jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (238 posts)

Cleveland, OH Black Pastor Darrell Scott Introduced Donald Trump

  1. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    Pastor Scott realizes the media's brainwashing on American's to paint Donald Trump as a racist.  This man brought down the house with his introduction of Trump at a Cleveland rally in March, 2016. 

    Pastor Darrell Scott of New Spirit Revival Center Ministries speaks and introduces Donald Trump at a rally in Cleveland, OH.

    Black Pastor Brings Down The House at Donald Trump Cleveland Rally!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHZbB-M9oE

    Please, you owe it to yourself to listen to Pastor Scott.  It gives me holy goose bumps every time I listen to this Spirit filled man of God!  He tells you what kind of man Trump really is. 

    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13074135.jpg

    I hope that Pastor Scott gets to introduce Trump at the Republican National Convention (July 18-21), this guy is on FIRE!

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

      One anomaly here and there does not a predominant viewpoint or opinion make...

      Who are you to say that the vast majority of black people are being bamboozled? Isn't that a bit arrogant on your part? You're not one, so how do you know about the issues that confront us let alone appreciate them.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        "Who are you to say that the vast majority of black people are being bamboozled?"

        I didn't say that.  I don't understand how you can have such a wonderful imagination.   err...Hitting the crack pipe?   wink

        "Isn't that a bit arrogant on your part?"

        Heavy on the "your part" my brother.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Sorry, I may have jumped the gun, what was the purpose of linking the AA minister with Trump, are you saying that just because one black minister says he OK, that he is OK?

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Can you read the OP without assuming I said something other than I actually did? 

            "Pastor Scott realizes the media's brainwashing on American's to paint Donald Trump as a racist." 

            He happens to be a man of God that I admire, and the Holy Spirit bore witness with my spirit that what Pastor Scott said about Trump is true. I respect him, and, ... Donald Trump was meant for such a time as this.   They have know each other for 45 years.   

            No hidden agendas or subliminal messages.

            Added: 
            What is an "AA minister"?
            Doctor Darrell Scott is the pastor of New Spirit Revival Center Ministries.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Well, regardless of what Pastor Scott says, you only support him because he supports Trump. This is hardly conclusive in regards to the truth, however.
              If he wasn't supportive of Trump, would you admire and respect so much?

              And you can cool your jets now, I apologized for misspeaking.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                Pastor Darrell Scott is a Spirit filled man of God, and yes I would respect him as much if he wasn't supporting Trump...because my spirit can recognize his prophetic power.  His gifting is from God. 

                All is well, my jets are cool.  Cool yours.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Ok, all is well, but you will allow me to remain suspicious of Trump new found love for this black minister.

                  I guess like most GOP, the idea of trotting out a black token or two will encourage greater than 4-12 percent of the black vote that over the last 30 years, with the exception of those running against Obama, the party received in national elections?

                2. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  ".....because my spirit can recognize his prophetic power."

                  Well!  If you say so, it must be true!!!

                  But to me it just sounds like a heightened sense of egotistical importance.

      2. mrpopo profile image87
        mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I think it's more arrogant to state that you can't understand black issues unless you are black.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

          What is the presumption of the post and poster?

          "I think it's more arrogant to state that you can't understand black issues unless you are black"

          No, but it helps a great deal, yes. There is an advantage.... Donald Trump and David Duke know more about our issues than our own folks.

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            The post doesn't presume anything. The post questions the presumption that Donald Trump is racist.

            If you're aware that you don't need to be black to understand black issues, then why did you say "who are you to say X about black people? You aren't one"?

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I misspoke and gave Colorfulone my apologie, so as I ask her to move on, so can you....

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                You were misspeaking when you said you have to be black to understand black issues? What did you mean to say?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I get offended as many conservative groups here seem to say that contrary to the vast majority of us, they know best.

                  You don't have to be black to understand black issues, but the people who are in the best position to be aware of these things can't be reasonbly discounted by every one of our adversaries. We, as black people, are in the best position to be aware of affairs directly affecting us. Who dares to say otherwise?

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    I have no idea what any of that has to do with a black pastor vouching for Trump, but okay.

      3. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Doesn't matter. Didn't you see? A black guy introduced him. Just like the last thread this hubber started where an evangelical introduced him.

        Trump is loved by all. Case closed.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          "Just like the last thread this hubber started where an evangelical introduced him."

          The last thread this hubber started was Who Tired To Shoot Trump? ... over here: http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1368 … hoot-trump

          There was nothing evangelical about it.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            OK. The last thread this hubber started that I looked at. I noticed the spelling error in the thread about someone attempting to shoot Trump but wasn't interested enough in the subject to click on it.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Oh, are you getting down to the letters, are you?  Hmm!
              So, what did you think of born of the Spirit, Pastor Scott's message?

              Never mind!

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                You guys who claim to have spirit slay me. Whatever spirit it is, it is not associated with Christ. I don't pay any of you any mind.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, he is loved by all,  'a legend in his own mind'.

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      So surreal! -  Louis Fraakham agrees with Trump's temporary ban on not letting Muslim refugees into the USA.  Mr. Fraakham is a minister, and one of the most influential black Muslin leaders in America. 

      "Donald Trump - Black Muslims support Trump"
      2:11 minutes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6LsL-G9Gb0

      I think Fraakham is an intelligent man from what he had to say in agreement with Trump.  However, Fraakham, is a racist, so I do not have any respect for the man. He advocates killing white people, tyrants in government...he believes in the Quran and that is what he teaches,  VIOLENCE!  I think he actually believes what he says.

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13075477.jpg

      The difference between Pastor Darrell Scott and Louis Fraakham is: light and darkness.  Or, God and the devil!   ...  Farrakhan says about Hillary Clinton: 'That's a Wicked Woman".  He has even invoked 'Satan' as He unleashed on Hillary Clinton.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        You have to understand , we all  realize that  ethnicity soon is to be about equal in births inside the US .
        Fraakham  realizes that  if Muslims are allowed to overrun America ,No more Affirmative Action ,    No longer is the Black community  a minority  , We all are minorities equally  .........:]

        No  more special treatment .

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I hadn't thought of that.  I know that different sects of Islam are arch enemies.  They historically have been killing each other in the Middle East forever.  I was thinking more in line with fear on Farrakhan's part, but you maybe absolutely correct.  Thank you for adding your insight.

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Farrakhan only support Trump because of what he perceives as his support for anti-semitism. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....

        This is not the example of a prominent minister that I would use.

        You folks are consistently under the delusion that Blacks get some sort of special treatment. That is at the heart of the Trump revolution, racial resentment?

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Antisemitism? Cred you are so full of it!   

          Donald Trump Full Speech at AIPAC Policy Conference (3-21-16)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHmINZRwiZU

          Farrakhan's antisemitism has nothing to do with the support of Trump.  Trump has a history of supporting Israel.  He is an honorable man! 

          Trump loves Israel! 

          Added:  (I had to help my Mom)
          "You folks are consistently under the delusion that Blacks get some sort of special treatment."
          WRONG! 

          "That is at the heart of the Trump revolution, racial resentment?"
          WRONG! Trump has no racial resentment. Maybe you do?

          It is a "Trump revolution"! I'm glad you can see that reality.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

            I did  not mean "Trump Revolution" in a positive way.

            With Farrakhan I was refering to the time he reference when Trump told his Jewish audience 'I don't need your money'. Farrakhan believed that he was courageous in 'standing up' to the Jews. You have to read these articles more carefully.

            I never implied that Trump said that he was anti-Israel.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I was posting videos, so how could I read that in an article more closely?  Did you post a link to an article that I missed?  You lost me. 

              The "Trump Revolution" is more of a phenomenon, or movement that is just happening. There is no a forcible overthrow of the government.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                For Trump to accomplish what he claims that he is going to, he going to have to overthrow the current arrangement.

                Here is the article:

                http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 … looking-at

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I like that Trump hasn't been bought and isn't going to be a puppet.  However, if he becomes president, he will have to make some deals with the Globalists or they will kill him.  But, if he has the right VP choice, he or she will be all the protection Trump needs.  I hope that would be Jeff Sessions, but only Trump will know who is the right choice.

    3. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13077545.jpg

      Uncle Tom's are nothing new in the black community. There were also Orthodox Jews who helped the Nazi's. And so we can understand that being a traitor is not unique to one race. The fact that this man  parrot's the perverse phrase "Let's Make America Great Again", confirms that he is very uneducated, or that he is an Oreo who simply doesn't care. I have no respect for such people. Many have spoken this evil phrase that mocks the hundreds of millions who have suffered and died beneath this yoke of racism and oppression, but no one has of yet been able to cite exactly when that time was when America was great. In fact, no one in this Forum can name that time because such a time never existed!

      But the callousness of Americans is nothing new. The lyrics to "America The Beautiful" were written in July 1893 by Katherine Bates. In February of the same year the black teenager Henry Smith was tortured, mutilated, and burned alive in front of approx 15,000 white spectators in Paris Texas. Vendors were set up and serving refreshments while Smith screamed in agony as he was being tortured and mutilated for nearly an hour. And when he screamed the crowd of psychopaths  would cheer. Just 3 years earlier, over 150 unarmed Lakota men, women , and children were massacred by the 7th Calvary at Wounded Knee South Dakota. Twenty soldiers received the Medal of Honor for this crime against humanity. And this was not the first atrocity committed by the European Invaders against the people. Yet this white woman,who happened to be a school teacher, found beauty amidst the evil of racism, torture, and genocide.

      But the list of atrocities and crimes against humanity is very long, and it includes the invasion and overthrow of the Hawaiian government, the forced removal of Chagossians from Diego Garcia, and of course the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And most recently the destabilization of the Middle East by imperialist profiteers in the American government. Men like this pastor are a greater threat to the black race than white supremacists. But unlike another pastor, the great Martin Luther King, this man will most likely live to be very old.

      1. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        WB, the horrors of history are in the making, the UN's open borders, bringing people into America with diseases, to collapse the country, and admits it is the plan, then tells us it isn't happening when we have video. Well guess what, its all over the news admitting its going on.  We have to care about other people but not want to be run over, and do our own research. Being a leader is something we should get involved in because we don't want to be the slaves, in my humble view. We need leaders to stand up and take action. I don't want to be some brand of sheep that sells my family out when I know something is run by bad people.

        I'm a self-preservationist, a protectionist patriot and I am not just going to get run over. I'm willing to die because I am alive.  Humanity is going to go on and succeed if we are like our ancestors and not lay down without a fight. That's called civilization.  Good will, and being informed.

