Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2020, 09:51 PM)Dill Wrote: A deflection from Trump, from someone seeking a vicarious "win." 

Bfine updated an old stat; mine is no longer current. 

Since the contention was over Trump's genetic complement to the state of Minnesota, still over 4/5ths white,

I don't see how 83% "hands me an L," even if Trump knew the more recent stat. 

What was the date for your 94% White stat? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2020, 09:51 PM)Dill Wrote: A deflection from Trump, from someone seeking a vicarious "win."

Pointing out you aren't holding yourself to the same standards you demand of others is not a deflection.  Now trying to say it is, that is a deflection.  BTW, it's not a "win" for me, it's a "win" for bfine.

Quote:Bfine updated an old stat; mine is no longer current. 

I.e. he was right and you were very wrong.

Quote:Since the contention was over Trump's genetic complement to the state of Minnesota, still over 4/5ths white,

Ahh, it still meets the fractional threshold for you to declare white supremacist eugenics.  What percentage would the state have to be non-white for that to no longer apply?

Quote:I don't see how 83% "hands me an L," even if Trump knew the more recent stat. 

Because you were totally wrong and didn't demand the same accuracy of yourself that you do of others.  Huge "L".  Take it, you've earned it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2020, 09:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Me personally, I feel that talking about horserace theories and good genes has a distinct racial flavor. I didn't say it was crazy to not think that. It also is not crazy to see it the way I see it. One argument of course being the piling up of Trump comments that are flavored in a similar manner.
This also is not about 83% or 94% - any "victory" on that point imho is a quite insignificant one. Minnesota still is perceived as a white state, and I perceive a Trump audience in Minnesota to be visibly white, and I assume that these were significant premises that made Trump go there. But OK, I don't claim to know the undisputable one truth about Trump's beliefs, though I know where my money's at. But disagreement is fine. Accusing me of twisting words, however, is not. I don't need to twist any of Trump's words to find them awful.

I think you missed a key point, that Trump's crowds are largely white regardless of the state he's in.  You're also misinterpreting the percentage difference "win" comment.  I could go into detail, but I think it's something that's being lost in translation.  We both agree that Trump's track record is not good, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I don't really see this as anything other than a throwaway compliment from Trump to the crowd.  He probably saw a hot chick in the audience and thought of the comment off the cuff.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2020, 09:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you missed a key point, that Trump's crowds are largely white regardless of the state he's in.

Probably true, and I would find his comments awful on any of his largely white rallies. I still am inclined to believe Trump knowing to be in a predominantly white state added an incentive for him to go full horserace theory. But that matters little.

(10-05-2020, 09:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're also misinterpreting the percentage difference "win" comment.  I could go into detail, but I think it's something that's being lost in translation.  We both agree that Trump's track record is not good, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, but I don't really see this as anything other than a throwaway compliment from Trump to the crowd.  He probably saw a hot chick in the audience and thought of the comment off the cuff.

Yeah I don't think that's what happened, but again, I don't know that as a fact and hence I have no issue with a different take. What I dislike and disliked is saying "my take is the correct one and yours is just twisting words" when I clearly did nothing of that sort.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2020, 10:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Probably true, and I would find his comments awful on any of his largely white rallies. I still am inclined to believe Trump knowing to be in a predominantly white state added an incentive for him to go full horserace theory. But that matters little.



Yeah I don't think that's what happened, but again, I don't know that as a fact and hence I have no issue with a different take. What I dislike and disliked is saying "my take is the correct one and yours is just twisting words" when I clearly did nothing of that sort.

I agree, it's definitely not a yes/no situation.  I honestly think a lot of Trump's dumb shit is said spontaneously and not planned at all.  The guy's brain is wired differently, so ascribing motives to every single thing he says is, IMO, a definite overreach.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2020, 10:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, it's definitely not a yes/no situation.  I honestly think a lot of Trump's dumb shit is said spontaneously and not planned at all.  The guy's brain is wired differently, so ascribing motives to every single thing he says is, IMO, a definite overreach.

Maybe so. Ascribing motives is aided when the things he says seem to repeat themselves and/or follow a certain pattern though.

