Donald Trump is not currently Racist

All of these arguments are after 2010

4 points were made

Don’t know why there is a 30k character limit when I am the only presenting arguments and my opponent will be rebutting

Pocahontas was a satirical comment to poke fun at Elizabeth's Warren Ridiculous claim that she was Native American.

First, there is no such thing as a race "traitor" you are a human being and it's disgusting to see someone be called a race "traitor" your race does not matter if you are black, doesn't mean you need to fit into typical black culture music, events, etc

Second, she didn't betray Native Americans she was forced to go to England and integrate. 

Point 2:Of course, if calling someone a race "traitor" was racist, Elizabeth Warren isn't even a Native American so she can't be a race "traitor" in the first place. A Logical Fallacy

Argument 2:Well Trump didn't know that
 

Of course, he knew what Pocahontas was. Why would he bring it up if he didn't?

Is That an issue? Saying where are you from and then calling you by x ethnicity based on where you were from is racist now?

So let's say that you ask where someone came from, they reply with Ireland, and you say you are an Irishman, that's not Prejudice.

Next, this makes no sense, the lady said she was from Korea. If she was from Korea, then the Lady knows about South and North Korea especially if she was a journalist.

Having someone who has been personally affected by this mess is why Trump wants them to be a negotiator.

Argument 4:It's just a joke

 

I didn't argue this for trump because it wasn't a joke, but if someone says a joke in good taste, like many people have done, it is not racist. for example, saying "what's the difference between a black dad and a boomerang, the boomerang comes back" An obvious joke, not racist.

1. The Squad are all women of color who have backgrounds in different countries, some are run down.
 
2. Trump's point here is that someone like Ilhan Omar who has repeatedly done some outrageous things to blame America, while not recognizing that her home country of Somalia is riddled with crime, rape, and terrorism should not tell Americans what to do. For example, She blamed America for the Venezuela crisis, She even has ties to Anti-Israel and  Anti-American group known as Witness for Peace. Tucker Carlson sums it up the Best:
 
Omar has made a career of denouncing anyone and anything in her way as racist. That would include virtually all of her political and personal opponents. It includes even inanimate objects like the border wall, that's racist. So was the Congress, so is the entire state of North Dakota, she once tweeted.{6}
Someone Like Omar has nothing good to say about the country that gave her so much. So what Trump is saying that while Omar comes to this country and hates it, shit's on it and refuses to give credit to it being one of the greatest nations, then she tries to tell us what to do with her governing? Perhaps she should care more about the terrible issues in Somalia. 
 
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would, by the standard of identity politics, seem to have everything in common with Ilhan Omar. She was born in Somalia, moved to Kenya and eventually came to this country. Unlike Omar, she loves and cares about the United States. She believes this country is superior to the country she came from.{6}
She should act more like her where she actually likes America and recognizes that Somalia is a third world country to America.

Rejects citizenship? Where are you getting this? NO Trump does not want to reject her citizenship, all Trump is saying is that If you hate America so much, perhaps go somewhere else, like your home country. What about all those celebrities that were going to go to Canada if Trump won? HAHA

Trump never said go back to your country

he is saying to be more gracious to a country that has given the squad so much.

Trump also said Travel Arrangements, meaning that he never said it was a permanent thing.

If you Hate America, perhaps consider leaving to help another country. Tell me how that is racist, please.

Argument 6:County=bad

Their homeland is a fucking dump.

My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.

You think I would make that argument, why? I would stick to the topic in a debate.

Religion is not a race. Race is something you can't control while Religion is something you can. My ENTIRE Opponent's argument shall be neglected because being Jewish is not a race. 
 
The Revisions to OMB Directive 15 defines each racial and ethnic category as follows:

• American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
  
• Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  
• Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
  
• Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term, "Spanish origin," can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
  
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
  
• White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.{7}
  

Nothing about being Jewish or being part of a religion. You can only be one race. So you can't be a Black/jew as a race. Just black as race, and jew as religion.
 
If you want to talk about Trump being Prejudice towards a religious group, we can but not in this debate. Stick to the topic of Race.