        The true leader of Europe can now rise up! The sun has risen on an independent and United Kingdom because 17million people voted for Brexit, against the big merchant banks, against the big businesses, and against big politics. In the face of all the threats, the people had the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Donald Trump has not once mentioned "The Patriot Act", or Executive Order 13603. These are dangerous and un-constitutional laws that threaten every American citizen. These evil laws that remain unchallenged pose a far greater threat than so-called illegal immigrants or the imaginary Islamic Terrorist bogeyman. Trump "is" the system. The change you are looking for will not come from his direction. But he will entertain you and continue to make good headlines.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Its past time the media ask Trump questions that people are interested in hearing what he has to say.  That would make a nice difference.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I take offense to you calling a black preacher, who has an opinion different from what many others have as 'an uncle tom'. How racist is that?

        Actually, after reading the rest of your post I had to laugh. Pretty hard. A Brit calling us out for atrocities. How about Africa? You guys just, finally, allowed a man to have his day in court concerning when he was tortured, by the Brits, for being nothing more than an indigenous native. How about Ireland?

        And, so you know (since you appear to have no grasp of history) Europe is responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East. We are just part of the world now dealing with the aftermath.

        Yeh. We're such bad guys compared to everyone else.

        1. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Uncle Tom, comparison with Nazi regime, Oreo, list of historical human atrocities, pastors being a greater threat than race supremacists. It's got a bit of everything. All from one black pastor vouching Trump and saying "let's make America great again."

          (I admit, I did chuckle at Oreo, though.)

        2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13078185.png

          If you are so easily offended then I suggest that you invest in a thicker skin. If a black man ignores the historical record and jumps on the "Let's Make America Great Again" bandwagon, then what is he but an Uncle Tom? What would you call an Orthodox Jew who supports neo-Nazi's and chants slogans like "Let's Make The National Socialist Party Great Again?

          Yes, that would seem rather odd wouldn't it.  But the black man in America is not expected to have a "black' identity. The black man in America is expected to be the "good hard working Negro". He is expected to remain branded with a slave name like "Jones","Washington",or "Smith". He is expected to speak the white man's language and attend "integrated" schools where he can learn the Eurocentric version of history, and climb the ladder of success as defined by the white man. This is why you are offended. It is because I have challenged the stereotypical "good Negro" who supports a Capitalist who is as much a part of the system, and part of the problem, as anyone else.

          And I do believe you have me confused with someone else. I am not a Brit. In fact I have never been to Europe. I am Aniyunwiya/German and I grew up near the Mason Dixon line. My parents were Civil Rights activists during the late 50's and 60's. And so my education about America and racism began at a very young age.In fact, it was so racist where I grew up that my parents were involved in several gun battles with white supremacists. And so, much of what I know about the evil of America I have learned firsthand, and not out of a book.

          To suggest that someone who has been an activist against racism his entire life is also a racist is absurd. It appears you have been bitten by the PC bug. And what should I call Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy? If I call them rapists and murderers, does it reveal that I am an insensitive bigot? No, there is nothing racist about calling someone an Uncle Tom who actually fits the description. And if for no other reason, he earned the title when he parroted the phrase,"Let's Make America Great Again". And so I will ask you: From the perspective of the African in America, The Indigenous First Nations, other minorities, the white working class, poor whites, or white women, when was America ever "Great". No one has of yet answered this question. Not even Donald Trump!

          As far as Europe is concerned, many are not aware that the United States has remained a British Colony since the Revolutionary War. And so, it is not possible to separate the Imperialist aggression of the United States from the global machinations of Great Britain.

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            One of Hillary's quotes,  "America Never Stopped Being Great".  But, then she is a hypocrite on many levels.

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
              wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I have no love for Trump, but if forced to make a choice I would vote Trump over Hillary in a heartbeat! Trump has proven that he is a narcissistic capitalist, but Hillary has proven that she is pure evil. What happened in Benghazi: she owns it.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I don't think that has been proven, at least not to me and I am keen on those thing, being skeptical.  I think he has a big ego at times, but I also see the love he has for America and his humble spirit around clergy.

                I will never forget Benghazi.  13 Hours they fought for their lives, waiting for help to arrive.   There was a plane full of Special Forces 20 minutes away, but they got the stand-down order according to one of their top fighters, UFC Tim Kennedy.

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            If a black man ignores your take on history, has his own take on history and chooses to support a candidate that you don't then,no, he isn't an uncle tom. Again, that is racist to think you have the right to decide what another person should think simply because of his skin color.

            Edit. Forgot to tell you Sorry about the Brits comment earlier. I had you mixed up with Footballnut and thought you were British. You are from WV. Correct?

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
              wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13079856.jpg

              A man who fits the definition of a traitor is most likely a traitor. Uncle Tom is simply slang for "traitor". You cannot deny that he said in the video, "Let's Make America Great Again", and when he did so he defined himself. My opinion, or his opinion, or your opinion, has nothing to do with it. There has been no time in the history of America, since 1492, when the Indigenous or African have not been collectively oppressed under colonialist rule. The historical record verifies this. And so, his pandering to white mainstream America by making such a statement is a denial of over 500 years of white racist oppression. He is playing the "good Negro" and of course many white Americans love this kind of freak show. To the educated mind, regardless of race, it is a disgusting display of ignorance.

              Neither is he a man of God as he claims. He is a hypocrite, as we can understand that the evil rise of America and materialism is directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not condone rape, theft, murder,materialism, or genocide. Yet, it is upon these elements of evil that the foundations of America were laid. But instead of rebuking evil, this man has embraced a legacy of evil. So yes, this man has defined himself as an Uncle Tom, as well as a hypocrite.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                You could have simply looked, to verify, that you understood the definition of 'uncle tom'. Here it is

                a black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile.

                This is not the definition of traitor. Just because you don't agree with someone there is no reason to apply racist names to them.

                I will say that what little I know of the guy and what little I know of you from your posts; he, at the least, isn't filled with hatred and an overwhelming need to play the victim. I suppose that is 'uncle tomish' to you also.

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13080580_f1024.jpg

                  Yes, I am filled with hatred for evil. When I see women and children living in the squalor of refugee camps I am filled with hatred for the evil that led them there. When I see innocent unarmed citizens (white and black) being gunned down and murdered by miscreant cops, I am filled with hatred for a system that allows a majority of these thugs to kill with impunity. When I see working class people struggling for a lifetime in a system of oppression that was designed to keep them in perpetual servitude, I am filled with hatred for those who champion the lie of freedom and democracy to a nation of wage slaves. And yes, I am filled with hatred for those who make apologies for crimes against humanity while they reap the benefit, and enjoy the fruits of evil.

                  Hate is like pain. It can be a positive or a negative. In the human body, pain is good because it alerts us to a problem and keeps us healthy. But if we inflict pain on someone just to hurt them, and hear them cry out, then that can only be defined as an evil act. Hate functions in the same way. By hating evil we are recognizing a problem. And the first step in fixing any problem is to recognize that it even exists. When I comment about certain issues in these Forums, like a nerve in the human body, I am alerting the community that there is a problem. When I offer, or implement a solution, I am behaving as an antibody in the bloodstream.

                  Even Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." When we consider Jesus and his teachings, we can clearly understand that Jesus has no love for America overall, as it is the embodiment of evil.

                  And as far as "forgiveness" is concerned. Forgiving an individual,entity, or government does not mean that you encourage, enable, or allow any of the aforementioned to continue committing crimes against humanity, or to continue glorifying their evil deeds with monuments,holidays, and patriotic songs.  You have used a common tactic of trying to turn the tables and paint me as a hateful person in order to steal my thunder,to tarnish my character, and to dilute my message.  But the only thing that can stop me is a bullet. And then that would only be temporary, as this is not my first rodeo.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Someone doing something about what they perceive as evil would be good. Just sitting around at a computer and spewing hatred isn't really doing something.

    4. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      CLEVELAND BACKS OFF BAN ON TRUMP SPEECH
      Citizens for Trump wins case against the City of Cleveland
      http://www.infowars.com/cleveland-backs … mp-speech/
      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13089900.jpg

      The way the City of Cleveland was setting up things, its like they were asking for violent protesters to wage a war against peaceful Trump supporters who are going to protest for our 1st Amendment rights for free speech.

    5. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Pastor Scott gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. I felt the fire of God when I listened to him speaking the Word of Truth that Almighty God gave him to speak, and not one single word more.   

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93SLiYgPYow

      I believe, Pastor Scott, may be the next Martin Luther King Jr.  By that I mean of the same Spirit to unite people with power and authority.  I'm sure he knows he is putting his life on the line just as King knew.  May God protect Pastor Scott and his family all the days of their lives as they do the will of God.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        That "God" is merely another name for American Culture.   It has no more substance than that.   

        You live in a world of make-believe.  A Hollywood style of aggrandizement, that likes to lift and bolster an object or a personality with superlative characteristics.  Then, when life gets a bit boring, throw mud pies at the personality and shame them.   Makes good TV footage, but destroys the one they set up in the first place.

        "I am a child of the stars. My religion, like the clothes I wear will one day belong to the dust of the centuries. My spirit is immortal and belongs to the universe. Our sons and daughters are the princes and princesses of an eternal kingdom. They inherit the riches and resources of this planet for a span, until they continue their journey through time and space."
        Reverend Ted Noffs 1926-1995  http://www.tednoffs.org/

        For me, the above quote says it all.  Ted inspired me the very first time he administered the Bread and Wine to me.  He was an authentic Christian person.

        1. B Y Davis profile image61
          B Y Davisposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          One man's misguided speech doesn't serve at all to disprove the faults of another person. If that were the case, then Hitler wasn't racist or prejudiced because of his salute of Jesse Owens, nor was he anti-religious. (As we all know, between 25 and 50,000 Afro-Germans were ordered to be killed during the Holocaust, and he utilized the German Church to cover up Nazi operations).  You can't fix something broken by simply declaring it fixed.
          This topic offers no valid basis for effective discussion whatsoever, and really should be revised or removed entirely.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Welcome to HubPages, Sir..... but..... if that is the best you can do within 6 hours of joining, I would hope that you will give us something more to discuss, without a prejudicial stance. 

            To understand that post of mine, you would need to read back through the thread.  You can do that by clicking on Threaded instead of Chronological. 

            Also, there is considerable freedom within HubPages to speak our minds on any subject, provided it abides by the rules.   Just because you happen not to agree with my post or its content, doesn't automatically warrant its removal or revision.

            With great respect to you, I hope you will reciprocate.

  2. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    Pastor Scott meet Donald Trump 45 years ago.  He says that he is not a token black, and he believes God has called Trump for such a time as this! 

