The Case for Trump, from people that can't stand him
- Thread starter Lava-Man
- Start date
You said everyone except the blacks. Whatever Dude. You're blocked. Save your breath for someone who cares.
Okay….I’ll play. These should be easy questions for a smart fellow like you:
Do you have to be 100%, 50%, 25% black to qualify for reparations? Where is the line drawn?
How much would make you happy?
Who pays, whites only??…..and is that 100%, 50% or 25% Caucasian. Where is the line drawn, who is on the hook?
And again, what about the Native Americans, are they getting left out.
Blocked for discussing a very sensitive topic. That's how we get better!!!
Go Dawgs....
And I do apologize for "being aggressive" today. I certainly portrayed a more aggressive approach with this matter. It's not you. I don't know you. I speak (post) in generalities of the most likely people who think like you.
I only aim to truly bring a different HONEST prospective of a % of the group that I am more aligned with about this topic. I never mean and personal attacks. It's Business, never Personal. God Speed.
Go Dawgs....
And I do apologize for "being aggressive" today. I certainly portrayed a more aggressive approach with this matter. It's not you. I don't know you. I speak (post) in generalities of the most likely people who think like you.
I only aim to truly bring a different HONEST prospective of a % of the group that I am more aligned with about this topic. I never mean and personal attacks. It's Business, never Personal. God Speed.
Please define:
1. A "Black American"
2. Who qualifies for reparations
3. Why anybody descended from any enslaved group wouldn't also qualify for reparations
4. The exact details of how reparations would be paid to "Black Americans".
Here is a starting point:
- Japanese Internment Reparations (1988): The most cited example is the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, where the U.S. government offered an official apology and reparations to Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II. Each surviving internee received $20,000.
- Native American Reparations: Over time, various treaties, acts, and settlements have been made with Native American tribes, though these are often more compensatory or land-based rather than direct financial reparations for past injustices. Examples include land returns, fishing rights, and monetary settlements like those following the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit for mismanagement of Indian trust funds.
- Holocaust Victims: While not directly from U.S. government funds, the U.S. has supported reparations programs for Holocaust survivors, particularly through legislation that facilitated the recovery of assets or insurance benefits from European institutions.
- Oklahoma Race Riot of 1921: Reparations were provided in the form of scholarships, economic development funds, and symbolic gestures for survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre. This was not direct financial compensation to individuals but aimed at community restitution.
- Victims of Medical Experiments: The Tuskegee Syphilis Study victims received financial compensation and benefits after a lawsuit in 1974, though this might be seen more as a settlement for medical malpractice rather than reparations for racial injustice.
...also, what is "owed"? Please be specific.
Thanks.
All great questions. Worth discussing. I don't have an answer for you sir.
I just know the Indians at least got their reservations. They got their lands and able to do casinos and other business with different laws than our Constitution. They got something.
Only 1 race has gotten nothing. Figure it out.
Nothing?
At all? One could argue that affirmative action was an attempt to right the past wrongs. Are blacks struggling in America? If so, why?
Who is Gullible? he keeps saying things like "I am your retribution" and he is just kidding?
The only issue is weather or not have a Dictatorship. Trump is not kidding about what he'd do.
"Dictatorship"?
(FYI, the 'weather' will never be dictated by anybody other than HARP!)
(also FYI, your middle-school level debate script didn't print out all the pages....just being helpful, yo)
No big deal, I am as curious about it as you are and understand the argument. But realistically, it ain’t happening.
Quick story about myself, I’ve told this before on here - proud of my heritage:
My “Granny” was 100% Native American, I am very proud to be 25% myself (hence, the Native American questions).
My Mom and Dad got divorced when I was about 10 or 11 years of age. We had to move in with my “Granny” (the “Injun”) to survive. It was in the housing projects. Lived with my Granny for about a year while my Mother waited tables to support my little brother and I.
After the first year of living there, we could afford to move out to our own apartment…..but it was in the same housing projects.
I was about as poor as poor could be back then.
Learned early that no one is going to give you anything. If you want it, you have to go get it…..nothing is given.
Athletically back then, I was good enough to get a division 1 or 2 football scholarship…..until I wasn’t. FOCKED my knee to hayul and back my junior year, shredded it. The following year my 7th vertebrae broke off.
