[deleted]
[deleted]
My all time favorite is that Trump will start WWIII with NK. Its been like 4 months and still no war!
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > [deleted]
Donald Trump is the President.
Now THAT one is absurd! He’s a twice divorced, racist, misogynistic game show host! He can’t be a President! It would take a LOT of really stupid, hateful, scared people to make that happen! I mean, he can’t even pick a political affiliation! What moron would support THAT?
[deleted]
lol, come on lambo0, read the the post!
shareTwo years later and still not a shred of evidence of racism. There were rumors going around before the election that Trump was going to put gays into a prison camp. People believed those rumors and others. This is one of the reasons people are so filled with hate over Trump, they believe him to be something that he is NOT.
Happy Tuesday.
[deleted]
Corrupt? Not really. Biased? Definitely. They're more favored for clicks and viewership ratings for that cold hard cash (at least for front page news). The real news are usually pushed to the back, in the small print, or just not reported.
You republican folks should be reporting more on the Trump thread either defending your overlord (or not) than just the liberals that berate him on a daily basis on here (I am guilty of doing that sometimes on some occasions but only when he goes full retard).
I think the most idiotic liberal media story regarding Trump was when they gave undo attention to a narcissistic game show host who promoted for years a racist conspiracy theory that our 44th President wasn't born a United States citizen. By miles that was more idiotic than the water bottle or the Koi pond.
shareDoes this mean the orange moron's wall will remain at a stalemate?
posted 2 days ago by dteam6 (1229)
Why is it ok to make fun of Trumps skin color?
1) I'm not dteam and am not responsible for what he or any other liberal says.
2) Holy shit man. I know you're just being a wiseass but seriously holy shit it is such a stupid argument to compare people making fun of Trump's strange skin tone which is most likely the result of some sort of fake tan, and actual prejudices against someone for their race. If you want to argue that people shouldn't shit on the way Trump looks that's fine and I would actually agree with you. But honestly dude trying to equate that to actual racism is such an embarrassing argument to make.
I have this idiot idea the MLK should have been taken seriously, and everyone should be judged by the content of their character, period. I'll admit that Trump would never get in under that criterion, but neither would Mrs. Clinton. Frankly, most politicians wouldn't. But it would be nice to see people value character over name recognition.
And people wouldn't be able to use their skin color, whatever it might be, as a selling point or a defense. If you didn't like someone's policies, argue the merits -- don't fall back on color. We have a long, long way to go before Martin Luther King's dream will ever be realized in this country.
It'd be nice if everyone was judged by the content of their character but Bubba's comment was ridiculous. Trump is a white man who has lived the most privileged of lives since birth. The comparison of comments he faces today about his bad fake tan to actual racism is embarrassing. People make fun of Trump's bad fake tan because they find his character repugnant. People started the conspiracy theory that Obama wasn't a U.S. Citizen and a Muslim because they didn't like his skin color. Big difference.
share"People make fun of Trump's bad fake tan because they find his character repugnant."
What does his spray-on orange "tan" have to do with his character? In that much, Bubba's comment is on point -- talking about a person's color instead of their character is the essence of racism. If you want to say something about Trump's character, say something about Trump's character. There's plenty to say.
For instance, Trump always likes to attack women's looks instead of talking about something of substance. Dr. King was trying to say we shouldn't get hung up on veneer -- it's the substance that matters. A person's tint or the shape of their features or the texture of their hair, that's the sort of idiocy that Trump attacks. Trump shows how moronic it is, so why emulate it? Talk about substance -- policy and character -- not mere veneer.
What does his spray-on orange "tan" have to do with his character? In that much, Bubba's comment is on point -- talking about a person's color instead of their character is the essence of racism.
So you and I don't disagree that making fun of physical characteristics is wrong but I honestly have trouble believing you don't see the difference between Trump being made fun of for a bad fake tan and racism. I don't waste my time insulting people's appearances (not even someone like Trump) but my point was there's a world of difference between insults and racism. No the tan doesn't have anything to do with his character but people's frustration with his character is sometimes manifested by petty insults, it's really that simple. It's the same as Trump calling Stormy Daniels "horse face. It's childish, not racist.
