Present proof that Donald J. Trump is a "racist".

The astonishing thing is that you could have this debate with the condition "PRO can only use examples of Trump's racism documented in the last 24 hours" and still have more evidence than would fit in a 10,000 character debate

> take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible

The horror of taking him at his word, rather than assuming he means the opposite of what he says... And no, not taken to be the worst context possible. I haven't even accused him of being nazi-lite, even while according to you he would say anything at all to get such racists to vote for him.

> especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.

Thank you for clarifying that he's intentionally endorsing racist beliefs to try to get racists to vote for him.

Please explain how your standard on Trump, if applied to Hitler, would allow the Literal Hitler to be racist?

> He never said they were better than any other's

They are apparently racehorses compared to others. If you don't think that's better, please bet all your money on a mule instead of a thoroughbred at the tracks. If Trump is not spouting off racist rhetoric (which at this point you've admitted he is, you just keep flip flopping on it), you have no reason to hesitate against doing this.

He also never mentioned superiority. He said "you have good genes in Minnesota." He never said they were better than any other's, he just said they were good. I overlooked that this whole time.

And so what if its true? Thank you for telling me I'm racist towards myself, lol. It's just a huge over-exaggeration. I think this just comes down to intentions. You don't like Trump, probably barely watch his speeches, and take everything he says as completely serious and taken with the worst context possible. I, on the other hand, have been following him for 5 years, watched a lot of his speeches and style, and can easily tell his level of seriousness and not to take his comments in the worst context possible, especially at a rally, where he is trying to gain votes.

> just silly pandering

By that absurd standard, Adolf Hitler himself couldn't be proven to be a racist, since he might have just been doing silly pandering to racists...

> doesn't say much about your moral character

A racist can be an upstanding citizen. That does not change the qualifier that they are a racist. Depending on the degree of their racism, I wouldn't want them in certain jobs, but again, they may still be an upstanding citizen. ... Bare in mind the accusation is just "racist" not either "Neo Nazi" or "Literally Hitler."

> Californians got lazy genes

Thank you for outing yourself as a racist, via your belief that genes (as opposed to culture) make Californians different and worse than Minnesotans.

The fact that he supposedly thinks Minnesotans are better than Californians, given I'll give you the benefit of the doubt it wasn't just silly pandering, which it was, but lets pretend it wasn't. My point being that preferring people from a particular state doesn't say much about your moral character, in fact anything. I can say people in the midwest have better genes than Californians because they are hard-workers out on the farm and Californians got lazy genes, but it has nothing to do with my moral character. I have trouble believing you actually think Trump thought that the Minnesotans at that event are actually better than other states. We might have to disagree on this one, but I think it's a very shallow accusation of racism, a term that has been thrown around like nothing and lost meaning in the recent years.

As previously stated: He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.

That you or I do not believe them to be a distinct race, does not change Trump's statements that they are (and a superior one at that). While not accusing Trump of genocide, you can observe the same pattern of belief in many genocides throughout history. In Rwanda, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples routinely intermarried, were indistinguishable to outsiders (and insiders for that matter), with the only thing marking them as separate races was... *drumroll* ...pure belief in their superior genes!

I think his point is that he designates them as a race that Ragnar himself wouldn’t apply. What that race is seems entirely beside the point because we can’t peer into Trump’s head and determine how he thinks about this particular issue, and I sincerely doubt that Trump has specified in these speeches. If you want to argue that this isn’t racism from your view because you don’t agree with Trump on this designation, then that’s fine, but Trump himself has levied both that claim and the associated one about them having superior genes. That’s a link Trump himself made very clearly, so I have a hard time understanding how that view isn’t inherently racist, given the connections he’s making rather than your own views.

And which race is that?

As previously stated: According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.

You keep the dodging the question. Is Minnesota a race?

He was "casually talking" using well known racist rhetoric of eugenics, specifically identifying the people of Minnesota as inherently superior to others due to their inherited genes.

Since when was Minnesota a race? I think we both know this isn't an example of racism. Saying people have good genes isn't racist. You're taking it way too literally, he was at a rally casually talking to his base. This is a human being speaking, it's just an expression, take it with a grain of salt.

He didn't claim they were better educated than everyone else, he pointed to their genetics.

Ragnar, your really stretching it here. You know he mentioned nothing about race and was calling his audience intellectuals essentially. Minnesota is not a race, you're on a long leash here.

> So Minnesota is a race now?