    Dr. Darrell Scott kicks off the Atlanta Donald Trump Rally 10-10-2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_0YwEs6iM

    The media doesn't show how many African Americans attend Trump rallies, but take a look at the video in Atlanta if you have been led to believe otherwise.

  3. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 months ago

    LOL.  Holy goose bumps.

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      A mysterious manifestation that Spirit filled believers often get as a witness of the Holy Spirit is some times "Holy goosebumps", its a fun modern term. 

      John 3:8   "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”  ~  Jesus

      The Virgin Mary didn't appear on a grilled cheese sandwich...lol.

  4. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    God bless you Cred and PP.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I notice that you frequently confuse Live to Learn with me and vice versa. You do realize there are two of us who don't swallow your nonsense, don't you? LOL

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        LOL. I didn't think she got us confused. I thought that was simply a post to make sure I knew someone didn't want God to bless me. 

        Which would be OK. I'll just find me a prophet and get him to say a few Hail Mary's, Praise Jesus, or some other catch phrase in my honor.

  5. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 months ago

    Yes. God bless us each and every one. Even Mr. Scrooge. Oh, I mean Mr. Trump. Hard to tell the two apart.

  6. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    Matthew 22:36 ►

    ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’

    ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ =  Scrooge?

    “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

    Pastor Scott is a prophet. 
    Such irreverence!

  7. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    I do get the two of you mixed up, because there is something familiar you both practice.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Challenging your nonsense? True that.

  8. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    God bless you too, LL.  Remember, you are special.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Special. Yeh. That's me. You too.

  9. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    Projecting your nonsense onto me?  I don't accept it.
    This thread must have gotten under your skin.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Gotten under her skin? This thread is a joke. She appears to be rolling with it.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Lol, that's right. Nonsense deserves derision.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Nonsense | Definition of Nonsense by Merriam-Webster
      Words or ideas that are foolish or untrue. : behavior that is silly, annoying, or unkind.

      You posted that Michelle Obama is a man and Barack Obama is gay.  More than once. And you think you know truth through God. That's just a tiny sample of the crazy beliefs you promulgate here.

      But, you are representative of a highly misinformed segment of the population that, unfortunately for the rest of us, gets to vote. I defend your right to promulgate your nonsense, and I exercise my right to laugh at it.

  10. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

    I just added the list of top reasons why Hillary is a racist to her KKK thread, but #4 is very fitting here. I have a lot of evidence on that thread that points to racism by the Clintons.   http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1354 … ologists--

    #4 – In 2005 Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” She also, as a Senator, voted to construct a wall between the US and Mexico. Considering the main “proof” of Trump’s racism is that he opposes illegal immigration and wants to build a wall, isn’t it odd that Hillary gets off for having said the same thing?

    http://downtrend.com/71superb/top-ten-e … -to-ignore

    You can read the Top 10 Reasons Hillary Clinton is a racist on the link above. I can find more if anyone would like in the next 20 minutes or so.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone would accuse anyone of racism simply for opposing illegal immigration. I'm surprised you think that.

      1. mrpopo profile image87
        mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Both Trump and Brexit supporters have been accused of racism for wanting more restrictions on immigration, let alone for opposing immigration that's already restricted.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          That's silly. However, when you do as Trump did and claim they are all rapists and drug dealers then you have racism involved. It isn't so much being against illegal immigration. Trump gives the impression that even legal immigration is frowned upon. That he has a problem with all people from that area. Not just those sneaking across the borders.

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            When has he said they're all rapists and drug dealers?

            I assume this is one of the quotes you're referring to:

            "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people"

            I don't see where he's saying or implying "all" of anything, and the last sentence rules out that possibility entirely.

            He might be implying that most or a significant number of the not-best Mexican immigrants aren't good people. Is it racist to claim that the not-best of a given group are criminals?

            (I don't know if that claim is true, by the way. I just don't see how it's racist.)

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Well, if you don't see that as racist we are at an impasse.  It is implying that the vast majority of Mexicans are felons,or potential ones.  'And some, I assume'. That really is the kicker, for me. Here we have a token attempt to make this sound less racist. As if he is attempting, at great cost, to give the benefit of the doubt to a limited number when the vast majority of those who come across our southern border are hard working people looking for a better life.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                The reason so many people are crossing the Mexican border is because of immigration from Central America.  Mexico is able to pay lower wages to the immigrants, and it is forcing the Mexican citizens out of work or working for wages that they cannot live on. 

                Hillary and Trump both explained how it is the Mexican government that is causing the illegal immigration problem, and why we need a secure border.  But, of course Hillary has done a 180.

                So, we get illegal immigrants who will work for lower wages in the USA, and its hurting American workers by driving down wages, and putting Americans out of work.

                ADDED:  Labor / Immigration has caused the same problem in the UK, thus Brexit Exit.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  I think you are missing the point here. Of course we need secure borders so that we can control the movement of people into our country and have a fair and equitable immigration policy. If we left it at just that there would be no discussion about racism. But, when you make statements such as the ones Trump makes then you have to wonder what truly motivates the desire for a wall. Is it motivated by a desire to ensure we address problems such as the ones you mentioned or is it to keep the 'dirty mexican drug dealers and rapists' out. Can you see how one is fair and equitable and one is unfairly characterizing an entire people?

                  We have to ensure that our motivations are the right ones when moving forward with policy because if we back someone who is racist, because we think he will address real problems then we may end up with a racist who does a whole lot more than that. A whole lot we would regret as a decent people.

                  1. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Trump is not a racist. He isn't politically correct, so the opposition and media blows things out of proportion, twists the facts.  If anyone is a racist it is Hillary Clinton and the many bloopers she has made, her and Bill are apologists for the former KKK grand dragon, Byrd.  If you start beating that drum, then I will believe that you have not been influenced by propaganda, and lack of real reporting.  You are a smart cookie, I have faith in you that you will figure it out for yourself. 

                    Our economy, and the illegal immigration problem is a far greater problem to America.  That I do not trust to Globalist Hitlary Clinton, racist or not.

              2. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                He's saying a majority (or some significant quantity) of Mexicans being sent illegally are felons. I don't know why you're equating that to all or a majority of Mexicans overall.

                He elaborates to include other countries as well:

                "It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast."

                His claim is not that all or a majority of Mexicans are felons. His claim is that a majority (or some significant quantity) of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, South America and potentially the Middle East are felons.

                What's the common theme here? Are we to conclude that he's being racist against all or a majority of Mexicans, South Americans, Middle Easterners, and any other country whose citizens illegally immigrate to the United States? Or that he's made a blunt and vague claim about how many felons make up the illegal immigrant population?

                Really, I'm puzzled. I'd like to get across the impasse, not use it as a cop-out.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  LOL, here you are again, "puzzled." 

                  We all get to decide, to some extent, what indicators we will use to judge whether we think a politician is "racist."  The fact that you are "puzzled" is meaningless. If enough people view Trump's words and behavior as evidence of racism, he will lose their votes or, in some cases, gain their votes.  Based on the vast database of Trump tweets, speeches, and interviews, it is not strange for a large number of people to think he is probably racist.

                  You can accept that or not,but it is silly to argue whether or not he is racist or whether people's opinions of his racism are right or wrong.  There is enough body of Trump behavior and words for everyone to decide on their own.

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    "LOL, here you are again, "puzzled.""

                    And here you are again, laughing and contributing nothing of substance about the quote in question.

                    "We all get to decide, to some extent, what indicators we will use to judge whether we think a politician is "racist.""

                    No kidding. I am suggesting that we err on the side of caution and give people the benefit of the doubt when making such serious accusations. If you have enough evidence of Trump's racism it should be easy to compile a list of his racist behaviour and demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt.

                    "The fact that you are "puzzled" is meaningless."

                    Meaningless to what? All I'm saying is I don't understand how you came to your conclusion about Trump's racism. I think it's relevant to the discussion, if you care to elucidate me on the matter.

                    "If enough people view Trump's words and behavior as evidence of racism, he will lose their votes or, in some cases, gain their votes."

                    Thank you, Captain Obvious.

                    "Based on the vast database of Trump tweets, speeches, and interviews, it is not strange for a large number of people to think he is probably racist."

                    Yes, there's such a large database yet I'm the only one that's provided an actual quote of his to try and understand what portion of that quote demonstrates racism. It's incredible, there's so much data and so little of it is provided, let alone analysed.

                    "You can accept that or not,but it is silly to argue whether or not he is racist or whether people's opinions of his racism are right or wrong.  "

                    lol it's silly to argue whether something is true or false. We'll agree to disagree on that one.

                    "There is enough body of Trump behavior and words for everyone to decide on their own."

                    Yes, and I'm asking you (or anyone else) to provide that overwhelming body of evidence to me so I can update my estimation. Maybe I am not privy to the database that you have. Or maybe you are ill-informed and buying into propaganda.

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  LOL. Sounds to me as if you are in agreement that he is saying a majority. I'm saying show some proof of that? If it isn't the majority of Mexicans which came across the border illegally than the only logical conclusion is that there is racial bias against that group which causes him to perceive the majority in the most negative light possible (which would more fairly be applied to the minority) although the evidence proves the majority does not fit that description.

                  1. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    Mexican is not a race. 
                    How can that be racist?
                    Muslim is not a race.
                    Latino is not a race.
                    American is not a race...

                  2. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    No, he didn't mention the quantity. That's why I said it's a blunt and vague claim.

                    You want some proof of what? That he didn't say it was a majority? Because he didn't... it's not there in the quote. Generalizations can talk about all, most or a significant proportion of a population. Since he said "some are good people" it's not all, so we're left with either most or a significant proportion.

                    "If it isn't the majority of Mexicans which came across the border illegally than the only logical conclusion is that there is racial bias against that group"

                    If what isn't the majority? Can you clarify? If he's not referring to the majority of Mexicans then how can you conclude that there is racial bias?

                    And are you going to conclude the same for the other countries he mentioned?

      2. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I do not "think" it is racist either, but Hillary gets off the hook and Trump gets accused of being racist.  I was making a point. 

        Hillary Clinton says US needs to secure borders, and illegals should be deported and build a wall
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhXu8IvVp2g Nov. 2015

        Hillary actually said things I can agree with 100% on the video. She has sold out to the Globalists though.  I agree with Trump!

        "Trump did and claim they are all rapists and drug dealers"
        No he did not...but that's the spin the liberals put on it.

  11. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 5 months ago

    Here is a story from the Washington Post, have a read. Are you still laughing?


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html


    I have presented my evidence from a respected journalist source. So, now what? You are tasked to prove this wrong, are you going to make some cryptic excuse for Trump and what was described clearly as discriminatory practices?