This Directive provides standard classifications for record keeping, collection, and presentation of data on race and ethnicity in Federal program administrative reporting and statistical activities. These classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature, nor should they be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program. They have been developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress to provide for the collection and use of compatible, nonduplicated, exchangeable racial and ethnic data by Federal agencies.

So basically it is okay to attack people based on race if it is a joke? Nothing here states it isn't a racist comment unless you take the position that race doesn't exist which by reading what you have said later on, I think I am okay claiming that.

If it wasn't clear my opponent is critiquing the very conflict of this debate. Whether or not Trump is racist. Dr.Franklin basically said a race traitor doesn't exist because we are human beings. This heavily implies that he doesn't think races exist, my question would be why make a debate about is someone racist when you don't even take the position that race is real? Now given I don't need to change my opponent's mind only to make a convincing argument, I'll just present this in the hopes people pick this up. I find this to be well in-conducive because instead of saying A is not racist, my opponent heavily implies to take the position that racism doesn't exist.  

Now it would be something if he stayed consistent to this very idea but he doesn't. Just earlier he defended A is not racist because it is satirical comment but here instead of actually presenting an argument that this wasn't race traitor-ing he says it is isn't real because well, we are human beings.

This is an argumentum ex silento. You have not presented any evidence to support this but still had this conclusion.

Name the logical fallacy and also demonstrate how it is a fallacy.

This is intentional cherry-picking. Just below the italics (the comment I thought my opponent was going to make) was my argument which is "A person can echo racist talking points without knowing it to be the case. A white guy can say the n-word but still be considered a racist.".

 

My opponent didn't respond to my claim instead responded to my attempt at what my opponent would say and completely missing the more important point. This point has remained untested.

If it wasn’t clear by my first round. Trump asked three times where she was from. Trump wasn’t satisfied with New York or Manhattan instead was satisfied until she said her parents were from Korea. Trump use this as a joke. Basically said she is valuable because of her race not what she has accomplished which I have all made clear in the first round that I am regurgitating here.

Something to address someone’s national background is not akin to using someone’s race as a joke. This joke was also valuing a person’s ability by their race not what she has done irrespective of race.

An Asian-American who has parents from Korea isn’t grounds on if the person would be useful in negotiating.

Even a journalist is only useful at reporting and finding news. These things do not help in negotiating with a dictator.

A journalist aims to be as unbiased as possible in order to seem credible whereas a negotiator will use whatever means to find a good deal for their party.

Trump does not know that and he never asked from the reports. 

Meaning you are implying that Trump made an effort into asking her if she was a good negotiator. If this was the case why isn’t Trump using an adviser to find him one? This is you painting a picture that cannot be reasonably deduced unless you think Trump is a 4-D chess player who checks the credibility of a candidate on how they take a racist joke. 

Yet again he is replying to the italics version of what I said. He didn’t even bother to respond to my argument of my guess of what he would say.

This is again an attempt at not answering my main point that Trump is a racist. It is basically a red herring. My point is not pivotal on Trump making a joke, my point is pivotal on Trump making a racist comment. 

simply spending this round pretty much telling me to argue a point that I have already argued. Comment beneath the italics:

A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist. 

This point was not addressed in the most recent quote.

A comment that has prejudice based on race is racist. 

*cough* It is also true that what Trump said is really similar to what the KKK said. My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.

*cough* Maybe she is also racist doesn't mean Trump isn’t a racist. 

Now the second one I copied was from a different point but given we are talking about the subject there is overlap. All of this a non-sequitur as in not relevant to the conversation at hand. I would love for my opponent to find a single point given here that was relevant to the debate. Having 30k characters doesn’t excuse my opponent from talking about irrelevant stuff unless he wants me to read things that are not important. 

The argument here is no and then lets not talk the point that what he said is akin to what the KKK have said. I don’t really have anything to respond to given he didn’t explain his “NO” instead moved onto a point that I have already addressed. See P2 (the one that has more than 3 words) under “Democratic congresswomen should go back to their countries” if you are not sure that I have already countered this.