Bubba quoted another poster's comment about Trump's fake tan as a response to my disgust with Trump's perpetuating of the racist birther movement. There is no comparison and Bubba's comment was ridiculous and embarrassing. share
So I'll ask my question again, "What does his spray-on orange 'tan' have to do with his character?" That's actually at the core of the debate on whether we should judge a man for his character, or his superficial qualities.
shareAnd I'll answer again, it has nothing to do with his character (as I said above). People aren't judging his character because they think his bad tan looks idiotic. They don't hate his character because he has a bad tan. They make fun of his bad tan BECAUSE they hate his character. This is nothing like racism. Sorry but this isn't complicated.
Making fun of someone for superficial qualities and racism are two very different things. Trump is a white man. No one has used Trump's bad fake tan to imply he was born in Africa and not a U.S. citizen by birth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No one has used Trump's fake bad tan to suggest he must be a Muslim despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If you really equate petty teasing and perpetuating a racist conspiracy theory then nothing I say will make you feel otherwise. Have a good one.
Read up a few posts and you'll see that you'd said, "People make fun of Trump's bad fake tan because they find his character repugnant." You're now saying it has nothing to do with it, but still that "They make fun of his bad tan BECAUSE they hate his character." I have the silly idea that the color of his skin shouldn't come into it if what you're really trying to argue is character. That kind of a justification actually leads to bigotry -- "I'm making fun of his race because I don't like what he does!" No, you argue the case on the merits, and the skin color doesn't have any more to do with it in a black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian person than it does when you're supposedly arguing merits of policy with a man with a spray-on orange tan.
We're done because you just can't see the connection, since it would mean you couldn't defend ridiculing Trump for his orange spray-on, the way he ridicules women for their looks. Classy.
It cannot be racist when orange skin-tone isn't a racial quality.
What Trump appears to be doing to his skin is similar to what Michael Jackson was accused of in the 1980s. It wasn't racist to accuse Michael Jackson of wanting to be a white guy. It was incorrect, as he was attempting to hide his Vitiligo, but racism didn't enter the picture, becaue he was indeed doing something to his skin that was unnaturally making him lighter. Same with Trump's tan. It's not natural. It's something specific he's doing to his skin to make it look different than what we normally see.
We're done because you just can't see the connection, since it would mean you couldn't defend ridiculing Trump for his orange spray-on, the way he ridicules women for their looks. Classy.
She dismisses everyone when she loses an argument based on her own stupidity. She's done that to me, as well. What an honor to be on her dismissal list! LOL share
No, the question you asked a few posts up and then repeated was "What does his spray-on orange "tan" have to do with his character?"
And the answer (which is the same in both of my last couple posts) is his tan has nothing to do with his character. They are completely separate from each other. BUT (and this is the point you're trying desperately to convince me that you don't understand), people dislike Trump's character and that dislike of character is sometimes manifested by hurling petty insults. One of the easiest targets of these insults is his poor fake tan.
I'll also say again since you seem to ignore the common ground I tried to establish with you, I don't like the insults. I don't think they're right and I think they are counter-productive to the ideals that those who oppose Trump should stand for. But these insults are in no way racist in nature. It's just insane to suggest that. The very idea that Trump is somehow a victim of racism is so mind-numbingly stupid I honestly don't know how you can continue to argue in defense of it.
"Read up a few posts and you'll see that you'd said, 'People make fun of Trump's bad fake tan because they find his character repugnant.'" To which you reply, "They make fun of his bad tan BECAUSE they hate his character." I point out that making fun of a person because of their physical characteristics and tying that to what kind of a person they are is what racists do. To which you say, "And the answer (which is the same in both of my last couple posts) is his tan has nothing to do with his character." And yet "They make fun of his bad tan BECAUSE they hate his character." 🤦🏼♀️
We're chasing our tails at this point. I can tell you that attacking someone for their physical characteristics is just the sort of thing a racist would do -- not that Trump is a victim of racism, but that it's something racists do -- and you say I'm saying he's a victim of racism. No, I'm saying the argument has a lot in common with the idiot arguments that racists make -- color is enough to diss someone with, because, well, "Just look at him!" I suggested maybe we could talk about policy or something substantial. No -- "Cheeto!"