    Are you going to ask me now, if discriminatory practices by an business under your control and management are evidence of racism?

    So, you are going to believe cranks and extremists and give them credibility when the proponderance of evidence points otherwise, yeah, right.....

    1. mrpopo profile image87
      mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Credence, I was laughing about your accusations that I'm a "weird science oracle." I was not laughing at you having no evidence of Trump's racism. And yes, I am still laughing about that, because "weird science oracle" makes no sense on several levels.

      The article makes it clear that the case was settled out of court. Cases settled out of court are not admissions of guilt nor do they prove guilt. We've already been over this once before when you provided cases of banks all over North America supposedly discriminating against minorities, when they were all out of court settlements.

      But I'll indulge you. Let's assume this settlement proves Trump is racist. What are we left with? One example of Trump being racist 43 years ago. I would not call that a "preponderance" of evidence. Ideally I'd want to know what he's saying that's racist today, and ideally more than one example, if he is as openly racist as KKK members burning crosses and wearing bedsheets.

      What are you talking about, giving credibility to cranks and extremists? Which cranks and extremists do you think I am giving credibility to? Is it really that extreme to assume that people are not racists when they don't say racist things?

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Alright, Mr. P,

        He is also considered a racist today.

        I found this source from the Fortune Magazine, a business publication. I left out sources like the Huffington Post and Alternet so as you will not have the opportunity to make excuses and equivocate further.

        http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-tr … sm-quotes/

        So, what do I have to do convince you? Do I have to catch Trump in bed sheets with a pointy hat?

        I offer unbiased opinion sources, and what do you give me in return, bulls***, equivocation, and Your Opinion? What do you have to rebut my claim and the sources I provide?

        I have attempted to address you question with evidence that is credible, so where is yours?

        As an oracle, you sit 'on high' (well, north is on high) just thriving on the debate and process without taking a position because you cannot prove it, or would not bother to try. So, you are invited to come down from your celestial perch and get involved in the rough and tumble of American politics, even if you are a Canadian.

        Listening to you, I bet that you hate the young Trudeau as your current prime minister. Maybe, I ought to check Canadian politics and see if I can go in and stir up your pot a bit?

        1. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, Donald Trump is considered a racist. And Mother Teresa is considered a saint... doesn't make it true. That's why I'm asking for evidence.

          Where have I ever made an excuse about the source you've provided? This is the second or third time you accuse me of such a thing when I've never once complained to you about the source. I'll repeat what I've told you once before:

          I am not picky with the origin of the source. The information presented ought to be challenged in the same way regardless of where it comes from.

          Read it carefully and remind yourself that Mr P. doesn't care where your source comes from, so stop accusing him of making excuses about the sources, because he's never done that and he's gone out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't care where your source comes from.

          Anyway, I guess I'll have to do the "legwork" of outlining the articles claims, since the only thing you're keen on doing is pasting a link and expecting me to go through every single claim:

          Claim 1: discrimination by the Trump family business.

          We've already been over this. Despite my reservations in assuming settlements to be indications of guilt, I've already agreed to assume this is racist, even though there could be other explanations for disparities (something I've tried to explain to you at length in past threads).

          Claim 2: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage."

          How is this racist? The statement could be wrong, but is it racist? Would it be racist to say a well-educated white has a tremendous advantage? Or that white people have tremendous advantages in general? We had an entire thread about that, remember? Should I accuse you of racism for supporting that statement? There's a distinction between racial statements and racist statements.

          Claim 3: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE"

          Is this a reactionary claim to something without evidence? Yes. Is it an accusation against black and Latino teens? Yes. This could be a reaction based on racism, but this could also just be a reaction based on a false sense of justice or fear. Whatever, let's call it racism just because.

          Claim 4: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."

          Now this would be racist, if it were true. But this quote goes back to a single disgruntled employee who recalled something said months after the fact and put it in quotes. And who tried to profit off of it with a book. How credible are such statements?

          Claim 5: "They don’t look like Indians to me and they don’t look like Indians to Indians."

          He is referring to the typical Native American look, given their cultural attire and clothing. Was it a dumb, blunt and insensitive statement? Yes. Is it racist to say that Native Americans have a particular look? No. They do, it's very distinct and quite beautiful in my opinion.

          Claim 6: Obama is not American.

          Another dumb statement. Is it based on race? Yeah, probably. Does it mean he is racist? I'd be more inclined to think he's stupid and conspiratorial as opposed to racist, but I can give you this one.

          Claim 7: He called Mexicans rapists.

          No, he called a majority or significant proportion of not-best illegal immigrants drug dealers and rapists, and that "some" were good people.

          Claim 8: He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration.

          Muslims are not a race. The ban would be based on ideology which is largely incompatible with Western principles. And it would be temporary.

          Claim 9: He made fun of Chinese businesspeople with broken English.

          For crying out loud, does nobody actually look at the context of his statements? First of all, he wasn't talking about only Chinese businessmen, he was talking about Japanese too (should I assume that the author of your link is racist for equating Japanese to Chinese?). Second, it was a compliment! He's saying that Asian businessmen are direct and don't lolly gaggle with small talk. Third, he was quoting the specific businessmen he was negotiating with. If they said "we want deal" in broken English, quoting them verbatim is not racist.

          Claim 10: He said “my African American" again and again.

          Well, this is definitely racist, it clearly implies that he owns the African American, as if he were a slave. *Sarcasm*.

          Claim 11: He called Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican, and that he was biased against him.

          Calling into question the bias of someone because of their race is nothing new. You yourself have done this by accusing "old, white men" in the justice system of being racist and corrupt. The difference here is Trump is accusing one specific man of Mexican background of bias, whereas you made a generalization about all or most old white men. If you stated a specific judge was biased because he was white I wouldn't accuse you of being racist against whites, I'd just ask for evidence. Whatever, I'll say this is racist, but then I have to conclude that you are racist yourself (I'd rather think you and Trump are misinformed or ignorant, but oh well).

          Claim 12: He did not hire many black or Hispanic executives.

          Not having a specific % of a demographic in executive positions is not evidence of racism, discrimination or hatred. He also didn't hire any dwarves, does that mean he hates dwarves?

          --------------------------------------

          Those are all of the claims I can find in your link. 5/12 are potentially racist. But I'm being generous. A 43 year old settlement, an accusation by a disgruntled employee in a book 25 years ago, and calling for the death sentence and jumping the gun against presumed criminals doesn't prove he is racist.

          The other two incidents with Obama's birth certificate and Justice Curiel are potentially more compelling, but I am still hesitant to judge him as a racist against blacks and Mexicans on a whole two events against a whole two individuals. I'm a big fan of Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance. And this is more than adequately explained by ignorance.

          The rest of the claims are blatant distortions of what Trump said and/or are not racist by any measure. But at least now I understand where you supposedly come from. Now I know that 3 questionable incidents 25-43 years ago, and 2 recent incidents against specific individuals, are enough evidence of a person's racism, in your eyes.

          (I mean, I had to substantiate all of your evidence for you and make a number of exceptions in your favour, but that's fine. Like you (erroneously) said, I need to do some legwork for a change, even if it's legwork that you're supposed to be doing.)

          Now you keep asking about my evidence. Of what? What do you think I'm claiming here? Being skeptical of your claim does not mean I'm making a claim of my own. Being skeptical of fairies doesn't mean I am definitely stating that fairies don't exist. I've already gone out of my way to substantiate your claims and now you want me to substantiate non-claims? Be reasonable for a change.

          Of course, the default position is to assume that Donald Trump is not racist, just like the default assumption is to assume that fairies don't exist. There's no evidence that would "prove" that Trump is not a racist, or that fairies don't exist. The proof is in the absence of evidence to the affirmative claims. If you don't understand the distinction read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

          Once you understand that, you'll realize that asking for proof of something being absent, or demanding that I take a position when my position is the null/absent default, is silly. I'm beating a dead horse because I've already stated as such, but maybe if I repeat the same thing enough times, with different examples (I've used Bigfoot before, now I'm using fairies), it'll get through to you:

          "the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate Trump's racism, not on me to demonstrate his non-racism. How could anyone prove that a person is not a racist? How could anyone prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? The only proof I have is evidence of absence i.e. there's no evidence of Bigfoot, therefore he doesn't exist. But that might just be my "weird" science talking."

          So I'll reiterate: how could anyone prove that a person is not a racist? What evidence would you need to see to conclusively state that Trump is not a racist?

          As for Trudeau lol why are you mentioning Trudeau after complaining about my mentioning of Hillary and Obama? He's not even American.

          If you must know I would have voted for Trudeau, but I was out of the country visiting family and neglected to vote in advance. I actually made a minor donation to his party and participated in my university's Young Liberals group - it's not much of a contribution, mind you, but still enough to render your silly accusation, well, silly. It just seems that no matter how many times I tell you that I am a liberal, you ignore it, because if I disagree with you I must be a scary rightwinger and I must hate all liberals, including young Canadian prime ministers, because reasons.

          If you're having this much trouble understanding that I'm a liberal, then I can't imagine what the shock would be if I were to say that I'm a Latino immigrant from South America, which would make me part of two groups that Donald Trump is supposedly discriminatory against (maybe three if you include liberal). roll

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you, most complete, Mr. P

            I will address all your points in detail tomorrow.

            As for the source, I did not want to have you discount my arguments by saying that I used a left leaning "National Enquirer" as the source of my supporting information.

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              I never discounted your sources once. You're worrying about something that doesn't exist.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                No, no. It's probably a reflexive defense. I beat-up on him all the time for his Salon.com readings. ;-)

                GA

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Ah, so you're the culprit!

            2. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              The National Enquirer has broke some Top Stories, they actually do get their ducks in a row factually. Like any news site they are human and we know that we all can make mistakes.  Its always good to research the research. 

              I am sorry, if I may have added to your paranoia by speaking up when you had linked to Salon, because I truly hate pedophelia and will not credit to a site that promotes it.  I rarely use the word "hate" but it is a quality word to use for such as this.  You most likely didn't even know the site promoted it, I'm sure you didn't.  Please, I hope you understand.

          2. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

            That's why I'm asking for evidence: That is what I have attempted to provide.

            Ok, about the source, but as you can see other forum participants do care and want that see that my analyses are unbiased, to the greatest extent possible.

            You do great legwork and I cannot wait to dig into the meat of this rebuttal. I wanted you to read the entire article and come to your own conclusions, not wanting to steer you one direction or the other.