According to Trump with his eugenics "racehorse theory" about them, yes, the people there (at least the ones at the location of his speech) are a distinct race from others due to their superior genes and related ancestry.

Also unrelated, but when I came back on here after awhile, most of the debates seemed oddly philosophical and like regarding debating itself? Lol, didn't know if that was the knew "thing," I'm used to mostly political debates.

You too! I don't really debate anymore because it turned into more of a burden than something fun, also because I like having discussions with open-minded people and not people just trying to "win" a debate. I'll keep perusing through debates and commenting with people, though!

Long time no see, Boat! Hope you can stay a while.

I'm not denying there's also physical traits.

>He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.
So Minnesota is a race now?

He proclaimed Minnesotans are a superior race as distinguished by their shared ancestry.

As for your belief that personality traits are genetic, if correct that would mean there are quantifiable physical differences (otherwise genetic tests would just say we'll all the same person), therefore still physical traits.

When did he ever mention race? He never said only white people in Minnesota have these superior genes, only blacks or Latinos in Minnesota have these superior genes, he said "you have good genes in Minnesota." Never mentioned race at all. You do realize genes are also personality characteristics and not just inherited physical traits?

> I don't understand how this had anything to do with race.

Calling back to the definition:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”

Proclaiming the people of Minnesota are better than others due to their genes and successful eugenics programs, is declaring that they are better than others due to their shared ancestry (AKA, race). It doesn't matter if it's at a state level, it's still clearly endorsing racist beliefs.
To you or I the Rwandan genocide was carried out by people of the same race; yet their belief in their racial superiority, drove them to genocide against their neighbors all the same. (this is not to say Minnesota is going to try to kill the rest of us)

> What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.

It was indeed pandering, but using racist rhetoric to do it. Hence, I call it out. If he went to Harlem and gave the same basic speech, I would likewise call that out for endorsing racism in the locals.

As for the racism definition, I think stereotyping, perceived bias, etc. doesn't make you a racist at heart. Some people say ignorant things sometimes, but it doesn't mean that they truly believe they're better just because their race is better. However, I acknowledge that saying racist things is still racist, and thus I give people the benefit of the doubt that the people are racist as a result, to some extent or another.

Death penalty- So you can concede a bit on my point, and I can concede a bit to your point that bias may play an effect. However, I just don't see any evidence evidence that his position was racist. You can say that he has a racial bias, but there's just no way to prove that.

Good genes- So, to my understanding, racehorse theory= superior genes+superior genes= more superior genes, as a basic point. I don't understand how this had anything to do with race. He was saying it about the state of Minnesota, so a superior state? Maybe he is a stateist. What I saw was just pandering to his crowd in that state, trying to hype them up and make them think they're smart and educated, etc.

> I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.

Yeah, that we disagree on an issue, doesn't mean anything bad about either one of us. As I think I identified, our differing educations caused us to fall back to very different definitions of what it takes for someone/something to be a racist.

> I thought was saying it in disdain,
You know, it could have been.
Inside a debate, I would be like: 'RAWL! We must assume the worst!'
Outside a debate, I lack the bias of needing everything to align with the thesis.

> the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist
I think we can trust golf-cart-guy at his word, in publicly declaring himself to be a racist, he is most likely a racist.
If only saying that due to the heat of the moment, that still identifies his instincts on the matter... Granted, there are other cases where I defend the accused, such as some kid in the wrong hat who nervously smiled when people were loud and in his face (had he started chanting white power, or sieg heiling, I would consider the denouncements to be justified).

> Joe Biden
There's pretty good evidence that he's a racist. However, I suspect part of where our disagreement comes from is over the meaning of that term. What does racist mean to you?
To me, being a racist doesn't mean a nazi armband appears on you and you start yelling in German: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2sxxxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGn3l_RHQA
To me racism ties to the definitions within English:
Race is “any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry”
Racism is “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” also: “behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief”

> people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person
While I agree, extreme cases like this show behavior/attitudes that reflect and foster the belief in race making a difference to what crime was committed. It doesn't need to intend to be that, to do exactly that. This is further backed by Trump being extremely well educated, outright first in his class. This removes the ignorance excuse.

> "You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." -Donald Trump
That he believes these phrases, doesn't defend that they are not blatantly racist. He publicly declared the people of Minnesota are inherently superior to other people on account of their ancestry. This very directly fosters the belief in people being inherently better than others on account of their ancestry.

What are you referencing, what guy, what did Trump say?

The rest of it turned my mind into a nuclear bomb. Please explain it to me like I'm 5 years old.