Come to think of it, "Cheeto!" sounds a lot like a racial epithet. Not that it is, just that the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing idiocy sounds like the stuff you hear when a racist is making his arguments.
Whatever. It's clear you can't see it. Still, I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving.
"Why is it ok to make fun of Trumps skin color?"
Think of all the criticism Michael Jackson received for making his skin whiter. Black comedians, white comedians, all of them made fun of him for it. In the 1980s, he said it was to conceal his Vitiligo, and his autopsy revealed he had it which makes certain patches of a person's skin pale white (Domino's eye in Deadpool 2).
What does Trump have? Cheetoligo?
Wow, this skin conditions is interestingly unique. It's almost like (in my theory) we are either all white but developed different types melanin due to the climate conditions around Earth at the time or whites weren't whites before from eons ago and had this disease and then future generations after lacked that the development for it from evolution. Almost like how when we perceive Jesus or Saint Nicholas or others as white but in reality upon reconstruction and research, they're a darkish brown.
shareThe Melanin came first since we originated from Africa, and then as some moved up into Europe, they began to shed their Melanin so they could more easily absorb the sun's rays, making their skin lighter.
Interestingly, after populating Europe and Asian, some kept going through what is today Siberia, and across what was then a land bridge to Alaska. The land bridge was soon covered by water, isolating the "American" westerners for thousands and thousands of years.
Actually, light skin among most Europeans is a relatively recent evolutionary development, as in only 8000 years ago. Prior to that, most Europeans had dark skin. The exception are the pale hunter gatherers in the far northern regions of Scandinavia who already had pale skin.
When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
share
Reigniting the Cold War with conspiracy theories about Russians has been damaging (and I'm not a Trump supporter, by the way, I just accidentally held onto my critical thinking skills despite the country's insistence we all act like chickens who can't remember what happened three steps ago...)
shareRussian interference wasn't a conspiracy theory. It's a well supported fact of the 2016 elections. If you had critical thinking skills and followed the news, you'd know this.
shareIt's a fishing expedition, you simple-minded, easily-led, sheep-brained moron.
shareYeah like you know better than the intel agencies and reports released by DHS right? lolz. You crack me up. I work in infosec and I've been familiar with the two Russian front groups APT28 and APT29 revealed in the forensic reports of Crowdstrike/Mandiant/ThreatConnect/Fidelis Cybersecurity/SecureWorks to be involved in the hacks since reading a whitepaper on their Russian linked activities back in 2014. If you're a "critical thinker" you should try educating yourself by googling it. Except you're not. Guys like you that think you know better than experts in the field are a joke.
shareYou assume it's a fishing expedition because that's what republicans do.
They did it with the Benghazi investigation when they went looking for a stand-down order, and couldn't find one. They went looking for a plot to blame 'Innocence of Muslims,' couldn't find one. Eventually they found a private email server in Hillary's so-called basement.
The other fishing expedition was in the 1990s when they went after Clinton for the Whitewater scandal of the 70s and 80s. They went looking for a connection to Foster's death, couldn't find one. They went looking for a coverup, couldn't find one. Eventually they found a blue dress with a semen stain on it.
When I see anything substantial from this fishing expedition, I'll give it a new name.
shareSo Guccifer 2.0 didn't hack the DNC server to give republicans an advantage? There were no people in Russia being paid to spread anti-democratic propaganda on social media?
You can think Trump was clueless about it (highly doubtful), but to suggest Russia did not engage in "cold war" tactics to interfere in the 2016 election is ludicrous.
You won't because you lack critical thinking skills and therefore dismiss open and shut forensic analysis that you fail to understand. In your partial defense, it's not all your fault since you were born that way.
shareAnd it took them 6 years and millions of dollars to find that stained blue dress which had zero connection to Whitewater or Foster's death. And Republicans didn't mind at all.