I seriously don’t know what would be enough. “why don’t they go back” is the same thing as “go back to your country” as in both send a clear message. that person should go back to their country. No real explanation was given but I will still speak about the non explanation he gave after this statement.

This is you sugar-coating sh*t. It is still sh*t no matter how palatable you make it and this is a non-sequitur. I think it is reasonable for me to assume that saying the same thing in a different way is essentially the same thing yet here we have my opponent not stating going back to your country isn’t racist instead tries to make it more palatable.

A non-sequitur. I am not talking about their travel or if it is permanent. I am talking about if it is racist or not.

Readers be aware that my opponent did not tackle the most important point I made. What Trump said is akin to what the KKK said. He instead sugar-coats it and doesn’t even mention the KKK even though he quotes me speaking about it. I find this intentionally avoiding the point at hand because I think he can’t give a point to contest. This is yet another point untested.

Trump never said go back to your country, he is saying to be more gracious to a country that has given the squad so much. 

This is you sugar-coating sh*t.,All of this a non-sequitur as in not relevant to the conversation at hand. I would love for my opponent to find a single point given here that was relevant to the debate. Having 30k characters doesn’t excuse my opponent from talking about irrelevant stuff unless he wants me to read things that are not important. 

Thank you for making it aware of your biases and how much you would like to shove it in when it isn’t even relevant. Yet again targets my italics representing what I thought he would say but this time he paraphrases it. 

Here is what I said underneath:

It is also true that what Trump said is really similar to what the KKK said. My burden is not demonstrate those countries are bad my burden is to demonstrate that Trump says racist stuff. Yours is the opposite.

Note this point was not contested. I don’t think he even brought up the KKK instead of simply quoting me talking about them. This point remained un-contested.

I don’t think my opponent knows what is going on. This debate is about whether or not Trump is racist after 2010. My job is to present the arguments and your job is to tell me how I am wrong. If my opponent didn’t understand this why did he do the very thing I said he would do? 

Now this more than enough covers using an authority figure for something this reputable site deems not scientific as in based on nature and can be measured to be so. It is only for data collection purposes. Meaning my opponent used an argument of authority even though there is no authority on race instead authority on data collecting based on race.   

1. Race is Real

2. You can't be a "traitor" to something you can't control or a race.

Seriously Omar, how am I arguing that Race doesn't even exist. You did not defend your point. My argument why you can't be a traitor to your race was not rebuttaled, Extend Argument.

This is a terrible point. The Pocahontas's name is based on the story of Pocahontas, Race is real BUT you can't be a traitor to a race, it's a race and doesn't mean you are entitled to certain beliefs and traditions. Human beings are referred to as human before race or Human>Race and an ethical issue

You have not presented any evidence on why race traitor's existed, I have argued it has not,

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Capture was my source and I cited it

1. Elizabeth Warren Is Not Native American

2. You are claiming this is racist against Native Americans by attacking a Non-Native American

Fallacies don't need names.

Your main point was someone not knowing, My rebuttal is that Trump knew. your white guy N-word was a poor example because "Pocahontas" is not a racial slur.

What's the issue?

What is valuing someone? He knows that Koreans have been treated by the North so he offered that position, also if she was educated and a journalist, then he is basing that position offering on that not on race, no evidence too so it's epic Latin word!

Yes, they do, journalists specialize in facts, of course, this journalist could have specialized in foreign affairs, but they protected the identity of this person.

Are you joking? This point means nothing to the debate but journalists SUCK! They should be laid off in droves for a dying business, beautiful, ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

How do you know that? The official transcript was never released, no one knows what went on except for the conversation about North Korea with Trump and that lady

Trump asking for someone's ethnicity is not a big deal.

Again, it was a slight indication, however, the lady showed no interest in the position Trump was offering. 

why a joke in good taste is racist?

it is not similar, it was not simply "go back to your country", it's more complicated as I have explained

I agree but it is to prove that Trump has a point why Omar hates America.