            Claim 1: discrimination by the Trump family business.
            ---------------------------------------------------
            What have we been over, Mr. P? I have no reservation about assuming that settlements are indications of guilt, often times, they are.  Trump, if not anything, is stubborn, why settle if he could win? The entire passage of the article speaks of his elaborate process involving  how he discriminated against potential renters based on race, in clear defiance Fair Housing Laws. The fact that he is a racist is settled, for claim 1, I have the game point. That fact is not something we are going to allow to be ignored. "Other disparities are just other excuses'


            Claim 2: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage."
            ------------------------------------------------------------
            I will give you this one, while it is a stupid ill-informed comment, the very trademark of Donald Trump, it may not be indicative of racism. But, there was a sentence in that passage that stated that the statistical reality was quite the contrary of Trump's assertion. So, it was a racial statement that is just as inane as Trump. Statistics will prove that white people have prominent advantages in society over non-whites, that is statistical reality. The difference is that Trump is in error.  And, that he should have been better informed before he started 'running his mouth'.


            Claim 3: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE"
            -----------------------------------------------------
            I will give you this one as well, as Trump is an insensitive, vulgar, brutish sort of clown, his attitude during this matter would not surprise me. He might just have a problem with the concept of inner city youth, period. It could be a issue of social class, whatever. There is enough daylight here to give this to you.



            Claim 4: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes… Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else…Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."
            -----------------------------------------------------
            Why would it not be true?  It is sheer conjecture on your part to say that this employee was lying about the statement. That is more than you can substantiate or support.  Also, let's not forget this damning piece of evidence quoted from the article:

            "O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.” 

            So, I guess I don't really care if Trump refers to O'Donnell as a disgruntled employee, what sort of excuse were you expecting?

            So, this is my game point!!- he is racist.


            Claim 5: "They don’t look like Indians to me and they don’t look like Indians to Indians."

            He is referring to the typical Native American look, given their cultural attire and clothing. Was it a dumb, blunt and insensitive statement? Yes. Is it racist to say that Native Americans have a particular look? No. They do, it's very distinct and quite beautiful in my opinion.
            ------------------------------------------------------
            Trump, who is a sore loser and never plays with an even deck, made these insensitive remarks about Native Americans because their casinos were a threat to his own. It is racist to use that 'particular look' idea to discount the fact that these people were in fact Native Americans with every right to operate a casino as provided by law. What are Native Americans supposed to look like? His defense of his position was based upon racist assumptions of whether these people were Native Americans or not, when it was clearly understood by everyone that they were.

            Yes, his comments were dumb, blunt and insensitive statements AND a racist one as well. I will take the point on this one, Thank you.....

            Claim 6: Obama is not American.

            Another dumb statement. Is it based on race? Yeah, probably. Does it mean he is racist? I'd be more inclined to think he's stupid and conspiratorial as opposed to racist, but I can give you this one.
            ----------------------------------
            (Racism is the underlying theme behind such a ridiculous statement) Thanks, and I will take this additional point as well.



            Claim 7: He called Mexicans rapists.

            No, he called a majority or significant proportion of not-best illegal immigrants drug dealers and rapists, and that "some" were good people.
            ------------------------
            I will give you this one, but I continue to condemn Trump for his ill-advised comments.

            Claim 8: He proposed a ban on Muslim immigration.

            Muslims are not a race. The ban would be based on ideology which is largely incompatible with Western principles. And it would be temporary.
            --------------------------------------
            Bigotry can apply to race, religion or creed. I will not go so far as to say that it is racist, but it is biased and ill-advised. The ban opens the pandora's box to tyranny and tyrants.
            But, I will, reluctantly, give you this one.


            Claim 9: He made fun of Chinese businesspeople with broken English.

            For crying out loud, does nobody actually look at the context of his statements? First of all, he wasn't talking about only Chinese businessmen, he was talking about Japanese too (should I assume that the author of your link is racist for equating Japanese to Chinese?). Second, it was a compliment! He's saying that Asian businessmen are direct and don't lolly gaggle with small talk. Third, he was quoting the specific businessmen he was negotiating with. If they said "we want deal" in broken English, quoting them verbatim is not racist.

            -----------------------------------------
            OK, you have made your point, I will give this one to you.



            Claim 10: He said “my African American" again and again.

            Well, this is definitely racist, it clearly implies that he owns the African American, as if he were a slave. *Sarcasm*.
            ---------------------------------
            What he did was silly, but I am not assigning 'racism' to it.  You have the point....

            Claim 11: He called Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican, and that he was biased against him.

            Calling into question the bias of someone because of their race is nothing new. You yourself have done this by accusing "old, white men" in the justice system of being racist and corrupt. The difference here is Trump is accusing one specific man of Mexican background of bias, whereas you made a generalization about all or most old white men. If you stated a specific judge was biased because he was white I wouldn't accuse you of being racist against whites, I'd just ask for evidence. Whatever, I'll say this is racist, but then I have to conclude that you are racist yourself (I'd rather think you and Trump are misinformed or ignorant, but oh well).
            -------------------------------
            The discrimination that Blacks have experienced in America is not something we are doing to ourselves. The issue here is that Trump wants the man to recuse himself because he was Mexican, and that the judge's insistence that records surrounding Trump University are being opened because of some racial vendetta that the judge has toward Trump, merely because his forebears were from Mexico. (What is it he says? 'But I am going to build a wall') He later comes up with an excuse that the judge is part of a radical Hispanic rights association. But when asked if he would impose the same demand of recusal for a judge of Muslim background he says, Yes. So, I say that it is racist to assume that people entrusted with a solemn responsibility are not going to do their jobs impartially merely because of their surnames and ethnic heritage. So, I am asking Trump for 'evidence'.

            That is racist and that is my game point.


            Claim 12: He did not hire many black or Hispanic executives.

            Not having a specific % of a demographic in executive positions is not evidence of racism, discrimination or hatred. He also didn't hire any dwarves, does that mean he hates dwarves?

            --------------------------------------

            The accounts in the article clearly show that racist intent was involved, but since I cannot prove it conclusively, I give you the point.



            But let me add another:
            ------------------------
            Claim 13: Trump spent considerable time on the birther issue and had the temerity to ask the President to provide him transcripts of academic records at the prestigious universities that he attended. Just who in the hell does he think that he is?  He said that affirmative action was the explanation as to how the President secured admission to these institutions. I regard this as a racist attack. I will take that point. (I will get documentation to support that if you wish)

            On the contrary, I am being generous, the man is a racist and for anyone not to see the pattern, it would clearly require that ones' head is in the sand. I give you the benefit of the doubt in the case when your Hanlon's razor could apply. But there are many other cases that clearly fit in the realm of my accusations against Trump.   

            Racism and racists are always a subjective concept, but with Trump it is time after time, over an over. You continue to make these kinds of statements and they become a part of anyone's perception of you.  I say Hitler was a racist and I am prepared to prove it, if you say that the evidence is incorrect then you will need to prove to me why that is. But, perhaps for Joseph Goebbles or Heinrich Himmler, Hitler was not a racist. But, when this matter is judged by most reasonable people objectively, there is only one clear answer, right? Such is the case with Donald J Trump. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a Donald.........   


            I glad that you approve of the young Prime Minister and I apologize for my forward remarks regarding your loyalties. It is just that anyone that can support Trump in the face of his ill deeds
            I have a hard time seeing as 'moderate' anything.


            I got 6 in favor and 7 against as far as Trump being racist. What other personality running for a major national office would have so much damning evidence pointing against him? Compared to Trump's record on these matters Clinton or Sanders is not even on the scale.

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Claim 1:

              "I have no reservation about assuming that settlements are indications of guilt, often times, they are."

              'Often' is not always. There are many settlements which are forced on a defendant because of pressure. Consent decrees like in this case specifically amount to a non-admission of guilt. Anyway, I already said I'm agreeing that this is racism, despite my reservations.

              Claim 4:

              "It is sheer conjecture on your part to say that this employee was lying about the statement."

              The employee's accusations are sheer conjecture. Why are you okay with his conjecture, but not with my conjecture about his conjecture? It could be true, it could be false, we don't know but we should be skeptical of a disgruntled employee's claim.

              ""O’Donnell’s report was shocking, but Trump did not contest it at the time. In 1997 he was interviewed for Playboy by author Mark Bowden and he confirmed that the O’Donnell book was “probably true.” "

              Probably true =//= definitively true. Trump didn't read the book or know of the claims. I like how you're believing this quote but not Trump's later quote where he disavows the claim.

              "So, I guess I don't really care if Trump refers to O'Donnell as a disgruntled employee, what sort of excuse were you expecting?"

              It's not that Trump referred to him as a disgruntled employee, it's that he was a disgruntled employee. He didn't like how Trump referred to one of the managers who passed away in a helicopter crash and was later fired. That would make anyone disgruntled.

              Claim 5: Ah, your link didn't give as much context. He was questioning their legitimacy based on appearance. Though I think questioning legitimacy based on appearance is not in itself racist, I can give you this one.

              Claim 12: I've already agreed that this is racist for your sake, but asking Trump to provide evidence =//= that he is automatically racist. He might have no evidence, just like there's no evidence that old, white judges are racist. We can assume that he is making this unfounded claim based on race or stupidity.

              "So, I say that it is racist to assume that people entrusted with a solemn responsibility are not going to do their jobs impartially merely because of their surnames and ethnic heritage"

              Do you remember our white privilege thread? That thread was largely about questioning people's impartiality based on their surnames and ethnic heritage. The difference is that their background was white. You were doing so, as were others. Should I assume that you did so out of racism? Or that you were trying to look for an explanation?

              Claim 13 is claim 6... you can't repeat the same point twice lol

              You've yielded claim 3, I've yielded claim 5. The final tally remains 5/12.

              But can you see where I'm coming from? The success ratio of these claims is less than 50%, and that's after we went through each and every one of them with diligence and honesty, and with a good source. Accusations of racism even against someone as questionable as Trump have not been reliable or accurate, and yet we continue to push these buttons of bigotry for every little thing an influential figure says. (And note that only 2 of these claims happened within the last 5 years. Some of the most oft-repeated claims about him are of his racism against Mexicans and Muslims and that he wants to "deport all of them," both of which aren't true.)

              I agree that he's more overt with his questionable behaviour than other candidates. But again, less than 50% of the dirt thrown his way are indicative of racism. When that many accusations are inaccurate, I have to remain skeptical.

              My suggestion is, instead of shunning him via accusations of racism (not only because it's sketchy, but because it just doesn't work), why don't we just prove him wrong? Why don't we look at the % of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population and see if they're a cause of concern? Why don't we challenge him on providing evidence regarding his accusations against Justice Curiel? Why don't we show Obama's birth certificate?

