify them as from Mexico. 

The tone and wording is very similar to how classic racists talk. If we want to break down racism for what it is, a race-based view with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Even though he was not specifically targeting a race the manor of his speak hits tones of racism. 

Prejudices, Stereotyping and Discrimination are all the same no matter who they are targeting, race, religion, sexual orientation, sexual identification, economical level (rich or poor). 

"Mestizo" (Latinos of mixed European and Indigenous American ancestry) likely qualifies as a race, one that represents the ethnic background of the majority of people of Latin America. To the certain segment of the population who describes any brown person with a Spanish name as Mexican (regardless of origin), mestizo is the more accurate descriptor. A Trump supporter railing on "Mexicans" isn't imagining Louis C.K.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

But can we be real, there is no reason to be pedantic about obvious racism. You know it when you see/hear it. Deflecting or defending it with semantics is freakin' silly. There was no grey area with Trump's comments.

When was the last time someone referred to you as a German, Italian, Irishman or whatever...And if it happened was  it qualified with demeaning intent. 

He's a Mexican I am building a wall , a twelve minute diatribe about the judge's heritage FFS. Definition of racism maybe not, but is it offensive fa-q'ing A. Nobody says shit like that without derogatory intent. 

Exactly.  Insist on not being called racist cuz "hey, it's not a race!?"  Ok fine ... Then let's say bigot.  No need to split hairs. 

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Really?

What race is "American"? (And I'll even pretend we're just talking about the U.S. because even people from Peru are "Americans.")

Or… what race is "South African"?

Human. I wish we would all remember that. 

[Ernest Jones]

7 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

But can we be real, there is no reason to be pedantic about obvious racism. You know it when you see/hear it. Deflecting or defending it with semantics is freakin' silly. There was no grey area with Trump's comments.

When was the last time someone referred to you as a German, Italian, Irishman or whatever...And if it happened was  it qualified with demeaning intent. 

He's a Mexican I am building a wall , a twelve minute diatribe about the judge's heritage FFS. Definition of racism maybe not, but is it offensive fa-q'ing A. Nobody says shit like that without derogatory intent. 

 

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Exactly.  Insist on not being called racist cuz "hey, it's not a race!?"  Ok fine ... Then let's say bigot.  No need to split hairs. 

Freakin' seriously. Trying to intellectualize your away around what is clearly racism is just friggin' goofy. Quite literally the definition of splitting hairs. Muslim and Judaism aren't races either, but guess what, unless I'm mistaken, Hitler was a racist. Calling all people of Muslim Faith terrorists is racism.  All the mental acrobatics in the world ain't gonna change that. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck...

8 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

He didn't say anything about people born here or who have come here legally as far as I'm aware, but plenty of legal immigrants and people who are of Mexican decent really dislike him, to the point that could be considered hate, for what he's said regarding illegal immigrants and his "build a wall" talk. Now, not all of them do, I know people on both sides. Some who support him and others would probably like to see him keel over dead tomorrow. I don't automatically assume people think one way or the other, I prefer to let them express how they feel on their own. I can't even say I blame them for not liking him for what he has said. I'm very disappointed that he's who we have as a Republican candidate, but there's nothing to be done about it.

 

Why not? Couldn't you, I dunno, not vote for him to be President of the United States of America?

Are you voting for a little elephant logo or are you voting for the candidate that best represents your values? For all the issues that people have with Hillary, and I can't say that I disagree entirely - she is, after all, a career politician, so, shifty by nature - she doesn't spout inflammatory things based on people's race (or heritage if you want to split hairs), appearance, sex or physical condition and she is not a complete buffoon.  

 

 

I can can understand the posters who are voting against Hillary rather than for Trump. I think it's misguided or, as I said previously, cutting your nose off to spite your face, but I'm stunned by those who are actually voting for Trump because they actually think he's ****ing awesome. That's one scary demographic...

[Jeremie Boop]

1 hour ago, Ernest Jones said:

Are you voting for a little elephant logo or are you voting for the candidate that best represents your values? For all the issues that people have with Hillary, and I can't say that I disagree entirely - she is, after all, a career politician, so, shifty by nature - she doesn't spout inflammatory things based on people's race (or heritage if you want to split hairs), appearance, sex or physical condition and she is not a complete buffoon.  .

I pretty much don't agree with her stance on most issues, and voting anyone besides her or Trump is tantamount to throwing your vote away.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I pretty much don't agree with her stance on most issues, and voting anyone besides her or Trump is tantamount to throwing your vote away.

I hate that logic though it's correct if you want to be subjugated to the two party system. 

[mcanadiens]

11 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I pretty much don't agree with her stance on most issues, and voting anyone besides her or Trump is tantamount to throwing your vote away.

While that line of thinking generally governs the way I vote, this year may be an exception. I find both to be so repugnant that a third-party vote is being seriously considered. There is also a chance that I may not vote for anyone for president. I may just skip to the local races and issues.

[Jeremie Boop]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I hate that logic though it's correct if you want to be subjugated to the two party system. 

If there's ever a 3rd party candidate whose stances on issues I agree with and who has a legitimate chance I winning I wouldn't be against voting for them. However, given how our system works that just doesn't seem like a very real possibility. So we get stuck in these situations where people who don't necessarily like either candidate fall into "I'm not voting for A, I'm just voting against B" or they just abstain from voting.

 

1 minute ago, mcanadiens said:

While that line of thinking generally governs the way I vote, this year may be an exception. I find both to be so repugnant that a third-party vote is being seriously considered. There is also a chance that I may not vote for anyone for president. I may just skip to the local races and issues.

I kind of fear this is the route a lot of people are going to take this year, way more than previous years. I'm going to be interested in seeing the overall turnout numbers on this election compared to past elections.

[Chilli Dipper]

The USA Today published a report this morning alleging that Donald Trump habitually refuses to pay people for the work he's hired them to do: Subcontractors on his various construction projects, hospitality workers at his hotels and resorts, even lawyers defending him in court against lawsuits accusing him of not paying people for their work.

There's a real pathology in Trump's modus operandi, as described in the article. He tells a contractor that their work is lousy, and he's going to pay for it, but he also says he'd like to work with them again in the future. Trump is arrogant enough to dare small businesses to sue him, because he can pay the legal fees of a long court battle and they can't; yet he's also predatory enough to know that if he dangles the bait, there are enough people blinded by the Trump mythos to allow themselves to be taken advantage of time and time again.

I await the response of the Trump true believers in this thread to correct me, and show how this story explains how Trump is a great American.

[mcanadiens]

4 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I kind of fear this is the route a lot of people are going to take this year, way more than previous years. I'm going to be interested in seeing the overall turnout numbers on this election compared to past elections.

Of course, you can go to the polls, not mark a choice for president and vote for everything else. You still have the turnout, just not the vote for that particular race.

Frankly, if people were more in touch with what's going on in their cities and counties, the country would be better off for it.  

[mcanadiens]

17 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The USA Today published a report this morning alleging that Donald Trump habitually refuses to pay people for the work he's hired them to do: Subcontractors on his various construction projects, hospitality workers at his hotels and resorts, even lawyers defending him in court against lawsuits accusing him of not paying people for their work.

There's a real pathology in Trump's modus operandi, as described in the article. He tells a contractor that their work is lousy, and he's going to pay for it, but he also says he'd like to work with them again in the future. Trump is arrogant enough to dare small businesses to sue him, because he can pay the legal fees of a long court battle and they can't; yet he's also predatory enough to know that if he dangles the bait, there are enough people blinded by the Trump mythos to allow themselves to be taken advantage of time and time again.

I await the response of the Trump true believers in this thread to correct me, and show how this story explains how Trump is a great American.

Just about anyone with sufficient leverage does this. You delay payment for as long as possible, so you can keep more of your money generating returns for you. Company X can get supplies from many different suppliers. It tells supplier A that it will now have 90-day payment terms instead of 60-day payment terms. Otherwise, it will go with Supplier B. Then Company X will look at any other reason to pay less than the full invoice price. 

Maybe DT takes it to more of an extreme than others, but this basically describes the way it works in many of these situations. When the supplier has the advantage in the relationship, payment terms would be the opposite. 

To be clear about it, I'm not a Trump supporter.

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

If there's ever a 3rd party candidate whose stances on issues I agree with and who has a legitimate chance I winning 

Check out this website, 

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Take the test and find out who you side with ;) 

---

To those who think Forbes has it against Trump for accurately valuing his net work and the value of his business. I am inline to believe with Forbes over Trump. 

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/donald-trump-palos-verdes-golf-course-holes-exclusive-160019025.html

Trump claimed his golf course in Palos Verdes was worth 264 million dollars. It was appraised at $21.8 million. He also claimed a golf course in NY was worth $50 million. Yet tax officials says its worth $1.35 million 

Get this, in 2008 Trump was suing the City of Palos Verdes. Trump claimed that he was paying too high of taxes because his course was appraised at $24 million. Trump said it's value should be at $10 million. 

So which is it Trump, well it based on how it benefits Trump. If he's marketing his golf course its worth $246 million. If its for tax purposes it's worth $10 million. 

 

[14ledo81]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

So which is it Trump, well it based on how it benefits Trump. If he's marketing his golf course its worth $246 million. If its for tax purposes it's worth $10 million. 

 

How is this different than anyone?

I always hope the tax assessor appraises my house low.  When I am looking to refi or 2nd mortage, I am looking to show the house has more value.

[Abu3baid]

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

How is this different than anyone?

I always hope the tax assessor appraises my house low.  When I am looking to refi or 2nd mortage, I am looking to show the house has more value.

It's different because neither of us is running for the POTUS.  And no one cares what our net worth or lack there of is. :)

[saevel25]

12 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

How is this different than anyone?

I always hope the tax assessor appraises my house low.  When I am looking to refi or 2nd mortage, I am looking to show the house has more value.

Trump isn't selling his golf course. He's marketing it for potential members and property investors who might want to develop homes around it. Blatantly saying it's worth 10x what it's actually worth is fraud. 

Fraud
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
or
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

You yourself are not valuing your home at 10x its worth for some monetary gain. Trump overvalued his property on purpose to promote it as something it is not. 

 

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Trump isn't selling his golf course. He's marketing it for potential members and property investors who might want to develop homes around it. Blatantly saying it's worth 10x what it's actually worth is fraud. 

Fraud
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
or
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

You yourself are not valuing your home at 10x its worth for some monetary gain. Trump overvalued his property on purpose to promote it as something it is not. 

 

If they pay 10x, then by definition, that's what it's worth.

Real Estate values are collectively subjective. Values can go up or down 10x easily. 

[Braivo]

A black man on trial doesn't want an all-white jury. A presidential candidate that advocates for building a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out doesn't want a Mexican judge. No story here.

We all want our stuff to be worth more except when it comes to tax time. No story here.

A man maximizes every advantage available to him within the context of existing laws. No story here.