Explaining Donald Trump's position and using evidence to do so is useful to understanding the quote in question. The quote of Donald Trump has a meaning that is well worth diving in to explain why the comment is not racist. however, you didn't give an example on Why or what exactly was irrelevant.

Why do you Trump was inferring to remove the citizenship of Americans?

What No! why don't they go back is not the same as go back to your country, the meaning of the quote for Trump is giving the squad an option, then why don't they go back is a QUESTION to the squad, while the KKK's comments about go back to your country IS racist and is directly talking to blacks to be deported and go back to Africa, Trump is not  

Sorry, I constituted this debate, if you hate Jews you are not racist, if you take the position of trump on this Jewish comment, you are not racist, you are an ANTI-SEMITE. 

This really doesn't prove anything, there are tons of authority on race and race statistics. Here are the facts: Race applies to different ethnic groups not religious because you can't be two races at a time, you are either white or black, Hispanic or Asian.{1}

So theoretically if you can only be one race, then you can't be racially black AND be racially Jewish as your race. They need to be separate.

This justification can apply to almost any scenario. Well you can't be a murderer because well you are a human being. You can't be a gardener because you are well a human being. Being a human being doesn't mean you can't be a race traitor and you haven't made that link. I am well within my judgement to say this very same argument can be justified to say races do not exist because if it works for race traitor-ing then it works for not having any races. I would actually like an actual justification that people can't be a race traitor not well we are human beings. There is no link and you haven't demonstrated it to be the case.

Wasn't saying Pocahontas wasn't a real story yet you still point that out for some reason.

Who said we are basing this off of entitlement? 

I am sorry when people data collect they use race above humans because using humans as a category doesn't make it is easy to categorize people. I guess you are against good data the bureau of labor statistics follows.

This entire point he made here is a complete mess and distracts for Trump not being a racist. Nothing he said here was important to the debate so I am confused about what is going on. 

Nope I have presented someone betraying the very race she was apart of. You on the other hand deny race traitors can even be a thing. You are not actually critiquing my side instead feigning ignorance to a point where you don't think something exists. How am I supposed to tell you that something exists? This question is rhetorical. I don't have to change your mind for people to vote for me. I can't believe you deny the historical significance of Uncle Tom by denying the exact same scenario with the race and events only being different. 

First ever link to this source was by me. Simply press ctrl+f, find Pocahontas and click on the second use of that word. You are lying and I don't even see the point to it.

3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas#Capture

My opponent failed to point out the fallacy he said I committed.

If it wasn't clear already the offense wasn't because Warren wasn't Native American, it was that Trump used essentially a racist slur to berate an opponent of his. Notice he is not actually talking about Trump not being racist instead of muddying the lines with well Warren wasn't Native American. Even if this is true it doesn't matter to the argument. Saying the n-word without a black person around is still racist. 

Just making sure people understood his defense was well we are human beings. My case is better given I actually pointed to historical context of Uncle Tom and how that is akin to the Pocahontas story but my opponent rejects that on the basis of a non-sequitur that is well we are human beings.

He valued her worth because of where her parents were from. Devaluing more qualified people because well they are not Korean. I don't really know how much simple I can make it. Yet again feigning ignorance. I hope people understand this isn't actually an argument.

Nothing in the reports suggested he knew how competent she was as a journalist. Unless you are yet again making excuses for Trump. You have no backing in the sources I provided so you are making this up. 

The exchange occurred in the Oval Office last fall when a career intelligence analyst specializing in hostage policy explained to Trump the impending release of a family that had been held in Pakistan. Afterward, Trump asked her, "Where are you from," two anonymous officials told NBC News.

Making the best deal happen is the same as providing facts in an unbiased way? Yet again my opponents makes links where it is no reasonable to think so.

Non-sequitur and more of your bias showing. If it wasn't clear, I hope readers understand just how little in the form of argumentation he has given. It makes it difficult to argue when he doesn't directly address the argument and I don't see how he has made a compelling case anywhere.

From what was stated, I'll go out on a limb and trust a media over Dr.Franklin. I don't even think an official transcript would be enough for you because like here you have already made it clear you would do anything do defend racism. Calling it a joke, feigning ignorance, pandering to the crowd and some other stuff. 