              (oh wait, we did that last one, and Trump did shut up about it - after patting himself on the back for a job well done lol)

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I had to say this to you, why should we tolerate a potential presidential candidate that consistently misrepresent the facts and data?

                We already know that the amount of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population do not exceed that of native born. So, why say these things without properly vettiing them before you do?

                He has already been challenged to provide evidence to support his claim of bias in the Curiel case,  I have yet to see it.

                Why should the President of the United States present his birth certificate to Trump because he demands it, what else does he demand to see besides the President's transcrips? Are we to assume that this massive plot to get Obama into office, starting at childhood was not some sort of plot. Or, that, Mr Trump is keen to information that all of the proper authorities have not already determined as to Mr. Obama's eligibility to hold the office that he was seeking.

                Why should the president or anyone else have to accomodate this fool and his ridiculous demands?

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  "I had to say this to you, why should we tolerate a potential presidential candidate that consistently misrepresent the facts and data?"

                  I never said you have to tolerate him. I'm just asking us (society, as a whole) to be less trigger-happy in accusations of racism, sexism etc. not only against Trump but in general. As I've demonstrated, most are not accurate even against the most questionable of individuals.

                  "We already know that the amount of rapists and drug dealers in the immigrant population do not exceed that of native born."

                  Do we? I haven't looked, I'd be surprised if you have to be honest. BTW, he was talking about illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants, so you'd need to look at that population.

                  A quick glance led me to this study which actually tackles the Trump hypothesis. It found a significant association between undocumented immigrants and drug-related crimes, but not anything else: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 0/abstract

                  So his quote is wrong regarding rape, but is right regarding drug crime (though it's not undocumented immigrant Mexicans in particular, just undocumented immigrants).

                  "He has already been challenged to provide evidence to support his claim of bias in the Curiel case,  I have yet to see it."

                  It's obvious he doesn't have any evidence, so he won't provide anything. Thus our pressuring of evidence renders his accusation flat.

                  "Why should the President of the United States present his birth certificate to Trump because he demands it"

                  Because it would shut him up and other members of the birther movement, which it did.

                  "Why should the president or anyone else have to accomodate this fool and his ridiculous demands?"

                  I wouldn't call proving him wrong an accommodation. Legitimacy is a contestable issue. For instance, George Bush wasn't considered a legitimate president by a significant number of Americans. If there were a way of proving that his victory in Florida was legitimate, we'd ought to demand evidence of it.

                  The birther movement questioned Obama's legitimacy on dubious grounds. Ideally we ought to not entertain dubious accusations (just like I ought to not entertain accusations about me hating liberal Prime Ministers) but I think judging whether an accusation is dubious or not is sketchy. Either way, there were a large group of people who bought that belief, and it's a belief that's really easy to disprove. The best solution would be putting the birth certificate online. Evidently, Obama and his team agreed with that idea.

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    You won't get accused of racism and sexism as the foundation of your campaign if you make a point not to practice such things or have a record that support the fact of racism and sexism in your dealings. Speaking about blood running from various female orifices shows disrespect for women and adherence to a level of vulgarity rarely seen in American politics. Am I not free to make a distinction between David Duke and Mitt Romney for example?

                    We all slip up time and time again, but you reach a point as with everything that a person that is late to work occassionally is not the same as one that is late every day.

              2. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                I have to come back at you on claim 4

                So, there is no proof that the employee was disgruntled as disgruntled is a state of mind that does not translate that he  vengeful and prone to lie. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

                Why would Donald Trump admit to such racist commentary, if he had not read the book. That does not make any sense. What proof is there that he did not read the book and just shook his head in the affirmative like a sock puppet, not knowing what he was commenting on?

                Yes, two years later, when you read the article, it said that he was running for office of some sort and this sort of commentary if it got around would  certainly have been a downer. Of course, he denied it later.

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  "So, there is no proof that the employee was disgruntled as disgruntled is a state of mind that does not translate that he  vengeful and prone to lie. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise."

                  No, the burden of proof is on you to prove Donald Trump said what this person accused him of saying...

                  The book was called "Trumped! The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump — His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall." This doesn't sound vengeful to you? I don't know about you, but it doesn't look like Trump "fell" anywhere, let alone spectacularly.

                  "Why would Donald Trump admit to such racist commentary, if he had not read the book."

                  I don't have the full context of the statement, but there's no reason to believe he admitted to racist commentary. He was asked about the book and gave an answer. Here's the closest I can get to context:

                  In a 1997 interview, Trump said “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true,” using an expletive to describe his former executive as a loser.

                  To me, this sounds like he's making fun of the guy for talking about his "spectacular fall" when he never fell to begin with, which is why he called him a loser. Saying it's "probably true" is just mockery.

                  "What proof is there that he did not read the book and just shook his head in the affirmative like a sock puppet, not knowing what he was commenting on?"

                  What proof do you have that he read the book, informed himself on it and was honest enough to admit to racism? Does that sound like Trump to you?

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    It is in the book, who are you to say that the statements are false? If it was full of lies, why did not Trump sue the guy?

                    You were not there and have no idea as to what transpired, what makes you so sure that it wasn't said, If you say the man that wrote the book is a liar, then you have to prove it. So, why did not Trump just state that the book was a lie in its entirety, he had the opportunity, you know?

                    So, Trump said that it was 'probably true', why are you adding some sort of question about that. Why not use the expletive and deny the statement?

                    I can go only with what was said and what Trump acknowledged was said, not some sort of theory as to what was going on that has no basis of support except for your thoughts.


                    As to the proof that he read the book: Because if was able to comment on the contents of the material in the affirmative, I should be able to assume that he was aware of what he was commenting to. That is more logical than to expect him to intelligently comment on something that he did not read, right?

        2. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for regarding evidence of Trump's non-racism, but here is a video outlining (almost) all of Trump's racist statements:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxLttE0 … el=MTVNews

          Note that most people disagree with that video. You can look at the like:dislike ratio or the comments that say that most (if not all) of those statements were not racist... because they're not. Here's a classical liberal (who happens to be black) responding to that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH73eYs … rPreston20

          Classical liberals like him or I don't find it fair to make character assassinations - whether it be racist, misogynistic or what have you - based on the offensiveness or bluntness of a person's commentary. These are terrible accusations against a person. They should be levied only if you have a significant amount of evidence at your disposal. And most of the evidence I've seen has been of the level of the MTV video (your article is actually quite good by comparison, so kudos to you for providing it... though typically you're supposed to state the claim and then provide the source, not force your opponent to dig through the source for every claim stated within it).

          Trump isn't the only one accused of such things. Sanders and Hillary have been accused of racism and sexism, by media and political groups. These are thinly veiled attempts at character assassination based on phraseology; for instance, Sanders saying Hillary is unqualified was considered sexism. These trigger happy accusations of bigotry indicates a pattern of behaviour that is concerning. Ideally you should have a healthy amount of skepticism for serious accusations, not assume that they're all true because they've been parroted by media and political groups, especially when these accusations boil down to the worst interpretations of statements possible. This comment I stumbled upon highlights one of those particular interpretations, that of generalizations:

          Ill-will makes us parse things in the way that says we're good and the other guy's bad. When necessary, we interpret generics or bare plurals perfectly fine. At other times, we assume they're exhaustive because it suits us--it makes a denial stronger, an assertion stronger. Or it makes it very easy to trip up an opponent. But it's still just an interpretation based upon ill-will, amounting to nothing less than confirmation bias.

          If you want to further understand where I'm coming from, take a look at false accusations levied against people like Gregory Elliott or Paul Nungesser. They were widely condemned by media, institutions and even government, and yet their accusations turned out to be false. Were you to see these people you'd conclude, as you did above with Trump, that they were "considered" to be guilty of these crimes, and that it is reasonable for you to consider them guilty as well. I am suggesting to you that this standard of consideration is too weak to be meaningful.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image87
            PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Why do I get the feeling you're kicking back taking a long drag on a cigarette? You got exactly what you wanted, didn't you? Feel all relaxed and spent now?

            LOL

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Why do I get the feeling that you only jump in to make irrelevant armchair-psychology comments targeting the individual instead of the argument? Are you getting exactly what you wanted? Feeling smug and cocky now?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                No, feeling amused. I guess you don't see the humor. wink

                1. mrpopo profile image87
                  mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Fair enough. Sorry if I jumped the gun. Goes to show you that this isn't exactly relaxing for me wink

            2. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

              Yahoo responses have always been nasty in my opinion and I do not consider them to be the canary in the coal mine. Whenever there is an article about Obama doing anything the sheer volume of negative comments are off of the scale. I don't care what Trump says, I am looking at his record, is what he says consistent with has done or is doing? If you say that 'I am the least racist person I know', but you are caught in a major discrimination lawsuit and criminal charges, that statement rings hollow. Trump has deserved the accusations. How many companies has disassociated themselves with him and his businesses? I haven't taken the time to count. But, out of curiosity, I will take the time to check this out. This is unprecedented, have you heard about these kinds of reactions to Clinton or Sanders, or any of the GOP hopefuls for that matter? Then I listen to Bernie Sanders plead with the African American community for support. A man that had been in trenches for 50 years active in addressing the disparities and inequalities of American society since the 1960's. (SNCC) Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. While, I don't have a great deal of problem with Hillary Clinton, she was on Barry Goldwater's team at the time. So, talk is cheap, who is actually walking the talk?

              If you want to be my leader, you had better be prepared to 'set the example'.

              Thanks for the kudos regarding my article, you are a 'tough nut' to crack and I needed good sources. He has made numerous racist and misogynistic comments not excused by the bluntness or his naturally offensive nature. Who, competing for the highest office of the land would dare utter them in a public forum?


              Trumps involvement in racism and sexism is beyond pale and there is no one running today or in the recent past that would dare to have make the kinds of statements that he has. Bernie's record allows us to evaluate the source and while it condemns Trump it absolves Bernie. Outside or rightwing circles, who is serious about Sanders being sexist? I have skepticism about accusations and their validity. But, Trump has shown time and time again that my disparaging view of him is warranted. If 9 out 10 men tell you that you are drunk, then you had better sit down. Trump has been accused by everyone, across the ideological frontier and partisan boundaries, with only the 'cranks' determined to ride it out with him.

              But there is a time when 'good and bad' has to be defined for each of us in our own subjective way. There are plenty in this forum that thinks that Trump walks on water. If I hear a lot of disparity from a variety of sources and I see for myself, I going to tend to come to certain conclusions. 


              I am not familiar with the case of Gregory Elliot or Paul Nungesser. But, I am prepared to give them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt, listening to both sides of the cases and the merits of each argument before coming to a conclusion. I have done the same with Trump and my conclusion is definitely Negative....

