Correct. I don't think he hates Muslims or other races at all. He has a hyperbolic fear of radicals getting into the U.S. though.

You can't be serious.

It's actually a travel ban on specific Islamic countries for 90 days. A lot less black and white than you make it out to be.

Look at his hiring history of his own organization and various initiatives. Would someone who despises non-whites ever hire them or promote them? I don't think race matters as much to him as the far left would like to believe. Trump is like Soros: he thinks he's above everything and everyone including his fellow white men, so I doubt it plays much into his thought process.

Donald Trump wants you to know that he loves Muslims and he thinks their women make the best ninjas.

Just because he hires someone doesn't mean he likes them. I don't think you're remembering his blatant racism and sexist remarks during his campaign. Pretty convenient that you seem to not remember that at all actually.

His sexism might have been blatant, but god damn it his racism was subtle.

"Blatant" racism? Where he said "some" illegal immigrants coming out of Mexico were rapists or drug dealers or cartel members? In the liberal news world, I guess that means that ALL Mexicans must be those things. But he never said "all" Mexicans now did he?

Again: bringing racism into the picture here assumes he is motivated by it. Did Hitler bring Jews into his inner circle? No. When you hate something, you will exclude it. Trump would never hire anyone in his organization who was a different race from himself if he really believed in what some of his opponents have claimed about him. He merely used fears that naturally align with racism in order to appeal to middle America.

I'm not trying to be mean to you here. I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between analyzing what is actually said versus analyzing an interpretation that a media outlet snipped out of a larger statement. If you are going to say Trump is motivated by racism and sexism, you need to provide evidence that those are his prime motivating factors. Looking at the whole pinata that represents Trump's actions throughout his life and including those he's made since becoming President, it doesn't look like those things are forces that drive him. His ego is so big I doubt he has room for anything else outside of his desire for wealth and attention.

And we're back to disagreeing. He has a hyperbolic fear of looking like anything less than amazing, beautiful, wonderful, awesome, (insert Trump adjective of choice here).

He ran his entire campaign on appealing to a scared white America by using "outsiders" as the enemy. Now that he's won he has to follow through on "The Wall" and "The Muslim Ban". Otherwise he'll look like a failure.

Trump hates nothing worse than looking bad or weak. Have we ever had a bigger ego running the White House? I'm not talking post election ego, but pre-election ego.

I'm not sure I said that at all. I think you are confused as to what entails an "experiment". Murder isn't an experiment because murder has one result - death.

You stated in one of your previous posts that once we have a conclusion, it's no longer an experiment. I suppose you clarified what you meant here, but it was confusing since an experiment is an experiment even when you have a conclusion.

See my last post. I actually agree with you mostly. I just didn't go into greater detail before.

Jesus Christ dude. He didn't use the word "some". He knew exactly what he was doing by broad brushing an entire country. He said "THEY'RE SENDING US THEIR RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS".

You're obviously a really smart guy but every now and then it seems you forget to put your glasses on. He had an agenda that worked perfectly with angry, white, scared, rural America.

Unless every person in Mexico is a rapist and a drug dealer, that exact quote still supports what I've said. Also, read my whole post again. I was still adding to it.

His sexism comes from how he over all treats women even under the spot light. I'm not talking about the "Grab her by the pussy comment" because most of us have said much worse, but how he always talked about appearance when talking about women or claiming that reporter was on her period.

He didn't say some were bad. He said he's sure that a few of them are good.

Kind of like saying, I'm sure a few liberals aren't whiny pussies.
I'm sure a few conservatives aren't in the Klu Klux Klan.
I'm sure a few bands Ellphnor likes have talent.
I'm sure a few girls might sleep with Batlord.
I'm sure a few of Anteater's employees can afford to eat.
I'm sure a few children didn't turn Peter Scully on.
I'm sure a few Nickel Back songs don't make me want to blow my brains out.
I'm sure a few Justin Bieber fans are over 12.

I was just using a random comparison. I didn't want to make it seem like you were saying it.

I would say in this case, the experiment was based solely on the running and campaign of Donald Trump, and to see what he would do as president. Considering the campaign is over and he continues to try to do what he said he would do as president, I'd say the experiment is nearing a conclusion. At what point are we going to stop making it seem like it's something that could happen, and prepare for what has happened. People like to make the argument that "Trump won't get away with that." But what if he did? Are we just going to stand back and be like "well, it's not that bad." Just wait until people start dying because they can't get health insurance anymore.

My point is, just because none of what he's put forward effects you or some of us in the forum, we can't just assume it means nothing. If you were effected by the travel ban, I imagine your opinion would be vastly different than it is now.

And to Ant: You need to do some further reading if you really believe that Trump isn't as racist or sexist as the media portrays.

Should I be paying my guys more than the six figures they already make annually? Sheesh.

Also, I'm just going to share this since it ties into the point I "thought" I got across before.

^I don't really think you're quite understanding the actual point people are putting across. But it seems rather convenient that you'll tell other people to further their reading but simultaneously not read into media. Is there a source that you're reading that somehow is deemed more factually accurate than what people saw during the campaign? Trump didn't just randomly start being called sexist and racist. He based his campaign on it.

I can see both sides - his supporters are still in "give him a chance" mode and I will admit the media is creaming their pants with the constant headlines berating him.