This guy: Yeah, whatever, white power.
Trump: So true!

Unironically supporting an ironic idea by interpreting it as unironic is unironic, and Trump unironically supporting racism is unironically racist.

The man who said "yeah, there you go, white power.." I thought was saying it in disdain, not in agreeance, by the tone of his voice. It sounded more like, "there you go, just another racist trump supporter."

And sure, the man who said "white power" said a racist statement, although that doesn't necessarily make him a racist. I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt on things they say without thinking or meaning, or things said in the heat of the moment. But yes, the statement was racist. For example, I don't think Joe Biden is necessarily racist when he said "If you don't know who to vote for, you aint black," although that's an overtly racist statement.

>On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
Again, I'm not defending the historical statistics. I'm simply saying people can have an opinion on the death penalty without constantly looking at the race of the person.

As for the "eugenics speech" you said Trump made in Minnesota, assuming your referencing "good genes," I simply think is silly. It's literally a phrase. People can say I'm handsome and tall, I got good genes. He was referencing genes of success, your work drive, etc. He has said this in the past. There is nothing to suggest it is about race, it's a manner of speech. People could take almost any common phrase and vaguely relate it to some racist thing X person said in 1922. We have to realize that politicians are people too, they speak like normal people. Trump freelances half the time anyway, he's talking like a normal human.

I also just want to thank you for having a normal discussion with me. It's honestly so refreshing to have a conversation between 2 people without pointless insults and personal attacks. Although, it's like what did I expect, your a mod and undefeated debater with a good track record.

I rewatched the video, and should correct myself. One old guy drives and chanting "white power" repeatedly, and another to the right holding a sign replies "yeah, there you go, white power"
This could be said to be a single statement, even from multiple mouths. That the vehicles in question were golf carts, to me indicates that the other drivers nearby knew their company and stuck with it in solidarity with that message. I hope unlike Mall, you can at least agree the subjects of the video who Trump called "great people" were overt racists?

While your defense that he had no clue what he was sharing, does indicate some bad things about Trump, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that it's factual (as in not intentionally racist since he doesn't know what he shares and endorses)...

On the NYC five, have you even glanced at the evidence of disproportionate punishment? If indeed "Race doesn't matter, the crimes do." Why does disproportionate punishments based on race continue?
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
"DPIC is not aware of any case in the United States in which a white man has been executed for raping, but not killing, a black woman or child. While the rape of a white woman was a capital offense in all of the Slave States, no whites convicted of rape are known to have been executed under these statutes. In most Slave States, the attempted rape of a white woman also was a capital offense for blacks, but not whites."

>One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"
Still haven't heard a second person. it appeared to be the one man driving past the camera in a golf cart, who was the clear person who did it. At this point your just cherry picking the supposed amount of people. It would make no sense for the white house to say" trump didn't hear that man say white power but did hear others say it." They said "He did not hear the one statement made on the video" so clearly they think there was the one statement of white power, or at least it was the most prevalent. If they heard more, they would have just said multiple.

About the intent, the problem is Trump didn't even hear that in the first place. It would be another thing if he heard it and didn't think "white power" was racist, but it would be another if he simply didn't hear it.

Ok, so you claim Trump's racist because the NYC five were black. I mean just last year Trump reinstated the death penalty for federal crimes and scheduled 5 executions, including 3 white people, 1 sexually related- "Welsey Ira Purkey, found guilty in Missouri in November 2003 of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl before dismembering and burning her body" and "White supremacist Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted in Arkansas of murdering a family of three, including an eight-year-old girl" and "Dustin Lee Honken, found guilty in Iowa in 2004 of murdering five people, including a single mother and her 10- and 6-year-old daughters."

I know these also include murders, but its not like Trump only supports the death penalty for black people. I don't think you have to counter-act your position on the death penalty with a second example of white gang rapists to prove your not racist. The whole thing just seems silly to me. Race doesn't matter, the crimes do.

> I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."
One drove around chanting it, and another replied "yeah white power!"

> There clearly has to be intent.
Please glance at the sequel to this debate focused on Hitler. There ends up being blind denial that Hitler was racist. We can take from the extreme example, that even if someone does not mean for their actions to be racist, they can be. ... Another example comes from the black power movement, which routinely insist they are too racially superior to be capable of racism; which shows obvious racist beliefs, even while intending to be anti-racist.

