Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 12:08 AM)Dill Wrote: By "people in Minnesota," did he mean anyone who happened to be living in the state at the moment--including thousands of out of state college students, foreign residents, refugees?  Or do you think he meant all citizens of the state, including naturalized Somalis, but not all those others?

Yes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2020, 11:20 PM)Dill Wrote: You are saying the 94% figure does not come from the 1990 census, as I stated?

Oh wait, that's what you said in your original post?  My bad.

(10-05-2020, 07:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump was "just complementing a crowd of voters" in a state 94% white by complementing their genes.

Oh wait, it wasn't.  At all.  Take the L, dude.  You screwed up, own it like a man.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 12:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh wait, that's what you said in your original post?  My bad.

Oh wait, it wasn't.  At all.  Take the L, dude.  You screwed up, own it like a man.

Happy to correct this:

Trump was "just complementing a crowd of voters" in a state 83% white by complementing their genes.


With the highest percentage of Scandinavian ancestry.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 12:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Why-does-he-refuse-to-condemn-them?pid=921945#pid921945][/url]By "people in Minnesota," did he mean anyone who happened to be living in the state at the moment--including thousands of out of state college students, foreign residents, refugees?  Or do you think he meant all citizens of the state, including naturalized Somalis, but not all those others?

Yes

Perhaps you cannot, but if you can, then now's the time to explain 

1. all the vitriol directed at the Somalis and other Africans, the promises to keep more from coming, if they are included as "people of Minnesota."

2. And all the fawning over the pioneers who settled and farmed there, presented as the source of those wonderful genes. The ancestors of current white Minnesotans.

Donald Trump: 01:55:16
From St. Paul to St. Cloud, from Rochester to Duluth, and from Minneapolis, thank God we still have Minneapolis, to right here, right here with all of you great people, this state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough and they were strong. You have good genes. You know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota. They didn’t have a lot of money. They didn’t have a lot of luxury, but they had grit, they had faith, and they had each other. That’s what you have now. You have each other.

Donald Trump:01:56:11
They were miners and lumberjacks, fishermen and farmers, shipbuilders and shopkeepers. But they all had one thing in common. They loved their families, they loved their countries, and they loved their God. Proud citizens like you helped build this country. And together we are taking back our country. 

In imagining the past of "Minnesotans," it would have been easy to include ancestors of the first waves of black immigration north--"migrant laborers, proud citizens who worked in the factories etc."--but they weren't the "farmers and fishermen."  Not the Minnesotans Donald was imagining. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2020, 12:40 AM)Dill Wrote: Happy to correct this:

Trump was "just complementing a crowd of voters" in a state 83% white by complementing their genes.


With the highest percentage of Scandinavian ancestry.

Nah, the best way to truly correct it is to say this:

Dill Wrote:Trump was "just complementing a crowd of voters"

 

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, the best way to truly correct it is to say this:

I'm on it.

Trump was

"just complementing a crowd of white voters, 

after mocking the Somalian refugees in their state and 

promising to be a wall between them and future African refugees."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 01:07 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm on it.

Trump was

"just complementing a crowd of white voters, 

after mocking the Somalian refugees in their state and 

promising to be a wall between them and future African refugees."

Was the crowd 99%, 94%, 84% or some other percentage white.  You and Fred have thrown out so many numbers it's super duper hard to keep track.

In case you haven't figured out, the entire premise of this "debate" is ridiculous.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 01:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was the crowd 99%, 94%, 84% or some other percentage white.  You and Fred have thrown out so many numbers it's super duper hard to keep track.

In case you haven't figured out, the entire premise of this "debate" is ridiculous.

No one has called the crowd 94 or 84% white. Those numbers referred to the state.

You dabble with the those stats and feign confusion because you cannot address the arguments advanced.

The premise of the debate is that Trump's eugenic valuation is not extended to non-white populations, especially in a speech denigrating the non-white population of Minnesota, a representative of which he thinks should not be telling us how to run "our" country.

The counter point is that if he said "people of Minnesota" then there is no evidence he was denying "good genes" to those nasty non-white refugees, who, Trump says, will increase 700% and overrun the schools if Biden is elected.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No one has called the crowd 94 or 84% white. Those numbers referred to the state.

[/quote]

Fred called the crowd 99% white.

[*bfine32*]

(10-07-2020, 01:07 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm on it.

Trump was

"just complementing a crowd of white voters, 

after mocking the Somalian refugees in their state and 

promising to be a wall between them and future African refugees."

There comes a time in every discussion in this forum that the point just becomes too absurd to continue discourse.

We're there.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 01:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There comes a time in every discussion in this forum that the point just becomes too absurd to continue discourse.

We're there.

That's something I could never say while unanswered arguments are still out there.

See you on the next "Trump said/didn't say this" thread. 

[Dill]

Fred called the crowd 99% white.
[/quote]

Good for him. Looks about right.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-06-2020, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is my reply.  I never twisted anything.

Yes, you did. You said Trump said "we have good genes" which he didn't say.

(10-06-2020, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I believe Trump was talking about "we white people" when he said "we are not that different".

Trump said, "You have good genes. ... You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." Who's the 'we' in that statement? It can't be white people unless when he says "you have good genes in Minnesota" he's talking about everyone BUT the white people in Minnesota and then saying 'us white people aren't so different'. 
The fact of the matter is when Trump made that comment he was saying that the people at his rally looked good. But, then again, I don't hate the man and will not just use his own stupid statements against him but rather make shit up too.

(10-06-2020, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since you never twist Trumps words then please explain to me which group he claimed was genetically superior.

