SnowFace

Seems my point flew over your head again. You keep calling things irrelevant that you don't like. I'm done.

When did Hillary come out against the war?

This is actually a great example of how modern day propaganda works. One tactic to discredit someone is to combine two true statements by them that look similar to create a false statement. Case in point:

Claim 1: Trump says he was against the war before it started. In the Cavuto interview he's questioning the war, and he says he used to argue with Sean Hannity about it. Sean Hannity backed this up. There's no reason to doubt this.

Claim 2: Trump says he's different from his opponents because he came out strongly against the war before anyone else did. That's a fact and there's plenty of evidence.

Then comes the spin. The media will mix the two statements together to say Trump said he came out strongly against the war before it started. They'll use this to call him a liar. Try to find me one example of him saying he came out strongly against the war before it started. You can't, because he never did.

This is why people don't trust the media.

> Being against the war after it started is utterly irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true.

> He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.

Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant.

> When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.

Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early.

> When he does that, he is lying.

Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?

You're trying to put his statement into a different context now. I thought we were talking about him saying that he was totally against the war in Iraq, which he was. So we agree that wasn't a lie.

> "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016[0]

You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have. - Trump in Esquire 2004

Shame on you. You don't like his politics, fine, but cut the propaganda.

> Lying about his past support for the Iraq war

Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo. Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda.

1. Trump defended is statements in follow-ups. It's not post-facto reasoning. The media jumped immediately to racism though, just like the other day when they claimed Trump lied about a supposed Sweden terrorist attack, when he was talking about a TV segment. Real journalists would state the facts instead of narrativizing and follow-up to ask what he means.

2. I strongly encourage you question your own beliefs a little. That article has a lot of spin. "La Raza" is not just some innocent phrase. La Raza is dog whistle term for hispanic racism. Somewhere, in another universe, Deshaun Trump in on trial by a judge from the San Diego Klan Lawyer's Association, as people claim "it has no relation with the KKK!" (despite having a link to the parent organization on its own website). Go look up Reconquista [1]. The goal of the Reconquista is to “reconquer” these “lost” or “stolen” territories for “La Raza”—the race indigenous to Mexico. The SDLRLA has a very questionable history, and at the very least, it raises reasonable concern of bias in the case.

[1] http://humanevents.com/2006/07/27/the-emreconquistaem-moveme...

The San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association, the group the judge belonged to, gave scholarships to illegal immigrants. You're nit-picking to detract from my point, that the judge had a reasonable chance of bias, and Trump was right to point it out.

I don't know if it's a conspiracy or not, but it's happened before. Castro sent criminals and mentally-ill to the US. Mexico is also our biggest supplier of drugs, and 80% of the women who cross the border are raped. Of course there are good people, but you can't ignore the huge criminal element too, and that's the point.

It should be easy to quote it then. What exactly was extremely abhorrent?

The nit-picks are irrelevant. La Raza has a record of supporting illegal immigrants. Trump wants to build a wall. My broader point that the judge had a reasonable chance of bias stands, and Trump was right to point this out.

> They didn't: they reported exactly what he said, and they took it at face value.

They didn't. They took his statements out of context and then "fact checked" the misinterpretation time and time again. Find me one example where he spoke bad about Mexicans.

Not really. It's 100% standard to dismiss a judge for having a bias. You can't look at her being Mexican in isolation. When you consider how the media spun his statements on Mexicans, how the judge is a member of La Rasa, and how he wants to build a wall, bias is a very valid concern.

> His entire spiel about Mexicans being drug dealers and rapists.

His entire spiel was spun up by the media. If you go back to what he actually said, in context, it's hard to find anything wrong. Show me an example.

He settled the case, not lost. He also was never accused of discrimination himself, by anybody. Others were. He was the new President of his father's business in an era of witchhunts, and he got dragged into it, but if you look at his actions since then, like desegregating Mar-A-Lago, and hear testimonies from minorities who worked closely with him, like Lynne Patton, you don't see a record of a racist.

> "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage"

How is that racist? Isn't that the point of affirmative action?

> "Black guys counting my money! I hate it"

Says a guy that Trump fired. I'm skeptical, to say the least.

> "Least racist person on earth"

Doesn't sound very racist to me.

> Guess what - when you aren't racist, you don't need to declare it.

When you're constantly called a racist, then yes, you do need to declare it.

> Plus - that comment technically suggests that at a minimum, he admits that he's possibly just "a little" racist...

It doesn't, and this is playing word games. His communication style is to talk in extremes, and I'm sure he would have said "I'm the hugest non-racist there is" if it had the same ring to it.

Any more examples?

Show me where Trump is racist. Show me just one example.

You've been reading fake news.

He never said Mexicans were rapists. He said some illegal Mexicans were rapists. Which is provably true. It's not opinion. Its also true that 80% of women crossing the border get raped, so something bad is going on down there and we're enabling it.

For the Mexican judge, its standard to dismiss a judge for having a bias in the case. 100% normal. And given how the media construed Trumps statements on Mexicans, and how he wants to build a wall, and how the Mexican judge is a member of La Rasa, you don't think she might have a bias?

I could go on but I won't. I've lost all respect for the media and the left in general. They can call me racist, sexist, I don't care anymore, because I've seen the lies they repeat and the bullying tactics. If the left thinks they can get back their credibility next election, they will be in for a big surprise.