Donald Trump: Using Fear and the Race Card?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I tend to think "outrage" is extremely selective in politics. Neither party is guilt-free of this though. As for genuine outraged, I think it does happen from time-to-time. I probably shouldn't have used that word in that context though as it's a bit exaggerative. Perhaps I should have chosen "boggles the mind". 
Most people don't get close to staying away from lashing out emotionally or using ad hominem and other fallacious arguments.
By personal assertion I assume you mean calling your statements an analogy and nonsense. Is this a personal attack or stating that your point was nonsense?
When you defined analogy, did you add a word to the definition, or did you paste that definition from some uncited source?
When you applied logic to what you said, did you do so simplistically ignoring context that more than one poster here pointed out to you, or did you stand on your simplistic point?
When I asked you how your logic would work adjusting it for context, did you ignore me?
What fallacious arguments are you making when you assert I'm throwing a tantrum?
What was your purpose in all of this? Are you attempting to assert that Trump is stupid, or are you being hyper-critical of a man under extreme hostilities who didn't state something as clearly as he could have and then ignore the entire situational and narrative context of the discussion?
I tend to think "outrage" is extremely selective in politics. Neither party is guilt-free of this though. As for genuine outraged, I think it does happen from time-to-time. I probably shouldn't have used that word in that context though as it's a bit exaggerative. Perhaps I should have chosen "boggles the mind".
It's my perception that it's a "tantrum" because when pointing out valid points (some in which his biggest supporters even concede), it's taken and/or assumed I must have a personal dislike or agenda against Trump. It couldn't possibly be there are things I wish Trump addresses and changes to get an even bigger following. People throw tantrums when they wander off from fruitful discussion and instead want to make personal assertions.
I'll bite on the "analogy" you think I made once more. I used the definition I've always known for "analogy" to make my case I didn't make one. For this response, I'll give you a link to a definition that fits the one I gave:
Definition of Analogy
analogy
noun
anal·o·gy ə-ˈna-lə-jē
pluralanalogies
Synonyms of analogy
1a: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
b: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity
2: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
You can even look up "metaphor" and "simile" in case you think I somehow made one of those. Using Trump's explicit definition of what a "Black job" is, I applied the definition to determine if the position of POTUS is in fact a "Black job". Clearly, it does match his definition. You told me my analogy was "nonsense". What analogy did I make exactly? <-- this is not a rhetorical question
As for my reasoning why I wanted to discuss this topic, I wanted to see if people actually believe this type of "nonsense". In my mind, he deliberately used the term "Black jobs" because he was pandering to a crowd of Black people. He isn't the first to pander to race, I am not making this point. I view this as cheap tactics to state illegals are "stealing Black jobs". In his case, it backfired astronomically because the interviewer asked him what a Black job is. That was an alpha move that checkmated him. He couldn't give an honest opinion of what a "Black job"... so he gave one of the dumbest descriptions of what a "Black job" is. His nonsensical definition of a "Black job" would render the POTUS as a "Black job". That isn't an analogy, a metaphor, nor a simile. That is simply applying HIS definition to the position of the POTUS.
I'll bite on the "analogy" you think I made once more. I used the definition I've always known for "analogy" to make my case I didn't make one. For this response, I'll give you a link to a definition that fits the one I gave:
Definition of Analogy
analogy
noun
anal·o·gy ə-ˈna-lə-jē
pluralanalogies
Synonyms of analogy
1a: a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
b: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity
2: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
You can even look up "metaphor" and "simile" in case you think I somehow made one of those. Using Trump's explicit definition of what a "Black job" is, I applied the definition to determine if the position of POTUS is in fact a "Black job". Clearly, it does match his definition. You told me my analogy was "nonsense". What analogy did I make exactly? <-- this is not a rhetorical question
As for my reasoning why I wanted to discuss this topic, I wanted to see if people actually believe this type of "nonsense". In my mind, he deliberately used the term "Black jobs" because he was pandering to a crowd of Black people. He isn't the first to pander to race, I am not making this point. I view this as cheap tactics to state illegals are "stealing Black jobs". In his case, it backfired astronomically because the interviewer asked him what a Black job is. That was an alpha move that checkmated him. He couldn't give an honest opinion of what a "Black job"... so he gave one of the dumbest descriptions of what a "Black job" is. His nonsensical definition of a "Black job" would render the POTUS as a "Black job". That isn't an analogy, a metaphor, nor a simile. That is simply applying HIS definition to the position of the POTUS.
I can accept that your perception is wrong.
Thanks. There are indeed different definitions (as usual) and there are different types of analogies. You have your view. I have mine. I see your statements as analogous even simply by the definitions and synonyms of "analogy." You don't. Good enough. All done.
You still didn't take a look at your logic by dealing with his statements in context of the venue and discussion. Also good enough. All done.
Once again, removed from context you deem it explicit. I and others in this thread have disagreed with you as the context of the venue and discussion was clear and that context alone provides inference to what he said and likely meant.
From your OP. My underlines.
My observations:
Thanks. There are indeed different definitions (as usual) and there are different types of analogies. You have your view. I have mine. I see your statements as analogous even simply by the definitions and synonyms of "analogy." You don't. Good enough. All done.
You still didn't take a look at your logic by dealing with his statements in context of the venue and discussion. Also good enough. All done.
Once again, removed from context you deem it explicit. I and others in this thread have disagreed with you as the context of the venue and discussion was clear and that context alone provides inference to what he said and likely meant.
From your OP. My underlines.
Trump: I will tell you that coming from the border are millions and millions of people that happen to be taking Black jobs.
Interviewer: What exactly is a "Black job", sir?
Trump: A "Black job" is anybody that has a job.
Can someone who thinks this makes sense and thinks it's not using the race card for a political advantage expand on this? Does that mean every working American has a "Black job" by his definition?
My observations:
- Trump was obviously sloppy here.
- Your question is rhetorical and seems ridiculing. I'm using "seems' to provide room for an explanation that makes sense. What is your intent for asking such an absurd question? Do you think it's a serious question? Do you think he's stupid enough to think what you call a definition is really what he meant and intended as a clear definition?
- How about you back off of the absurdity and apply your obvious intelligence to the context and making sense out of this?
- How about this for example, in staying in context, which seems pretty simple:
- [Illegal] people are taking black jobs - taking jobs from black people.
- People taking jobs from people makes sense.
- Key word - "people"
- A black job is anybody - any black person - that has a job [that illegals are taking].
- Black people meaning any people whatever their race doesn't make sense. Nor does your rhetorical question.
- [Illegal] people are taking black jobs - taking jobs from black people.
- How is it using the race card to talk to black people in a gathering of black journalists about illegals taking jobs from black people?
- Of course his attendance was meant for advantage and the art of this deal is in politics.
On a side note, I don't know how or why people aren't outraged he is still the current POTUS. The Democrats wanted him to not run again due to his drastic decline, especially over the last 4 years... He agrees and drops out for his re-election, but he is somehow fit RIGHT NOW? He should either contend he still has it and run for re-election (and remain POTUS) or concede he's losing it and step down as POTUS (and not run again).
I maybe heard a few people say this in the media, but seems like no one really cares on either side...
I maybe heard a few people say this in the media, but seems like no one really cares on either side...
It seems to me much of this outrage is simply due to a misunderstanding. They accused me of being a lier. I told them that was outrageous, I was not a liar, I had done nothing wrong, I was simply lying here in the grass waiting for the oxen to finish eating and then I'd lead them back to the barn. But they persisted and called me a lyer! I'm not lying, I'm telling the truth. I told them that if you are going to accuse someone of being a liar you need to have evidence to which they agreed! Can you believe that?
I have no idea why but then again I'm neither black nor South African so South African terms like Lyer and attempts at trying to humiliate me by pretending to suggest a speech pattern just doesn't have the same effect as it would if I were black or South African. I suppose though if there were South Africans or Blacks reading through their attempts at it they would see it outrageous that they did so openly in hope that I would be humiliated by it.
Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me…
Trump and his supporters already in
He agreed t
Well he agreed to the debate. Lol
I guess he realized that his supporters would still support him, but the American people in general would look at him as a coward. He loses, either way as he doesn’t stand a chance in a debate with her.
Trump and his supporters already in
He agreed t
Well he agreed to the debate. Lol
I guess he realized that his supporters would still support him, but the American people in general would look at him as a coward. He loses, either way as he doesn’t stand a chance in a debate with her.
I think the Donald is starting to panic. The one who believes they are losing wants to debate. The one who believes they are winning has no reason to debate; they have nothing to gain. Mr. Donald didn't want to debate, but now that the momentum has shifted in Harris' favor suddenly he wants to debate. He wants to set all the ground rules which he thinks will be favorable to him. It's a last-ditch effort that he thinks will turn out like it did with Joe Biden. I believe he's in for a serious letdown.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Actually having Harris in a live debate will show the world that she is a total flake and a fake. But rather than debate her, he should prepare a list of pointed questions for her. She has never been confronted b anyone for her support of evil Biden and her negligence of her own responsibilities.
In the most serious situations all she has done is laugh her silly laugh. That is a nervous reaction when there is nothing in the brain. And if she responds to Trump with word salads, all the better for him. He has called her "LOW IQ Kamala" which is quite true.
And this post also reveals where you stand with the DOMESTIC ENEMIES of America. You would sooner see them win and continue with their destruction, than get behind Trump 100% to put things right. But Christians are not supposed to encourage evildoers.
In the most serious situations all she has done is laugh her silly laugh. That is a nervous reaction when there is nothing in the brain. And if she responds to Trump with word salads, all the better for him. He has called her "LOW IQ Kamala" which is quite true.
And this post also reveals where you stand with the DOMESTIC ENEMIES of America. You would sooner see them win and continue with their destruction, than get behind Trump 100% to put things right. But Christians are not supposed to encourage evildoers.
-
1
- Show all