Explain to me based on Trump’s comment using the pastoral letter how it does not follow under their definition of racism instead of making up scenarios.
Surely I should only explain something if I am an advocate for that which is to be explained. I am not.
What my scenario highlights is why the definition of racism given, is neither accurate nor helpful.
No they didn’t and that is typical of the reason why the ratings are collapsing. You can keep pretending but you are making it worse for your side because reality is not lining up to those advocating such TDS. Happy for you to keep pretending because your vote will also collapse due to people seeing the misrepresentation of truth.
It’s not my data. It is the data of the US sentencing commission and whether you individually see it or not has no bearing on whether I am speaking with or without foundation.
You seem to forget the weak initial statement that evoked considerable criticism not just from opponents, but from leaders of his own party.
He has maintained that rallying with Neo-Nazis the night before the murder were very fine people. That statement lacks credibility.
It is data that you made claims about, but still have not sourced.
What part of the provided video clearly sourcing the data from the US sentencing commission and me referring to this government body by name is difficult to understand?
You seem to forget we are talking about my example (requested by you) regarding the media misleading Trump’s words to their audience.
You asked for an example and I gave you the one of the media reporting that Trump is saying there are good people on all sides regarding Charlottesville and linking this comment to include so called neo Nazis and white supremacists, while in fact Trump did not say this at all, quite the contrary.
You do not provide a link to the data.
Trump, after some hesitation and a mealy initial statement, called out Neo-Nazis and white supremacist while suggesting that there would good people with them, when in fact, it was just them.
That is classic Trump: not calling out the Nazis, then calling them out, while also clearly messaging acceptance. He could have spoken promptly and unambiguously. He didn’t. And he was called out for it not just by the press, but by other Republican leaders.
Look it was quoted in the news source and the Democratic spokesman who was asked to respond spent the whole interview trying to deflect the questions from the data articulated. He didn’t contest the data. The body has a public website and their dozens (at least) statistical reports including those relating crime and citizenship are on their website. Go find it.
No it wasn’t just the white supremacists involved and the example is specifically regarding the comment about there being good people on both sides. Trump quite clearly said this does not include the people the media tried to present that it did. There is your example. It is clear cut.
The fact you are diverting to Trump’s reaction in general and what certain people thought of his general reaction including some Republicans, shows that you understand my example and you don’t want to discuss it because it shows exactly what you asked for.
The media misrepresented Trump’s words to their audience regarding there being good people on all sides. Clear cut.
Still no link to the data?
Nope. They reported it for what it was. When the people who created the march and recruited participants are neo-Nazis and white supremacists, you cannot talk about the good people with them on the night of the march without calling neo-Nazis and white supremacists good.
Of course you can when there are many people from different viewpoints there other than white supremacists and Trump explicitly said at the time his comments don’t include those people. Did you even look at the video of Trumps complete interaction with the press that I provided?
The press said one thing and it was contrary to what Trump actually said. The evidence is there clear cut of the news report against the actual speech from Trump. Both provided.
Regarding the data that was cited in the video and spoken about by the panelists and mentioned by me regarding the public body who made the research and who now you are asking for direct links the answer is go look it up on their public website.
Tip. Google US sentencing Commission and look in the Statistics menu.
Really it is impossible to talk to you. There just is no intelligence or honesty coming from your side.
I’m out, like so many other posters here, talking to you is just a waste of time. The only good thing is that people see the way you interact and this reflects on the level of intelligence and honesty coming from the Left.
Of course opponents gathered. But who were these “good” people who came to support the Neo_Nazis?
Perhaps you can do that to provide a foundation for your own claims.
Let’s keep in mind that definition of racism that is endorsed by the full body of the Catholic bishops. It makes sense to analyze any statement in light of Catholic teaching since we are Catholics on a Catholic website.
You are the one showing interest here in an attempt to deflect from the issue being discussed. If it is so important to you, you do it. Do you doubt that it exists having being presented and referenced on Tucker Carlson and discussed with a Democratic operative?
If you do not doubt it and you really want to see it, go and find it but we both know you are trying to deflect from the underlying comments. This is dishonest. People see this.
Again it is impossible to talk to someone whose mind is dishonest. These good people did not come to support neo Nazis they came to protest the taking down of a historical statue. Again if you actually saw the Trump talk we are referencing he explained that clearly. Again I ask, did you view the full Trump discussion you are wanting to comment on?
You made a claim. Thus far you have been unable to provide real for support it. That’s OK with me.
The definition of racism you cited is both inaccurate and unhelpful. How many times do you want me to say that? It does not matter who wrote it as much as it matters if it is sensible and correct. I have given reasons why I think the definition is inaccurate and unhelpful. You are failing to talk on that level and keep repeating but the Bishops wrote it.
I ask you to think for yourself and respond to the credibility of my criticisms expressed. Please don’t tell me again the Bishops wrote it.
I have analysed the definition you provided and found it wanting. Please respond to my criticisms of the definition instead of simply saying the Bishops wrote it.
Real what? Please write a full coherent sentence. Real evidence? Is that what you mean?
I have. The evidence was Tucker Carlson’s show citing the document released that day and discussed with a Democratic operative. Again i ask do you doubt the document exists?
The reason you are not answering this question is because no reasonable person would doubt that it exists and the statistics discussed are accurate, yet this is what you are implicitly suggesting.
If you want the actual document then go to the website and look for it or contact the public company who did the research.
Otherwise you are just fillibusting because you were wrong and you can’t admit it.
I have repeatedly asked you, who have made the claim, to do that.
That would spare us from the problem of working with two different source documents that are misaligned. But if you do not want to defend your claim, that is fine with me: there is no need to probe further.
It was approved by the full body of American bishops, so I think it warrants serious consideration for any Catholic. You have given a counterexample that you think would be considered racism by the definition provided, but since the purpose of pointing out the differences of the Australian system over the Philippine system was not done to ‘exclude, ridicule, mistreat or unjustly discriminate’, it would not be sinful. Hence, in the case of your counterexample, the definition works just fine.
As that seemed to be your major objective, I think we should then focus on the Trump comments.