There went my college plans, ended up working to send my way through. It took about 6 years, but got her done with no help at all.
Success can be there for anyone, if someone has the “want to”. People don’t care about your race anymore, it’s been that way for a long time. It’s what you know and what you can do for them that matters most.
Thinks everybody should be poor at least once in their lives.
I’ve been “healed”, as you say..…”for long time now”.
Reparations would destroy this country, not a good move.
Last edited:
70% illegitimacy rate, black on black crime, continuing to vote just the way LBJ intended them to, etc…
That is a narrow minded view. You are focused on one event primarily and you have a current administration that has done things that undermine our democracy as the left likes to tout. They have done it in more ways and in more subtle ways but I think in a much more dangerous fashion. All the while you and others can only focus on Trump.
Could not agree more with "everyone should be poor at least one time".
You either sink or swim.
Makes you really appreciate who and what you have in your life.
Well it was directed basically at a particular point unlike other posts that go all over the place without directly responding (such as in this thread). That's not a definition of a narrow minded view.
Have you forgotten the OP made a number of statements about Trump? Another poster made the comment that the first item was not true and I commented that no one defended that point of the OP. So, it was perfectly appropriate that I only focus on Trump.
So you are now added to the list of those who are not disputing that Trump does not put America first, but puts himself first. You can disagree and have your opinion, but you are not offering any rebuttal.
Yes, we might focus on Trump as he continues to show he is unsuitable to be President again regardless of what he did before. He is not the same person, but has gotten worse. I hope you are paying attention to his appearances around the country.
First, I would like to be clear I did not write the tweet I quoted above. Second, how do you offer a rebuttal to a "lost all credibility" statement that is essentially just "I disagree that Trump puts Americans first"? "I disagree with your disagreement!"? There was nothing to rebut, other than someone's opinion. How about there was no rebuttal that Trump doesn't put Americans first? Why aren't you applying the same logic to something you disagreed with?
I didn't say you wrote it.
How many times does it need to be said that what happened on January 6th and Trump's continuing denial of the election results is putting himself ahead of what would be good for America- that is, just moving along. That's enough for me.
Okay, sorry. I thought you were referring to me when you said "OP". I originally did not do a good job making it clear that I was providing someone else's opinion.
However, I was simply asking how you provide rebuttal to a statement that gave nothing to rebut other than "I disagree". You're making lack of rebuttals as some big point that there is no defense against what was posted. But, the logic is confusing.
Add another four star general and former Secretary of Defense to the list of those speaking about the danger Trump represents.
Why do all those otherwise conservative and respected members of the GOP feel that Trump is "a fascist to the core" and a "unique and menacing threat"?
Mattis Told Woodward He Agreed Trump Was a Uniquely Dangerous Threat
The former defense secretary has stayed mum this campaign. But he let his opinions be known to the legendary reporter.
www.thebulwark.com
Add another four star general and former Secretary of Defense to the list of those speaking about the danger Trump represents.
Why do all those otherwise conservative and respected members of the GOP feel that Trump is "a fascist to the core" and a "unique and menacing threat"?
Mattis Told Woodward He Agreed Trump Was a Uniquely Dangerous Threat
The former defense secretary has stayed mum this campaign. But he let his opinions be known to the legendary reporter.
What about the more than 200 Retired Admirals And Generals that endorse Trump? This is a pointless ping-pong game.
Flag Officers for America
Come on, Lava.
How many of them were hired directly by Trump and served as members of Trump’s cabinet? How many of them were in the room with Trump as key decisions were discussed and made?
Multiple senior leaders who reported directly to Trump aren’t just supporting his opponent, they are saying he is a threat to the country. Nothing about that is SOP or normal. In fact, I think it’s historically unprecedented.
Sir, at least four former cabinet members have expressed public support: Matthew Whitaker, Mark Meadows, Russell Vought, and Richard Grenell.
My point remains, this is an endless ping pong game.
"Threat to the country"
Four out of forty four. That’s your argument?Sir, at least four former cabinet members have expressed public support: Matthew Whitaker, Mark Meadows, Russell Vought, and Richard Grenell.