If that Minnesota thing were an isolated incident and there'd be no other similar sayings to report, I'd be more willing to believe it was some kind of weird gaffe. Maybe it still was, but I have my doubts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2020, 11:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. Ascribing motives is aided when the things he says seem to repeat themselves and/or follow a certain pattern though.

If that Minnesota thing were an isolated incident and there'd be no other similar sayings to report, I'd be more willing to believe it was some kind of weird gaffe. Maybe it still was, but I have my doubts.

And I can certainly understand and appreciate that position.  I just think that Trump's implied racism isn't nearly on par with his perceived racism, i.e. I don't think the racist things he's alluded to even come close to what many left leaning types perceive.  But referring to anyone as "having good genes" is a bad call in the present climate, even if you're talking to Monica Bellucci. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2020, 11:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe so. Ascribing motives is aided when the things he says seem to repeat themselves and/or follow a certain pattern though.

If that Minnesota thing were an isolated incident and there'd be no other similar sayings to report, I'd be more willing to believe it was some kind of weird gaffe. Maybe it still was, but I have my doubts.

Sadly, the "Minnesota thing" is not an isolated incident. Folks will/have look(ed) to twist his words every chance they get.

[Mickeypoo]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/02/trump-and-white-supremacy-he-did-condemn-and-has-repeatedly-column/5883336002/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpNoU5W-RwQ

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I can certainly understand and appreciate that position.  I just think that Trump's implied racism isn't nearly on par with his perceived racism, i.e. I don't think the racist things he's alluded to even come close to what many left leaning types perceive.  But referring to anyone as "having good genes" is a bad call in the present climate, even if you're talking to Monica Bellucci. 

**Recently Biden has said he was able to quarantine because "some black woman" stocked the shelves. 

Not too long ago he slurred the entire black population by accusing them of not having independent thought.

Earlier in his career he stated integration would cause a racial jungle.


To quote his VP "I'm not saying he's racist", but that's some racist shit.

But Trump tells the folks of Minnesota they have superior genes and he's the Exalted Cyclopes 


** All verification is from biased sites

[Mickeypoo]

Biden talking about Haitians!  lmao!!

Biden back to Mr. Gaffe Machine.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And I can certainly understand and appreciate that position.  I just think that Trump's implied racism isn't nearly on par with his perceived racism, i.e. I don't think the racist things he's alluded to even come close to what many left leaning types perceive.

I agree on that. Also, I believe this is nothing new or spectacular, that quite a lot of left leaning types, not unlike right leaning types, tend to exaggerate things. I don't think this is all that important though, and not that important as some make it out to be. To choose a small non-Trump example, many of these types said Bush is a war criminal. I do not think he is a war criminal, still I think the Iraq war was a grave mistake. I do not feel particularly countered in that belief when someone responds by pointing to left leaning types unjustly calling him a war criminal. Because, yeah sure, but still grave mistake. I'm not the most gifted guy when it comes to analogies, but you get what I say.

(10-05-2020, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   But referring to anyone as "having good genes" is a bad call in the present climate, even if you're talking to Monica Bellucci. 

...though I tend to believe it never was a particular good idea to tell Monica that she has good genes.

[hollodero]

(10-05-2020, 11:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sadly, the "Minnesota thing" is not an isolated incident. Folks will/have look(ed) to twist his words every chance they get.

Hey, if someone responded to you in the way you respond to me, you'd already thrown out an expletive. So I say, pretty please, could you either put meat on that bone and show me where I twisted Trump's words or stop bringing it up towards me? That would be amazing.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2020, 12:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hey, if someone responded to you in the way you respond to me, you'd already thrown out an expletive. So I say, pretty please, could you either put meat on that bone and show me where I twisted Trump's words or stop bringing it up towards me? That would be amazing.

I really don't consider my responses untoward. Please reread my original response to you (post #205) and tell me what would lead one to through out an expletive.

But to answer you question


Trump was at a rally in Minnesota and said "You guys have superior genes". That's all he said.

To try to attach that to racism (which you did in post#206) IMO is twisting (misrepresent the intended meaning) his words.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-05-2020, 11:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: **Recently Biden has said he was able to quarantine because "some black woman" stocked the shelves. 