> "But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."
Very good point on that one! Yeah, I can readily admit I missed that line (I do suggest pulling out single lines like that, instead of whole interviews). Not that I needed to in this debate, since my opponent didn't know about that missing context and instead merely denied that endorsing neo-nazis (in this case one of them having just commited first degree murder) could in any way count as racism.

> The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant.
That would be like denying someone is sexist just because they oppose women's suffrage. Supporting such a sexist law against them voting due to it being historical, would still be sexist. Similarly, supporting uneven criminal punishments along racial lines, while not absolute proof, is quite clearly evidence of a bias.

> If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white
As someone fast to remind me of context, please keep the context in mind. If he was doing the housing stuff against whites, and various other cues, then sure, he'd be racist against whites. As is, the hypothetical of him likewise calling for the death penalty for say Brock Turner, would be evidence of him being fair on this issue (I don't follow his Twitter, so maybe he did and I missed it...).
As is, there is a history of racism related to uneven punishment for that crime, to which he fed into. ... Said history of uneven punishments for that crime, also shows that racism need not be intentional, when the racist results are so easily quantifiable (this is not to say Trump caused this problem, but again, he fed into it).

As for the housing discrimination, I'll admit I don't know much about it, but I know it's more than just black and white. That's a complex case. I've heard conflicting viewpoints about these supposed practices, so I'll leave it at that. When I argue Trump isn't racist, I'm at the least arguing that he isn't racist today, or any recent history, let's just say within the past 2 decades.

>It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.

It's because the NYC five was a very popular national case in his home state. There probably wasn't a case with 5 white people raping a women that big. He stood by his stance because they only settled the case, and he thinks they did a bad job and there's more to it. Which is a fair opinion. But simply because these people were black is no basis for a racially motivated stance.

The historical statistics for the death penalty in rape is irrelevant. It has nothing to with taking an opinion on it. I am borderline for rapists to be killed, it has nothing to do with skin color.

>If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?
You are looking through all of this only through the lens of race. The only case I've heard him take a public stance on was this national case, with the alleged rapists being black. Simply because the only case he took a stance on happened to be black is not evidence for racism. If the exact same thing happened but the 5 men were white, would that make him racist against whites?

>Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant.
I watched the video, there was only the one person who I heard say "white power."

> Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist
What? Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another. There clearly has to be intent. If you don't know that something is racist, in this case Trump didn't know the man chanted "white power," then it's clearly not racist. You clearly have to know it is racist for you to believe your race is superior to another.

>I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it.."
Ah yes, this is probably the most famous example of the context being completely forgotten. He didn't wait, in fact he clarified everything in the same interview with the reporters. Here is the transcript-

Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

Trump very clearly states, in the same series of questions, "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally." I don't even think I have to justify this one, it's literally right there in the interview.

> This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power."
Technically the white house denied him hearing one of the people in the video, but there were multiple making that chant. Still, racism is not defined by intent to be racist, but by racist actions, to include any which even accidently foster the belief. ... As an example of accidents, consider a different crime: Sexual assault. Someone may not mean to commit sexual assault when they walk up to random strangers and start grabbing them by the junk (which Trump openly endorses), but it remains that crime even without intent for it to be.

> he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind
I'm sure you remember when he called murderous neo-nazis "very fine people." On this one, my main issue is the very long delay he had had before correcting it and related excuses for how he would never want to insult without evidence or whatever, when he habitually goes on weird rants against all reason (such as attacking John McCain's war record, the whole birther thing which he has brought back against Harris, etc.). Each day of not retracting that endorsement, was quite clearly supporting racist beliefs, which again, is by definition racism itself.

> label the KKK as a terrorist organization.
I'll give full credit there. I can say long overdue, but that delay is perhaps worse for every modern president which failed to do that before him.
This however does not prove he is not racist. It does strongly suggest he is not overwhelming foaming at the mouth with racism.

> so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today,
"alleged"? While I outright agree with your point that people can change, denying there was anything to change, ends up harming the credibility of the defense when things were so open and shut back then.

> Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated.
It it not conclusive proof that he means to be racist, but him spending money on slandering them and calling for their deaths, and not doing likewise for similar white people, is clearly evidence. Him standing by his stance in 2016 even against DNA evidence and confession from the actual rapist, while not conclusive, is further evidence of his prejudice. Which isn't to say it's even conscious choice to be racist, but his actions are indicative of seemingly racially based bias.