My point remains, this is an endless ping pong game.
"Threat to the country"
And let’s look at the four.
Meadows is under indictment in multiple jurisdictions (federal and state) for attempting to steal the 2020 election. If Trump is elected, Meadows will get a pardon for the federal crimes.
Grenell was acting DNI for three months.
Whitacre was acting AG for three months.
Vought was Director of the Office of Management and Budget for a year. Not exactly at the pivot point of the Trump administration.
Last edited:
No, my point is that there is more than one voice out there. Some support him and so do not. You went with Mattis, I pointed out other former high-ranking military leaders. You said they weren't in the cabinet; I pointed out cabinet members who support him. There are many others (non-cabinet members) that worked with him all 4 years in office and support him.
My argument is that this is a pointless back and forth and that they give away their bias with "Threat to the country" stupidity. He's polarizing. Difficult to work for. I get it. But, we have no idea where bruised egos end, actual "danger" begins, and how much of this is simple policy disagreement or simple posturing for a place in a potential Harris Administration.
This is what it comes down to in nearly every discussion of Trump. His supporters are required to dismiss, minimize, suggest false equivalencies and otherwise make excuses for the inexcusable.
I would recount the list of unprecedented actions and events surrounding Trump, but we’ve all seen it many times and it wouldn’t change one opinion, so I’ll save us both the time.
As bad as it was last time, it will be many times worse if he wins this time. I think more voters agree with me on this than you, but we only have a few weeks to wait before we find out.
Neither one of them is conservative. Most people who are elevated to Generals have had to toe the political lines and typically are moderate or liberal.Add another four star general and former Secretary of Defense to the list of those speaking about the danger Trump represents.
Why do all those otherwise conservative and respected members of the GOP feel that Trump is "a fascist to the core" and a "unique and menacing threat"?
Mattis Told Woodward He Agreed Trump Was a Uniquely Dangerous Threat
The former defense secretary has stayed mum this campaign. But he let his opinions be known to the legendary reporter.
What about all of the lies and errors on the left. You act like they do not matter and you ignore the lefts attempts to undermine democracy which are worse in my opinion. That is the part that troubles me most with several of the left leaning posters is the absolute denial of the Democratic Party and their candidates missteps, errors and outright lies. There is crap on both sides but you seldom if ever acknowledge one sides.
Last edited:
All of the ones that you’re talking about was either fired or part of the swamp. So they are not going to endorse him.
That a classic example of a false equivalency.
Despite my obvious current leanings, I am not a democrat. I’ve voted for more republicans than democrats for POTUS. National politics is a dirty business, for both parties, and this has been true for the duration of the last 250 years.
But Trump has explored new and unprecedented depths.
No other candidate for POTUS has ever openly asked a foreign belligerent for aid in an election (although it seems both Nixon and Reagan engaged in inappropriate contact with Vietnam and Iran, respectively, prior to taking office).
No other POTUS has lied about election fraud, lies that continue to this day.
No other POTUS has praised a violent, politically motivated attack on the US Capitol or promised to pardon those responsible.
No other POTUS has organized a multi-state effort to subvert an election result.
I could go on. There just aren’t similar examples for those who want to point to the Dems to justify Trump’s behavior. Do they lie? Of course. Have they lied for years about something as damaging as a stolen election? No. Same applies to my other examples. It’s just not a reasonable comparison at all.
Most generals are liberal. Damn, how in the hell would someone ever reach that conclusion?
Okay, but you are dismissing, minimizing, etc. those that show support, i.e. if they don't hold your view, they don't count. You did it above! You also create or repeat ridiculous scenarios in an attempt at scare tactics. You're the mirror image of what you decry. Given the long-term denial of Biden's clear sub-optimal condition for so many years...who has the better argument for seeing things clearly and not engaging in some form of self-delusion?
I know I won't likely convince you. But, the least you could do is participate in the self-reflection you appear to claim those that prefer Trump over Harris are not engaging in. Just a thought.
(and it doesn't even mean you have to support Trump...just see the point of those you disagree with and maybe see we aren't actually doing what you claim)
Sadly, that will not happen. I just wish both sides would do some self reflection. At that point I think we might be able to have a real discussion.
Similar threads