Not too long ago he slurred the entire black population by accusing them of not having independent thought.

Earlier in his career he stated integration would cause a racial jungle.


To quote his VP "I'm not saying he's racist", but that's some racist shit.

But Trump tells the folks of Minnesota they have superior genes and he's the Exalted Cyclopes 


** All verification is from biased sites

Honestly, I don't really hold older people to the same standards in this regard.  My paternal grandmother was a wonderful person, not in the least bit racist (the same as my paternal grandfather) but she consistently referred to black people as "coloreds".  There was nothing malicious about it, it's what she was familiar with, but it would make your modern day SJW froth at the mouth.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2020, 12:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree on that. Also, I believe this is nothing new or spectacular, that quite a lot of left leaning types, not unlike right leaning types, tend to exaggerate things. I don't think this is all that important though, and not that important as some make it out to be. To choose a small non-Trump example, many of these types said Bush is a war criminal. I do not think he is a war criminal, still I think the Iraq war was a grave mistake. I do not feel particularly countered in that belief when someone responds by pointing to left leaning types unjustly calling him a war criminal. Because, yeah sure, but still grave mistake. I'm not the most gifted guy when it comes to analogies, but you get what I say.

Agreed, partisanship tends to get in the way of a solid argument.

Quote:
...though I tend to believe it never was a particular good idea to tell Monica that she has good genes.

Dear god, I would have, and introduced her to my own.  I have several European friends, so I was familiar with her well before the second Matrix movie (which is where most Americans first saw her).  I've never seen a more stunning woman.

[hollodero]

(10-06-2020, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I really don't consider my responses untoward. Please reread my original response to you (post #205) and tell me what would lead one to through out an expletive.

But to answer you question


Trump was at a rally in Minnesota and said "You guys have superior genes". That's all he said.

To try to attach that to racism (which you did in post#206) IMO is twisting (misrepresent the intended meaning) his words.  

Having a different take on something like that is not the same as misrepresenting the intended meaning. You can't make that call about intent in the first place, and as admitted, neither can I. But I have my take and explained it. For that, I do not deserve being called out that way. Sorry for having a different opinion. I am willing to discuss why I have my opinion, I am not willing to deal with your actual word twisting.

For example, I was not just referring to him saying "superior genes" (where does "superior" come from, anyway?) I specifically also referred to him bringing up the racehorse theory and so no, the gene thing is not "all he said." I usually let these things go, but deliberately leaving all kinds of things out and then accusing others of twisting words really is a bit much.

And yeah, if you were in my shoes right now, you'd probably already let a GTFO fly. As you do.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2020, 12:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: And yeah, if you were in my shoes right now, you'd probably already let a GTFO fly. As you do.

Funny. You keep saying what I'd do, but you're the only one doing it.

[Dill]

(10-05-2020, 09:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Pointing out you aren't holding yourself to the same standards you demand of others is not a deflection.  Now trying to say it is, that is a deflection.  BTW, it's not a "win" for me, it's a "win" for bfine.

I.e. he was right and you were very wrong.

Ahh, it still meets the fractional threshold for you to declare white supremacist eugenics.  What percentage would the state have to be non-white for that to no longer apply?

Because you were totally wrong and didn't demand the same accuracy of yourself that you do of others.  Huge "L".  Take it, you've earned it.

What I "demand" of others is that they strive to support points they make, make them about issues instead of forum members, and explain or refine them in good faith if the support is challenged.

That, as opposed to baseless accusation and quippery. We've disagreed about that standard, among others, many times. 

So a data error made in good faith doesn't imply some double standard. It's just an error. If the debate were about/depended on the exact percentage of whites in Minnesota today then I would be "totally wrong."  And you could finally enjoy a big L. This is just a little one, though it sounds like you needed it.

But the debate was over what to make of Trump's recourse to racehorse genetics while addressing a white audience in a predominantly white state with the highest percentage of Scandinavians in the US. Bfine maintains Fred, Hollo and I are "twisting" Trump's words to see a white supremacist trope--as if Trump could have easily floated the same compliment to an mostly white audience in Mississippi. As if all states have good genes, like all countries do. Plus Fred said "we" instead of "you" as Trump did, an error which could matter only if we thought Trump did NOT presume he already had those good genes too and was recognizing "his people." Do "we" yhink that? I don't.