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                "Yahoo responses have always been nasty in my opinion and I do not consider them to be the canary in the coal mine."

                You can compare the responses in this video to responses in their other videos and see whether all responses to this topic are negative, or just watch the video and see whether their claims are silly. Saying "I'm the least racist person I know" is not racism...it might ring hollow, but it's not racism.

                "This is unprecedented, have you heard about these kinds of reactions to Clinton or Sanders, or any of the GOP hopefuls for that matter?"

                Yes, I have. I've mentioned that both Clinton and Sanders have been accused of racism and sexism. Arguably most GOP candidates have been accused of some form of bigotry or another. The accusations were not to the scale of Trump's (naturally) but they were largely unfounded.

                "Outside or rightwing circles, who is serious about Sanders being sexist?"

                Actually, I've only seen this being spouted by left-wing media and Hillary supporters...

                http://www.salon.com/2016/04/07/clinton … _his_face/

                CNN had a good article on the issue which paints the blame squarely on the media for making up drama: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/07/opinions/ … e-drexler/

                I have yet to hear a rightwing source accuse him of sexism.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  All candidates have a contention or two, but with Trump? Why do you say the scale of Trump's (naturally) are greater, with the emphasis on naturally? Why naturally? The problem is that the accusations against him are well beyond  the scale of the others. Small scale items are easily dismissed, but larger scale both in breath and depth are going to prove more difficult.

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    "All candidates have a contention or two"

                    The point is they are unfounded contentions and should not be made or entertained on this large of a scale as a starting point of discussion.

                    "Why do you say the scale of Trump's (naturally) are greater, with the emphasis on naturally? Why naturally?"

                    Because he's more overt with his questionable behaviour.

                    "Small scale items are easily dismissed"

                    No, they are not. A single accusation of racism or sexism can tarnish a person for a lifetime: https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 … ry-collins

                    1. Credence2 profile image85
                      Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                      Yes, if a single accusation of racism or sexism can tarnish a person for a life time, what do you think going to happen to the person of accused of many incidents of racism or sexism. Don't you think that this person is in more trouble.

                      If Trump made the disparaging comment about Blacks relative to Jews and I am certain that he did, then he is a racist. The amount of years ago and such matters does not dismiss it, as the continued controversy surrounding his behavior and statements show that the leopard has not changed his spots.

                      No such man will ever get my vote for President, period. I will pass that on to all those that will listen.

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      There is no "large body of behavior and statements" as evidence that shows he could be considered a racist.  Just the fact that the same propaganda is spread and exaggerated beyond recognition of what Trump's statements were, does not come close to guilt.  What it does prove is the distortions made by less than honest people that oppose Trump. 

      The war between light and darkness.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        All I can do is laugh and shake my head.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this
        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I think the article that I linked has a lot of damning evidence about Donald Trump and racism. Many of the outrages comes from his own troublesome tongue.

          I am trying to get Mr. P. to take a look and accept the futility of not seeing the large body of behavior and statements for what they are, conducive of a pattern allowing for a conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, based on the evidence.

          But maybe the 'prescient one' can share with us some of that keen insight of his.

          But, he knows that I promised him that he would eat crow, and it is checkmate, this time.

          1. mrpopo profile image87
            mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            lol did you forget to take your medication or something? You promised that I'd eat crow about Mateen's attack being evidence of Islamic terrorism, not about Trump's racism.

            Do you remember your claims? "I still think that all this Islamic terrorism stuff is just a hoax to save the conservative's face on the issue of homophobia which they work hard to conceal." Your ridiculous claim is that this registered Democrat used Islam as a cover for conservatives' homophobia.

            Here's something that you might find interesting: http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-e … K&IR=T

            The FBI found no evidence that he was gay.

            Do you also remember the little bet we made, about 80% of terrorist attacks that weekend being Islamic in nature? Take a look at last weekend's terrorism, how much of that was Islamic in nature?

            I'll save you the trouble: 100%. In fact, of the known causes in the entire month of June, all of them have been Islamic in nature.

            Anyway, let me know how the crow tastes.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

              You will get to find out how it taste because I am serving it for you on this thread, this time.

              Oh, by the way, you're gonna eat it 'raw' but I will offer you your choice of condiments....

              1. mrpopo profile image87
                mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                lol the only thing you're serving me is inconsistency.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  as to the Islamic issue, my point and only point is everyone is to be treated equally under the law regardless of some predilection that everyone seems to assign to practicers of the Muslim faith.

                  Why don't you do your research?  I have given you the 'evidence' that you say has been absent from my side of the debate. You have been privileged to review the correspondence of many thoughtful posters trying to show you what is clear to most everybody, except you and Rush Limbaugh. So, O Prescient One,  where is your rebuttal?

                  1. mrpopo profile image87
                    mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm working on it, pal.

                    Unfortunately, you've only given me a link, and not the specific claims within that link, so I have to go through the link and list every claim that's in there. You know, doing the "legwork" that you've accused me of not doing.

                    Edit: oh, and everyone is treated equally under the law. Nobody is saying to do otherwise, you're again attacking things that aren't there.

                2. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                  Cred is good at shoveling it out.  Thank you again, Mr Pop, I love to cheer you on from the sidelines.  -  CHEERS!

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 5 months ago in reply to this

                    When it comes to 'shoveling' compared with you, I am just an amateur.....

                    1. colorfulone profile image88
                      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

                      Virtual huge!

            2. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

              June is the month of Ramadan.  You might as well call this Jihad Month! 

              Why Do Muslims Commit More Violence During Ramadan? Is Islam Peaceful?
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yusbjiYbjiw

              The Doctor Of Common Sense is ranting on the video and not mincing words.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        LOL. Does that give you holy goose bumps? LOL

    3. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      Mr. Popo, I'm so glad you have patiently taken your time on this thread to try to address issues that others have. I honestly don't see the issue at all.  Your input is always appreciated and I respect how forthright you are.   smile

      1. mrpopo profile image87
        mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        I'm glad someone appreciates my input.

        My position is very simple, it's called skepticism. That's why I invoke Hanlon's razor, or giving people the benefit of the doubt, or even demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. I'm just skeptical of serious allegations against individuals, especially when they're done on dubious grounds. It's not a healthy state of affairs when most, if not all, of your presidential candidates have been accused of racism and sexism by political groups or media.

        It should be a mortifying thing to be called a racist or a sexist or a homophobe, yet it's a practice that some political elements (particularly of the regressive left) routinely engage in as their go-to strategy for disagreements. Just here at Hubpages I've been accused of being both racist and sexist simply for being skeptical about a position, or for trying to offer an alternative explanation. And yet people are okay with these accusations, as if it's perfectly reasonable discourse to assume that people who disagree with you or who make questionable statements are doing so out of ill-intent.

        I quite like Dave Rubin's quote on the issue: "People who throw out bigot, racist, homophobe and sexist like it's candy suddenly don't like labels now that #RegressiveLeft is sticking." (if you don't know who he is, you might like him. He's done segments with PJW and Milo Yiannopoulos and other 'dissidents' in his show, the Rubin Report. His guests are usually top notch.)

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          I love listening to Milo, the guy is so darn smart. I hadn't heard of Rubin, but I will pay him some attention, I love a good comedian with great material.  I read just a bit of his humor.
          Thank you for the tip.

    4. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      Here is a video link to the Donald Trump press conference with African-American Pastors in Norcross, GA (10-10-15)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1J6dDi6Z0w

      I am happy to see many African-American Pastors supporting Trump, especially with their prayers.
      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13076529.jpg

    5. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin narrated a segment Friday detailing various donations the Clinton Foundation had accepted from foreign governments prior to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, but he completely botched the repeatedly proven fact that the Clinton Foundation has failed to reveal the identities of over 1,000 foreign donors.

      http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13076663.jpg

      Part of Griffin’s report featured Trump saying in a speech earlier this week that “Maybe the motivation lies among the 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.”

      Griffin then falsely asserts that “There’s no evidence that is accurate.” 

      But in fact, last April, the Washington Post and Bloomberg News both reported that 1,100 hidden Clinton Foundation foreign donors were “bundled” into a $25 million donation from Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.

      http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinto … donations/

      That's really sad, a lot of people watch CNN expecting excellent reporting, but instead they listen to lies to protect Hillary Clinton and try to paint Trump negatively.  The brainwashing!

    6. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      Trump certainly has captured the imaginations of people one way or another.  He isn't politically correct and he doesn't care who he offends.  He is busting that PC crap apart and people feel safer to exercise their free speech and have debates about if Trump is racist or not.  Really, that doesn't matter, because this isn't about Trump and he knows it.  Race baiting is the new orange, compliments to the present polarizing administration.

    7. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      Obama is the most ridiculous president to demand allowing men and boys to be able to use the privet facilities for women and girls.  He is exceptionally foolish.

    8. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      One must humble them self to God, to learn to recognize the gifts of God, and if there is any glory, it belongs to Him.   Pastor Scott is a humble man, but he is a mighty man through God. 

      When I am weak = He is strong

    9. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 5 months ago

      Trump is SINKING....FAST.   Since Hillary has been cleared of ALL wrongdoing, her political & ethical credibility has increased.  She is BEING GROOMED by the POWERS THAT BE to be the next President of the United States.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Interesting. The last poll I saw had them almost neck and neck.

      2. colorfulone profile image88
        colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        Bernie is the one who sunk fast.  Comey didn't clear Hillary of federal violations, he reported all of her violations, and added who is going to prosecute her for those charges. There have been many political higher-ups prosecuted for much less felony charges and imprisoned.  Comey is full of BS. 

        This is a GREAT day for Trump, he has much more fire power on Hillary after Comey reported her violations of federal laws.  You might like to listen to his speech in North Carolina today.  I certainly felt a lot lighter after listening to him.  The Apocalypse between Hillary and Trump is about to begin.

    10. Qmacer Boo profile image61
      Qmacer Booposted 5 months ago

      Thats cool

    11. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      Now, the discredited Rev. Jess Jackson comes out saying Donald Trump is to blame for the attack on police officers in Dallas, TX.   He is still an evil race baiter and just as hateful as ever.  Oh yeah, he is on the Top 10 Racist/Race Baiters List in America.  Time to put him in a STRAIGHT-JACKET?

      http://www.infowars.com/jesse-jackson-b … k-on-cops/

    12. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 5 months ago

      The credible evidence that IS A MATTER OF RECORD, suggests that Donald Trump is the exact opposite of what the Democrats, the MSM and his detractors accuse him of when they say he is racist, anti semantic and a misogynist! I continue to see comments from people calling Trump those things, but I have seen no credible evidence to support it... For no one sources the information! Facts outweigh unproven accusations with me!