> He called for bringing back the death penalty
Going to quote a source: "Historically, the use of the death penalty for rape has been a Southern phenomenon that has been applied overwhelmingly against black defendants, and overwhelmingly in cases involving charges of raping a white woman" https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race/race-rape-and-the-death-penalty
If I'm wrong, name the cases of him advocating for white rapists to be put to death?

> I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present
I did not exclusively use distant past actions, I have used very recent ones as well.

>For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."
This tweet was deleted shortly after, and the white house claimed he didn't hear the people say "white power." I honestly see no reason not to believe that here, he and his associates have repeatedly said they are against white supremacy of any kind. This just isn't great evidence. He also yesterday just announced in his platinum plan to label the KKK as a terrorist organization.

The housing stuff is a pretty complex case, and it was 50 years ago, so I wouldn't say alleged discrimination back then is great evidence for Trump being racist today, or even in the recent years. As for the Central Park five, there is zero evidence his opinion was racially motivated. He called for bringing back the death penalty, which is a fair opinion to have. Just because something isn't legal doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it should be or not.

Whether you believe he has a history or not of racism, it is pretty irrelevant when were talking about IS he racist, not WAS he racist. I don't think its fair to judge someone on controversial past actions and tie them in with the present. Knowing what he's done for the black community, he isn't racist in the slightest. He has repeatedly condemned racism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, nationalists, etc. If you really think he's racist, he's sure doing a damn terrible job at it.

> I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?
For starters, his Twitter sharing a video of apparently "great people" driving around chanting "White Power."

> I also think his actions speak much louder than his words
Old history, but the discriminatory housing stuff, combined with launching a public campaign calling for the death penalty for black suspects for a crime that our court systems does not give out that penalty for. He has a history of some really bad actions toward black people in particular. ... Which isn't to deny if he's doing good things for the economy now, or if various liberal politicians treat black people worse than he.

I also think his actions speak much louder than his words. Specifically what he's done for the black community in the past 4 years, (jobs, school choice, prison reform, etc) as well as the platinum plan he just announced, which I don't even see as political, in fact I mildly disagree with some of the things in it, but it looks like a pretty good plan if you look at it objectively.

Ok, even though I disagree with the notion he is racist at all, I can still respect your middle ground there. I'm very bewildered on your claim that he has endorsed the "white power movement." I looked at your source and found nothing to do with white power. When has he ever said that?

> would appeal to anyone if he thought they would vote for him.
True.

> akin to saying a sewer is clean because it isn't dusty.
Well said!

I don't know about that. Trump is the sort of person who would appeal to anyone if he thought they would vote for him. Regardless, it only makes so much difference whether he's racist or not, given his other very public immoralities. Defending Trump's moral character by saying he isn't racist is akin to saying a sewer is clean because it isn't dusty.

haha! Yeah, that sounds about right. Still, by seeking to appeal to white racists, he fits most definitions of racist by any measurement.

My theory is that Trump is Trumpist. If your name isn't Donald Trump, you're inferior.

As I said near the start: "I shall not seek to prove that Donald Trump is Literally Hitler, as someone may be racist, without being Literally Hitler"

I think Trump is generally bigoted, and that at times crosses over into racism. However, I don't think he's a raging neo-nazi or anything that bad (I'm one of those weird centrists, who can dislike someone without hating them, or like someone without thinking they can walk on water).

> When you look at the context of all these "racist" things Trump said, it is very easy to disprove.
Some of it certainly. If delving into my sources, much of that (hence I cherry picked what I quoted). I do however have a hard time imagining a sound defense that his endorsement of the white power movement is not by definition racist.

> Unfortunate that leftists can't pay attention to the context themselves though, that wouldn't fit the narrative!
Echo chambers become a problem on both sides. But yes, it is indeed a problem on the left.

Con didn't really refute pro's argument at all, I'm simply saying he could have done a much better job. I'm not bringing up my own debating skills.

ah, so who's being toxic now? I don't believe small sample size votes from strangers measures your intelligence on a given topic, nonetheless who is right. The art of constructing a debate is different than what is actually truth.

Yes, yes, you have three very impressive debates on the subject, which you lost all of. Bragging about being able to dispute a debaters evidence, and then obviously failing to do so, in separate but related cases, multiple times......

I've debated this many times before on this website. Lol you definitely have a super lousy definition of toxic, simply stating my preliminary position and pointing out preliminary flaws in the opposition's position isn't toxic.

Did you... just ignonre what he DID? "Easy to disprove?" Challenge the Pro to this debate then! You've made a claim, actually fill it instead of being toxic in a comment section.

So I'm glad we got that cleared up.