"Throwaway compliments" referencing the racehorse analogy to human genetics don't just spontaneously pop into anyone's mind any more than would referencing the transubstantiation of the host. A person already has to know the theory and think in its terms. That's why such comments can be spontaneous, and why people familiar with Nazism can be disturbed without "ascribing motives" or "deep thought" to Trump, given the the Trump family history and the history of that analogy.  If the reference was not a one-off, but another point in a larger pattern of eugenics referneces, then the only real question there can be here is whether Trump could know or care whether the racehorse theory of eugenics had any connection to white supremacy. Could it have been just "a theory about horses and people" that the Trump family shaped into their own family tradition, no conscious connection to more nefarious movements, certainly not to race? 

Trump’s touting of ‘racehorse theory’ tied to eugenics and Nazis alarms Jewish leaders
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-05/trump-debate-white-supremacy-racehorse-theory

"You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes,” Trump told Larry King on CNN in 2007. “And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”

Three years later, he told CNN that his father was successful and it naturally followed that he would be too: “I have a certain gene. I’m a gene believer. Hey, when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse. And I really was — you know, I had a — a good gene pool from the standpoint of that. 

He used the phrase again at a 2016 campaign rally in Iowa, and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., told his father’s biographer that the family believed in the theory.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2020, 12:51 AM)Dill Wrote: What I "demand" of others is that they strive to support points they make, make them about issues instead of forum members, and explain or refine them in good faith if the support is challenged.

That, as opposed to baseless accusation and quippery. We've disagreed about that standard, among others, many times. 

So a data error made in good faith doesn't imply some double standard. It's just an error. If the debate were about/depended on the exact percentage of whites in Minnesota today then I would be "totally wrong."  And you could finally enjoy a big L. This is just a little one, though it sounds like you needed it.

But the debate was over what to make of Trump's recourse to racehorse genetics while addressing a white audience in a predominantly white state with the highest percentage of Scandinavians in the US. Bfine maintains Fred, Hollo and I are "twisting" Trump's words to see a white supremacist trope--as if Trump could have easily floated the same compliment to an mostly white audience in Mississippi. As if all states have good genes, like all countries do. Plus Fred said "we" instead of "you" as Trump did, an error which could matter only if we thought Trump did NOT presume he already had those good genes too and was recognizing "his people." Do "we" presume that? I don't.

"Throwaway compliments" referencing the racehorse analogy to human genetics don't just spontaneously pop into anyone's mind any more than would a reference to transubstantiation of the host. A person already has to know the theory and think in its terms. That's why such comments can be spontaneous, and why people familiar with Nazism can be disturbed without "ascribing motives" or "deep thought" to Trump, given the the Trump family history and the history of that analogy.  The only real question there can be here is whether Trump could know or care whether the racehorse theory of eugenics had any connection to white supremacy. Could it have been just "a theory about horses and people" that the Trump family shaped into their own family tradition, no conscious connection to more nefarious movements, certainly not to race? 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-05/trump-debate-white-supremacy-racehorse-theory


[/url]"You can absolutely be taught things. Absolutely. You can get a lot better. But there is something. You know, the racehorse theory, there is something to the genes,” Trump told Larry King on CNN in 2007. “And I mean, when I say something, I mean a lot.”


Three years later, he told CNN that his father was successful and it naturally followed that he would be too: “I have a certain gene. I’m a gene believer. Hey, when you connect two racehorses, you usually end up with a fast horse. And I really was — you know, I had a — a good gene pool from the standpoint of that.”



He used the phrase again at a 2016 campaign rally in Iowa, and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., told his father’s biographer that the family believed in the theory.



“Like him, I’m a big believer in racehorse theory. He’s an incredibly accomplished guy, my mother’s incredibly accomplished, she’s an Olympian, so I’d like to believe genetically I’m predisposed to better-than-average,” Trump Jr. told [url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-antonio-trump-eugenics-daca-20170914-story.html]Michael D’Antonio in a 2014 interview, according to a transcript provided by the author.

Where did you get the 94% white stat?