      On the other hand, FBI Director, James Comey laid out the facts of the criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton factually as incriminating evidence of lying repeatedly under oath and compromising top secret, classified information by being excessively careless with the sensitive data on unsecured private servers. The law is clear, and he even made the case and mentioned that any other person would be prosecuted, but he unconstitutionally changed the law in what appears to be a politicized decision saying he could prove no ill intent? There's no intent when a drunk driver slams into another car and kills someone either, but he will be charged at the least with DUI ... and most likely manslaughter! Point being ... look at the facts... Ignore the spin... Misogynist? Even Trumps ex-wives agree he would make a great President... so where is the factual evidence? There is none! Vote Trump for the best chance to make America great again!

      * http://www.westernjournalism.com/florid … rimination

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 5 months ago in reply to this

        http://michaelghurston.com/2014/10/list … nd-hoaxes/

        Colorfulone, the black stories you spread do a great job of destroying your own credibility.

        1. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 5 months ago in reply to this

          Her latest two links are accurate from what I can see:

          Jesse Jackson blaming Trump's anti-minority rhetoric for Dallas shootings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p040sw5l

          Trump putting a light on the discriminatory practices of the Palm Beach club scene: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB862335923489989500 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … n-equality

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 5 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you, Mr Popo.  I like that last link with a brief clip with Trump speaking up for himself about his personal efforts for equality.  He's a good man for his humanitarian efforts in my book.

    13. willmcwryter profile image53
      willmcwryterposted 5 months ago

      wow you are obsessed with black people

    14. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

      No. That is not how I am. I don't know why you like to judge me in a demeaning way.  God is real to me. 

      Noff was a gay rights activist, I understand why you would prefer a religious minister over a born-again Spirit filled man of God.  I really do, and I will not condemn you for it.  An atheist living a homosexual life-style would, not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, John. You have a free will.   

      Everyone is unique.  I prefer knowing God over religion.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        I'm going to interject here. I'd say you may both know God. People tend to be selfish with the spirit, attempting to horde it all in hopes of denying it to others. I suppose we all need to feel special.

        God is infinite and we finite beings see only a small bit of who he is and our needs determine what portion we focus on. I found Johnny's quote to be deep and profound. I tend to roll my eyes at the 'spirit filled' gyrations of these new fangled ministers which appear to be so popular these days.  This doesn't make either bad, or wrong.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I tend to agree with you that John may know God, or at least He has been working in his life for a long time even if he does not believe there is a God.  We are all special and we are all God's children. 

          The Scriptures say that God reigns on the righteous and the un-righteous. I believe that.  And, there is nothing "new fangled" about "spirit filled" ministries, not since the days of Acts.  We all see in part and know in part, some see and know more than others about the things of God as He allows, and that's Scriptural. A Christian starts out as a baby-Christian, and no one ever arrives at the fullness of what God has for them, not in this life that I know of.

          There is a big difference between a religion and a Spirit filled ministry.  You can go ahead and roll your eyes all you want if that's how you want to be.  Makes no difference to me, but....

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, thank you. I will roll my eyes at those with absolutely no formal education at any accredited seminary dancing and sweating and 'praising de lord'. Most of those types I've met make it very clear what their lord is.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I know people who went to accredited seminary colleges and they realized that they were in a cemetery with foredrawn Christian conclusions. Its kind of like stamping people in a religious mold in an assembly line.  That's what you like.  Hey, I have no problem with that, but its not for me, I don't want religion. 

              I like the way Pastor Darrell Scott rolls and would be surprised if he had a religious bone in his body.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                I'm afraid I have little use for those who want to lead with no formal training under their belt and I do see where these uneducated 'pastors' develop a following with people who honestly have no idea who Jesus was or what he stood for. Everyone gets to believe as they feel fit to and claim it's because they are full of spirit. I do think they are full of something; just not that.

                And I don't think these holy roller preachers have a spiritual bone in their bodies. They are in it for the money. It appears to be a lucrative business. I can't say I am happy for them because they are leading too many astray.

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  It seems you have made some judgements.   Dear Lord Jesus.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    I see you've edited your post to make my original reply appear somewhat nonsensical. Can't do it again. I've imported your post so you can't change it again.

                    You might learn how to spell or pay attention to the red lines under misspelled words. So you can correct them prior to hitting submit.

              2. IslandBites profile image86
                IslandBitesposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Already a 21st Century Theologian and Scholar in his own right, Dr. Darrell went on to receive his Doctorate of Divinity in November of 2004.
                http://nsrcministries.org/images/drdpic.png

                CLEVELAND, Nov. 5 2004/PRNewswire/ -- Pastors Darrell and Belinda Scott of the New Spirit Revival Center (NSRC) will be awarded honorary Doctorate degrees from St. Thomas Christian College.

                lol

          2. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Ok Susie, I accept your assessment of yourself - you said "That is not the way I am."  Ok.  You be your own judge.  Period.

            Now, how on earth did you get the impression that "Noff was a gay activist?!"  I gave no indication of that.  All the websites which mention him would not, and never did give that impression.  Because he was not.  Period. 

            Yet, even if he had been, that would not have been an impediment to him.  (Except in the weight of mill stones others might wish to pile around his neck).  Let me describe the circumstances in which I first came across his church, The Wayside Chapel, in Kings Cross, Sydney, Australia.

            I was a lonely, closeted, searching individual, about 37 years old.  Sydney was and is a huge, busy city, very unnerving for a stranger entering it for the first time.  I was strolling around the Kings Cross, a lively and bustling neighourhood during the evening, a weekday evening as I recall.  Nothing special about the day.  Nothing special to do.  Alone.  I came across this place called the Chapel, stopped to inquire, walked inside.   I was greeted by people, ordinary people.  Older motherly women, older fatherly men, young hippy people, friendly people.  And I thought to my self, "What would these people ever know about gay people or drug addicts or criminals?"  (I was in only one of those categories, but at the time afraid to admit it !!)

            Well, my question was returned to me in numerous ways, finding the answer:  "Even if they can't know everything, they know a darn sight more about it than I do!"  If you could ever have had the real-life demonstration of a Jesus in The Kings Cross, it was there at the Wayside Chapel.

            I was coming from a very negative view of "The Church" as I had found it in the early part of my life.  That was something I had felt a part of for so long.  When you walk away from what you regard as Home, that is a very frightening and somewhat dangerous thing to do.  I walk away from "The Church."  Then Ted Noffs and his big Family in that Chapel welcomed me.  As it subsequently happened I continued walking, because life had other paths for me to find and discover, but it was the starting point for me to understand the counterfeit nature of man-made notions of "god" and sin. 

            The real "sin" is putting up a barrier to separate people into "good" and "bad" and "not so good" and "undesirable" and "to be avoided."  Making the judgements without sufficient first-hand evidence and out of ignorance.  Thereby condemning individuals to a lonely, distraught, pathetic, meaningless existence. 

            This is a "sin" we are all guilty of to some degree.  Each to their own personal realisation.  The "salvation" from that is to open the Inner Eye, delve deeply, face fact, deal with it, come out smiling -- knowing that "I am at one with my fellow humans," and I belong. If that is not the message your Jesus is supposed to have sent down the years, then I don't know any other of importance.

            We don't all need to wear the same clothing, say the same nice things, do the same activities, believe the same things. 

            Reality is the diversity and tapestry of life.  It's beautiful if we clean our spectacles once in a while.

    15. IslandBites profile image86
      IslandBitesposted 4 months ago

      A political speech... the fire of God... the Word of Truth...

      Suuuuureeee!

    16. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

      "Movement, Knowledge, Emotion: Gay Activism and HIV/AIDS in Australia" by Jennifer Power.  Australia is where you live I believe, John.

      Rupert Noffs, is Ted's grandson and is carrying on his grandfathers work for the LGBT community and an activist for their rights and the care they need because of sexually transmitted diseases.  Ted Noff was very much a voice.  I suggest you do more research, because Ted had a unique hands on ministry and a different walk with the Lord.  Those are things I like to look at.   

      Anyway, this thread is not about Ted Noffs.

    17. IslandBites profile image86
      IslandBitesposted 4 months ago
      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        LOL. Not surprised.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I read that too...LOL.    SUPT. H. BURNETT is a very outspoken religious blogger.  Letter of the law crap! 
          "Christians should CONTINUE to preach against the sin of homosexuality", well I suppose he may be right there.  I'm glad I'm not a preacher or in his sights.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            LOL. You can't comment on the allegations in the article other than to attempt to smear the name of the person who wrote it.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I don't get what you mean. 

              My best friends group on Facebook went to Trump's and Hillary's pages to see how many of our friends liked their pages.  All of us have way more friends that liked Donald's, and very few who liked Hillary's.  That was kind of a fun exercise.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 months ago in reply to this

                That is simply a reflection of the circles you are traveling in, nothing profound there.

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  My best friends group on Facebook is made up of affiliate marketers, most of us have never met. We've been long-time trusted online friends.  So its not like that as you say.   I wasn't going for the profound, just mentioned it because it was a fun exercise.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                ??? I see you may be engaged in some other fun exercises.

    18. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

      Drumpf's?  I didn't use that in my post above. 
      See!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Frustrated because you were misquoted? LOL

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          If she is commenting on Trump being spelled Drumpf I'm on my son's computer and he has an app that changes it to that every time it appears. I forgot about that.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Very funny.  Made my day!

          2. PrettyPanther profile image87
            PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Well, since she misquotes people, complaining seems a bit hypocritical.  big_smile

          3. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Now, that is funny!  I got a good tummy laugh out it.  Thank you very much.

    19. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

      If a person is intolerant of other ideas, races, or religions, we call that person a bigot. The intolerance expressed by that bigot is called bigotry. Bigotry is ugly.

      https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/bigotry

      Bigotry, the intolerance, fear, and hatred of those different from ourselves is still a far too common occurrence in the world today. Bigotry is almost universally considered wrong because it robs others of their rights as human beings through discrimination and persecution.

      http://www.religioustolerance.org/relbigot.htm

      In a multi-religious nation like the United States where the practice of the religion of one's choice is protected by the Constitution, there is no reason for any kind of religious bigotry.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Please share your point in this post. I think you are probably mislabeling freedom of speech as bigoted, since that freedom doesn't result in everyone agreeing with you. If I am wrong, please clarify.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Bigotry is ugly.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            It sure is, Colorfulone.  Are you totally guiltless in that regard?

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

     
    working