My opponent is defending Trump asking for an Asian-American's parents background (bearing in mind he didn't talk about the rascist joke he made)?

My opponent placed in information that was in none of the data presented. He has given no links and it can't be implied we agree on that anything was reveled about her accepting or not accepting the offer. This is yet again a mix of my opponent making excuses and creating a fictional world where he brought in evidence that he used to support his claim. 

Okay so calling people the n-word if it is funny is okay. I can't begin to make an argument that would please you given your reason for someone not being a race traitor can essentially be pretty much used for anything like race is not real. For the readers I would say race jokes is definitely an iffy line and it is best to avoid it. Mainly because it can harm a community when the goal of a comedian is trying to make people laugh. Given how quickly press like this can spread I think it is fair for comedians to be able to think jokes not specifically about race. Given that Trump is not a comedian he does not have the same expectation. Trump is the president of the United States who uses his platform in an ignorant way instead of behaving responsibly. He has a different expectation which is to lead but instead tries to be a comedian. He doesn't get a pass because a leader is supposed to rise above racist jokes but he just can't help himself. 

Not only has my opponent not explained the difference between the two but also is pretty much defending the KKK. By not condemning the actions of Trump that is akin to the KKK his response can be used for the defense of the KKK. I'll wait when he actually decides to critique the very source I brought up. Not bringing up additional information that is not relevant nor overrides what I said unless you think painting a picture about the squad was relevant.

Note that he did not provide an argument for Trump not being racist instead simply said this just to show us why he had a 30k character limit, to regurgitate his talking points to pander to a crowd. 

A steel-man of my opponents position would be that there is a thing called justified racism where Trump can say racist things if someone else is being bad. If I take what he said here my way, he didn't provide a single point of relevance when it pertains to the topic at hand. Nothing he said here or in the manifesto of Omar was relevant to Trump not being racist and his failure to show how it is relevant can be seen by what I quoted. 

I clearly said reject not removing. This is a mischaracterization in order to make my point look more extreme than it is. Remove implies he is actively doing something to take it away from her. Reject means he is using his platform to deny her citizenship, you know the president of the United States is questioning an opposition of his.

Note also by evidence he wants me to find that Trump said "I reject Ilhan Omar's citizenship". My opponent doesn't accept implications and if it wasn't clear already doesn't accept almost completely the same statement as evidence so even if I meet that criteria he still won't accept it. I see this as a lie.

My opponent wouldn't change his mind about Trump with that statement

he just asked it because he is virtue signalling that he cares about racism when he has shown he doesn't. His argument can deny race even exists, he has used it is just a joke bro as an argument and feign ignorance to name a few things he has done. 

So KKK saying go back as a minuscule group even in its prime (2nd Klan compared to the population of the US in 1924 makes them only 19% of the population) is comparable to Trump who has currently a 41.9% approval rating while also being the president of the United States is comparable? I find this disingenuous and note that his only distinction is that he gave them an option. Not comparing the scale nor the option from a president who dislikes you heavily implies he wants you to leave but lets leave that out because that would make my side a lot more agreeable.

      

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews.

Note that Jewish people have their own word for being prejudice against them but what my opponent doesn't realize that anti-black and being racist can be levied at the same time. He refuses to give me a new definition of race instead simply says well they have their own definition so a person can't be racist for acting out their dislike for Jews. I await a definition of race or you know deny the very thing that can give your argument any credence and could've been so important to bring up at the very start of the debate. 

Note I brought in an argument addressing races are defined based on data collection not because of some scientific backing but instead of actually arguing against the point my opponent just decides to give me another link to read. Essentially moving the goalposts even though what I quoted still addresses what he says. If my opponent does think there is an authority on race then he is pretty much anti-scientific since scientific racism has had any relevance and when it did have relevance in 1994 because of the Bell-Curve critiques already provided no basis between race and science. 

Either my opponent uses science to support what he says or he is giving us his feelings. Whatever it maybe it is still not an argument that Trump isn't racist.