How about you first prove he claimed any group was genetically superior? He said they had good genes. How does that automatically mean he's saying Minnesotans are genetically superior? If I said you look good in your profile picture, am I saying you're genetically superior? You must if you think Trump was claiming Minnesotans to be genetically superior.

(10-06-2020, 05:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And thanks for the rep.

You're welcome.

[hollodero]

(10-07-2020, 09:39 AM)PhilHos Wrote: How about you first prove he claimed any group was genetically superior? He said they had good genes. How does that automatically mean he's saying Minnesotans are genetically superior? If I said you look good in your profile picture, am I saying you're genetically superior?

If you also bring up the "racehorse theory" to underline your point, you very well can be perceived as saying just that.

[*PhilHos*]

fred arguing so strenuously in this thread about how Trump complimenting a crowd of Minnesotans as Trump being racist is all the proof anyone needs on how people needlessly make shit up to criticize Trump.

He could spend all his time criticizing Trump telling Congressional Republicans to not work towards a stimulus package (something Trump has actually said, no twisting needed), but no, he's gotta twist Trump's words to show he's also prejudiced against everyone not from Minnesota.

[Dill]

(10-06-2020, 08:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: And there it is, proof of what Trump meant.
Maybe he was just being funny.  

(10-06-2020, 02:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I just wanted to thank Dill and fred for going out of their way to prove my point that people twist Trump's words. If you guys could reply to this post, I will give you the rep you deserve.

I'm going to include Mickey in this as well.  Two points:

1. Debates would be short, and meaningless, if after one side constructs a logical, evidence-based argument, the other side can "win" by simply declaring "thank you for proving my point." Not that one side can't ever prove the other side's point, but that has to be demonstrated, not just claimed. 

2. In this case, the argument against Trump rests on a well known principle of Biblical and legal hermeneutics--a term, label or group addressed in general terms at one point in a speech or text can be delimited in meaning by something expressed later in that speech/text or elsewhere by the same author.

E.g., Imagine an 18th century statute which begins by defining a legal "person" as a citizen of a country with a right to own property and to vote. A contemporary reader might assume "persons" in that statute "obviously" refers to women too--until the next paragraph where he learns that "persons" may also have wives, whom he later learns are not empowered to vote. Ergo, women are not "persons" under that statute, though not mentioned in the original definition.

Jefferson's reference in the Declaration to all "men" who are equal may be similarly delimited in meaning by his possession of slaves and assumption that women do not have a direct say forming the new government. He doesn't mean everyone, even if he doesn't mention race.

In Trump's case the delimitation is front-loaded, early in the speech, when he treats Somalians and other Africans as an alien presence in Minnesota, and promises to protect REAL Minnesotans from an increase in their numbers. He mentions a Somalian Representative to Congress whom he has asked to return to "her" country, presumably not the U.S. No one is "making that up," right?

Anyone who concludes Trump suddenly means "all people of Minnesota," including Somalians, when he praises their "good genes," needs to square that with his previous denigration of Somalians as people who don't belong there. Why would he suddenly praise THEIR genes now when he just mocked their presence in the state, told one to go back to "her" country? 

Here "twisting" what Trump means by "people of Minnesota" involves separating it from everything else he has said about Somalians and other Africans in his Bemidji speech, and on the subject of genes elsewhere It involves the at least implicit claim that everything Trump has said about Africans and good genes elsewhere suddenly doesn't apply because he didn't specifically exclude them by name in this one instance.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 09:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: If you also bring up the "racehorse theory" to underline your point, you very well can be perceived as saying just that.

Not really. Trump is saying Minnesotans have good genes because they're parents have good genes. Anything beyond that is potentially making Trump say something he didn't say or mean.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 09:50 AM)Dill Wrote: Here "twisting" what Trump means by "people of Minnesota" involves separating it from everything else he has said about Somalians and other Africans in his Bemidji speech, and on the subject of genes elsewhere It involves the at least implicit claim that everything Trump has said about Africans and good genes elsewhere suddenly doesn't apply in this one instance.

At least, you admit to twisting Trump's words (even if you put 'twisting' in quotation marks). Here's your rep as promised.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 10:02 AM)PhilHos Wrote: At least, you admit to twisting Trump's words (even if you put 'twisting' in quotation marks). Here's your rep as promised.

Umm no, I am not admitting "I" twist Trump's words.

I'm saying that's what YOU are doing when you ignore his denigration of Somalian Minnesotans, who happen to be black, to claim he simply means all the people of Minnesota.  

If you cannot explain why he now includes the people he's just treated as an alien presence, and why we should ignore everything else he has said about them in this one instance (just because?), then you are far short of establishing that Fred or anyone else is "twisting" his words. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 10:13 AM)Dill Wrote: Umm no, I am not admitting "I" twist Trump's words.

I'm saying that's what YOU are doing when you ignore his denigration of Somalian Minnesotans, who happen to be black, to claim he simply means all the people of Minnesota.  

If you cannot explain why he now includes the people he's just treated as an alien presence, and why we should ignore everything else he has said about them in this one instance (just because?), then you are far short of establishing that Fred or anyone else is "twisting" his words. 

Trump said Minnesotans have good genes. To claim it meant anything else is twisting his words. You're claiming he means all non-Somali Minnesotans have good genes, that's the very definition of twisting his words. 

Now, if you want to use his other speeches to claim that he doesn't actually believe that ALL Minnesotans have good genes, go ahead. But, to claim that when he said "Minnesotans have good genes" he's saying something other than "Minnesotans have good genes" you are twisting his words.