Yet here's Mueller in his second year of an investigation with indictments, criminal charges and key players flipping like pancakes at IHOP, and Republicans want it to stop immediately.
Go figure.
[deleted]
Less people cared about a stained blue dress, and even less were concerned about Whitewater. Yet Kenneth Starr soldiered on, and pocketed millions of dollars.
share[deleted]
Typical trumptard. No logic or evidence so resorts to name calling. How sad.
shareThe most idiotic liberal story was the one about T-rump tossing rolls of paper towels at Hurricane victims in Puerto Rico in response to the hurricane which devastated the island just days earlier.
Oh wait - that really happened!
OK, it must be when the liberal media quoted T-rump saying he had just gotten off the phone with the President of Puerto Rico, and ....
Oh wait - that really happened, too!
Got it! Here's a real doozy from the liberal media...they said T-rump marked the start of African-American History Month in 2017 by saying, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice."
Sheeeit! That actually happened, too!
Damn, this T-rump is embarrassing...
[deleted]
No trouble at all. Republicans are such snowflakes!
shareFollowing Brexit in the U.K. and the election of Donald Trump as 45th President of the U.S., generation snowflake was often shortened to simply snowflake and became a politicized insult. A November 2016 article from The Guardian commented: "Until very recently, to call someone a snowflake would have involved the word 'generation'."[15]
Snowflake as a politicized insult is typically used by those on the political right to insult those on the political left.[15] In an article from the Los Angeles Times, Jessica Roy says the alt-right in the United States pejoratively describes most liberals and those protesting against Donald Trump as "snowflakes", short for "special snowflake".[16] A 2017 article from Think Progress commented: "The insult expanded to encompass not just the young, but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of "safe spaces, too fragile".[17] Jonathon Green, editor of "Green's Dictionary of Slang" points out snowflake is an unusual insult in that it calls someone weak and fragile without using misogynistic or homophobic references.[18] [check quotation syntax]
The media is not biased against Trump.
He's just a golf-cart riding, bullshit spewing media whore & he always has been.
But as far as 'liberal media story' - you need to define your terms. Do you mean a story told on air like the unprecedented number of Trump related people under investigation or indictment, pleading guilty, or is an 'unindicted conspirator? who will face jail time?' Or are you talking about comments people make on anonymous message boards?
Because we liberals see the difference between the water bottle story & the Trump Russia story. We know the difference between bullshit & parody & we also know about what REALLY matters. (CLIMATE CHANGE, not WATER BOTTLES. IMMIGRATION REFORM, not CARAVAN)
But YOU Rethugs. The bullshit you & BLOTUS spew can be found on the home pages of your Daily Stormers & Breitbarts & your talking points are shat out from the dankest corners of the internet as well as on GOP-tv-Fox AND by your elected officials. IRS conspiracy? Jade Helm? Pizza Parlor Pedophilia?
We liberals don't regurgitate the hourly, daily, weekly talking points like you Rethugs do.
And you never see our elected officials talking about water bottles or koi overfeeding, do you? You don't see so-called liberal news sites like MSNBC or CNN showing a "BREAKING NEWS!" chyron 24/7 "TRUMP KILLS KOI!"
Certainly not on the scale that you lot repeat the same phrases over & over & over again until the next talking point is issued.
Where's that caravan again?
That caravan made a U-turn and headed back to where it came from, conveniently after the last polling place closed Tuesday night.
share[deleted]
My favorite has always been the one that got me, the one that I believed for a short while. Once I found enough proof that they lied, it was proof also of their collusion against the American people and the new president, Trump. Which one was it? It was before the election, the physically disabled man/jounalist. The US media sold that lie well. Very well. But once I figured it out. LOL. I was sold. The US media sees the American citizen as the enemy. Happy (what ever holiday it is).
shareHow do you react when T-rump is a proven liar? Over 6,000 lies as of the end of September.
shareHilarious how you can't even articulate the one supposed lie that you claim got you. Maybe because it doesn't exist.
FYI Trump really did make fun of a disabled journalist. All the media did is broadcast the tape and speech in which he did it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA