Black Lives Matter guy and young black trump Supporter...

[mjr]

"Discuss" Trump.

BLM guy: "Trump is a racist!!"
YBTS: "How? What's he said that's racist"?
BLM guy: "He's a racist! And You're a racist against your own color!"
YBTS: "How is Trump a racist??"
BLM guy: "He's a racist!"

Video: https://youtu.be/wAeB_yl2E90

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Why?

People aren't going to reprove Trump's history of racial rhetoric every single time someone asks. Not to shut down a topic if people want to discuss it, but this guy's point is along the lines of "prove sexism exists."

After a certain number of "look at my african-american over here" and issues with Hispanic or Muslim (not a race but in the context he uses it gets close enough) judges being unable judge him fairly the man definitely has an extremely active racial bias. Whether that bias is genuine or used to move specific voters I can't say for certain (although the idea that he's a political savant wanes every time the dude opens his mouth) but the only shocking thing is it has taken this long to affect him.

[BlaqueKatt]

because 40 years of racism just doesn't exist unless you give specific examples?

[mjr]

because 40 years of racism just doesn't exist unless you give specific examples?

And of course, only whitey can be racist. Right? We both know that isn't true.

Go back and watch the video I posted. You'll see BLM guy say that "Black lives matter first, then all lives matter."

That was indeed one of his retorts to the kid who said "All lives matter."

[NecCat]

I'm not following your point. Are you trying to discuss that the video you linked is worthless because the black lives matter advocate is a racist? Or that black lives matter as a movement is worthless because one of its advocates is racist? Or are you trying to discuss that Donald Trump is not racist because one of his detractors is? Is that what "Discuss" trump as a header meant? Is it that you want us to pull up examples of how many Trump detractors and advocates say racist things and see which side has higher numbers so we can decide if Trump is really racist or if he just seems that way because when white people say racist things it makes them seem racist?

I'm really not following what the point of this thread is.

[mjr]

I'm not following your point. Are you trying to discuss that the video you linked is worthless because the black lives matter advocate is a racist? Or that black lives matter as a movement is worthless because one of its advocates is racist? Or are you trying to discuss that Donald Trump is not racist because one of his detractors is? Is that what "Discuss" trump as a header meant? Is it that you want us to pull up examples of how many Trump detractors and advocates say racist things and see which side has higher numbers so we can decide if Trump is really racist or if he just seems that way because when white people say racist things it makes them seem racist?

I'm really not following what the point of this thread is.

I put "discuss" in quotes, because you young black guy was actually trying to remain civil, and actually discuss things, while the BLM guy was shouting him down. That's why I said "discuss".

Here's the thing: People aren't careful when tagging others as "racist". You know it, and I know it. You also know as well as I do that anyone who says they support Trump is automatically labeled a racist, bigot, or worse.

That video, by the way, dispels a few myths, at least in it's case. The myth that the young don't support Trump. The myth that blacks (as a voting bloc) don't support him. The myth that women (as a voting bloc) don't support him.

You can attribute that to whatever you want (but it's primarily attributed to "hate", and you know this, whether that's true or not), but the fact of the matter is, the video says a LOT about both sides.

Perhaps the BLM guy could have, you know, given examples to the young kid about how Trump has been racist, instead of just repeating "He's racist". See what the kid has to say about it.

It's why so many people try to shout down Vladimir Jaffe, too.

[Valinor]

The kid got lucky. Challenging somebody to give examples of what they're talking about is always a risky debating strategy (not necessarily a bad one, depending on the circumstances), because you are putting the onus on yourself to shoot down every single example they provide. And if they cite an example that you weren't aware of or prepared for, then you've got to come up with a rebuttal on the fly.

The lucky break that the young Trump supporter caught was that his opponent turned out to be an embarrassingly bad debater. There were plenty of examples that he could have given, as seen in the articles that BlaqueKatt linked. Such as the one that the country's current highest-ranking Republican called a "textbook definition of a racist comment."

That video, by the way, dispels a few myths, at least in it's case. The myth that the young don't support Trump. The myth that blacks (as a voting bloc) don't support him. The myth that women (as a voting bloc) don't support him.

How does it do that?

At most, the video shows us that the numbers of young, black, and female voters who support Trump are not zero. But we already knew that. Every news report and commentary I've seen on this has said that Trump's support among women and minority voters are extremely low, not that they're non-existent.

Ben Carson endorsed Donald Trump. That didn't disprove the fact that Trump's polling numbers among black voters are extremely low, either.

(Just for the record, Carson's endorsement also didn't mean that Trump's support among black voters wasn't going to stay low. Very few public figures have the ability to transfer popularity from themselves to somebody else. Even black people who supported Carson weren't going to vote for Trump just because Carson told them to, let alone the people who didn't support Carson to begin with.)

the fact of the matter is, the video says a LOT about both sides

Does it, really? Well, it tells us that this particular BLM activist really sucks at public debating. Beyond that, I don't know what general conclusions you can draw from this.

[mjr]

The kid got lucky. Challenging somebody to give examples of what they're talking about is always a risky debating strategy (not necessarily a bad one, depending on the circumstances), because you are putting the onus on yourself to shoot down every single example they provide. And if they cite an example that you weren't aware of or prepared for, then you've got to come up with a rebuttal on the fly.

That's true, indeed. But what if the kid would have been able to refute the examples? Or what if it were something he was not aware of, and he now had a new piece of knowledge? Wouldn't it have also sharpened his debate skills, win or lose?

Such as the one that the country's current highest-ranking Republican called a "textbook definition of a racist comment."

If you're referring to the comment regarding the judge, you (as well as Paul Ryan) are essentially saying that judges don't have biases. Aren't all people biased, primarily based upon their life experiences? How do you think Judge Curiel would be seen amongst Latinos if he rules in favor of Trump? I can understand how the comment can be offensive, but offensive and racist don't always go hand in hand. Something can be offensive, or offensive AND racist.

Also, has Trump actually ever said anything negative about race, as a whole, in this election?

Does it, really? Well, it tells us that this particular BLM activist really sucks at public debating. Beyond that, I don't know what general conclusions you can draw from this.

He's the one who started the "debate" to begin with. If you want to call what he did "debate" instead of just shouting down a bunch of kids.

But of course that's most debate and protest in this country right now.

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, I'm not sure Trump is actually racist as much as representative of the sector of the populace that lets programs like Fox News spoon-feed them their opinions. Since many of these programs are offensive to those they disagree with... (IOW, I think Trump isn't racist as much as just being an asshole to those he disagrees with.)

Also, it's worth noting that even if Trump does have a history of racism, just saying "he's a racist!" isn't an acceptable answer to being asked to prove someone is a raciist.

[mjr]

to be fair, I'm not sure Trump is actually racist as much as representative of the sector of the populace that lets programs like Fox News spoon-feed them their opinions. Since many of these programs are offensive to those they disagree with... (IOW, I think Trump isn't racist as much as just being an asshole to those he disagrees with.)

Well, to add to that fairness, the same could be said as far as Clinton and CNN, for the most part. Clinton good, Trump bad. Most media is promoting that narrative, true or not. Case in point: When was the last time a major cable news outlet covered the Hillary Email thing? As far as I can tell, if people want info on that, it's something they have to actively search for. Articles are still being written about it, and information is still coming out, but it's not talked about very often (if at all) in the major cable news outlets.

Also, it's worth noting that even if Trump does have a history of racism, just saying "he's a racist!" isn't an acceptable answer to being asked to prove someone is a racist.

Well, labeling someone a racist is easier than having a debate, I suppose.

[Estil]

Maybe people are finally getting tired of the boys (and girls) who cry racist. :P And what's going to happen when a real wolf, sorry racist comes along and nobody believes them?

[mjr]

Maybe people are finally getting tired of the boys (and girls) who cry racist. :P And what's going to happen when a real wolf, sorry racist comes along and nobody believes them?

Personally, I've been tired of it.

[s_stabeler]

Well, to add to that fairness, the same could be said as far as Clinton and CNN, for the most part. Clinton good, Trump bad. Most media is promoting that narrative, true or not. Case in point: When was the last time a major cable news outlet covered the Hillary Email thing? As far as I can tell, if people want info on that, it's something they have to actively search for. Articles are still being written about it, and information is still coming out, but it's not talked about very often (if at all) in the major cable news outlets.

I think the major news outlets aren't covering it because as was pointed out, it's not actually as newsworthy as people think. Clinton was acting in a way that- as far as she knew- was compliant with the regulations. That it turns out she was wrong does not mean she was deliberately ignoring them. As such, while information might still be coming out, that doesn't mean it is actualyl relevant. ( oh, and it's worth noting that the Republicans used a private email server for ALL the White House staff, and deliberately used it to conceal information.)

Well, labeling someone a racist is easier than having a debate, I suppose.

I suppose.

[mjr]

I think the major news outlets aren't covering it because as was pointed out, it's not actually as newsworthy as people think.

It's appearing as though it's a bigger deal than people think. It looks like the guy who managed the server is going to have to be interviewed by the FBI, even though he's already said he's taking the Fifth.

And the FBI has all but said Hillary, as well as Huma, are both going to be questioned. And a judge has already ruled against "The Government" in the FOIA request. The Government said it would take 75 years to produce the requested documents. The judge didn't buy it, and is making them produce the relevant information.

Regardless, it could have an effect on the election (or the Presidency), and therefore I'd think it's relevant.

[s_stabeler]

a) the classified information is- in general- information she recieved- not sent- which would generally not be her fault.
b) it's not actually that rare for classified information to spill into unclassified realms.
c) of the emails deemed classified, several likely genuinely shouldn't have been. For instance, the TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALISED INFORMATION emails (designated TALENT KEYHOLE, which is information from spy satellites)? were a discussion of a news article in the paper about drone strikes.

Indeed, an estimated 50-90% of classified information could be safely declassified.

also, both conservative pundits and even House majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have acknowledged either that the committee investigating the issue is partisan, or that this is an effort to discredit Clinton to increase the chance of Trump becoming President.