That being said...now it's a question of risk vs. reward. I feel a lot of his supporters felt the reward would have been worth the potential risk he posed. At this point it's pretty clear that reward we are hoping for is well beyond Trump's capacity. Even if he wanted to accomplish these things, he gets too distracted and he will be blocked at every turn by the Democrats (when they can) and the judiciary. That only leaves risk...having a man as our leader who had no idea the scope of this job is DANGEROUS.

The anti-Trump media bias has really taken on a life of it's own. It really only hurts their credibility and plays into Trump's narrative of not believing anything they say. I mean the guy's an absolute dick and such an easy target but they need to pull back and stick to the facts which make the alternative facts look as ludicrous as they are.

No, it's just an example. We all know every band Elphanor likes has talent, let's be honest here.

No, see, everybody has a bit of prejudice and preconceived stereotypes about people. But we don't all act on it because we can critically think. He made a statement implying that majority of the illegal Mexicans coming into our country are violent criminals putting us at risk. Not only is he acting on racist ideals but he wants to implement policies based on that specific racist idea. A lot of what he says is scarily parallel to a Klan rally. The Klan says the Mexicans have taken this country from the whites. Trump says the illegals have taken this country from real Americans. The Klan says make America white again. Trump says make America great again. The Klan wants to **** their daughters, Trump wants to **** his daughter. Some of it might be a little hyperbolic but it's still there. They both probably wanted to hang Obama too. His whole birther movement was completely racist and would never happen if Obama was white.

I do read into the media. And you have seen in past posts how I've eviscerated people for not reading into their own cited articles enough.

But unfortunately in today's day and age that's just the first step. The media are not objective and don't mix well with people not aligned to their parent company's agenda. Guys like Trump and, going a few years back, Mitt Romney. That's why you have to see what angle they are looking at something, why they're looking at it the way they are, then go back and read word-for-word what was said to figure out if there's a disconnect.

So far the only thing he has accomplished is getting people into cabinet positions that have less experience thane even he has.

That's precisely what I'm getting at. He has been president now for almost a full month, and there has been more chaos going on in this country than we saw over the past 8 years with Obama. I'm not saying the Obama presidency was perfect. Far from it. However, people weren't fearing for their lives because they wouldn't be able to get their pre-existing conditions taken care of under the insurance they have right now.

But I have another argument to put forward as well. With the successful nominations of Betsy DeVos and his other cabinet choices, how much worth can we put into getting our word out. I'm talking specifically about people rioting in the streets and protesting decisions that get allowed regardless of the public backlash. Is this just something we're going to have to get used to? Donald Trump has proven time and time again that no amount of public outcry will even come close to swaying his opinion on a bad choice.

But with this mindset, you pretty much count being racist and sexist as acceptable until proven otherwise. Trump has displayed both acts throughout his campaign but hides it more in his presidency. Are we just meant to accept the fact that he's been racist and sexist, and allow it until someone can do something? I don't think so.

There's tons of videos on youtube showing a lot of these independent liberal porn sites cutting up Trump speeches to sound even worse than they already are.

Well, if you're going to Youtube for viable news stories, you may need to rethink your strategy.

right? buzzfeed or gtfo

It looks like we might find out as early as this week what he has in mind as a replacement for the ACA, but whatever it is will likely take several years to roll out. The ACA as it currently stands is a ticking time bomb though, so I hope they figure something out sooner rather than later.

You're right - the public outcry will not stop Trump. It WILL affect how the judicial system handles him. I highly doubt anything would have been done about the travel ban if we had all quietly stewed about it in silence. But because of non-stop protests, storming of town hall meetings, and constant calls to our representatives, the court upheld the stay unanimously. Not to mention that there was a stay at all. That's a result right there.

No, I go to several places for viable news because these days you kind of need to get several different sources to fact check anything that's reported.

But that doesn't mean that videos on youtube haven't proven that media cuts his speeches to seem much worse than they are.

Hell, ICP proved that media outlets do this by taping their whole CNN interview they did back in 2011.

Well, sure. But that won't always be the case. We got really lucky with the stop to the travel ban. I don't expect that to happen every time though.

How do you feel about helicopter rides?

This Frownland-esque missing the point argument really doesn't fit you.

I'm just following elphenor's example bruh. I make an argument, he responds with one sentence eye rollers. :D

Well when points are being made that you are somehow blind to, it's not a good look when you disregard good points with slander. Especially when you make the accusation that the racism and sexism doesn't exist with Trump. Which...if you look back at the campaign, it was right in your face. Don't be so evasive when you can't back up your claim.

I prefer motorboating.

How so? Be very specific. Why are you so afraid of the ACA?

It's not perfect but with some sensible congressional tweaking it could actually work better than it already has.

You are probably the most intelligent cliche on this site.

My family has benefitted greatly from the ACA. Ticking time bomb: Explain.

You missed the point I was making completely. Yes, Trump is "racist"...but so is everyone to some extent. FDR was a racist. JFK was a racist to some extent and misogynistic. We've never had a president who didn't exhibit issues of character at some point. Not a single one. And liberals can be very racist too: go read some of the things supposedly "tolerant" liberals have said about Sen. Tim Scott on Twitter based on an opinion he had when choosing to endorse Sessions.

The logical fallacy that you and countless others make in your analysis of Trump is that he is PERSONALLY driven by racial hatred, which is what I'm arguing against. He did not run for president because he hates other races. The fact that racists flocked to him was a byproduct of his populist approach and nationalist ideas in regards to America's place in the world: racism wasn't his core message and it never motivated him in any of his business ventures previously. The truth is that Trump doesn't care about race at all. For better or for worse. If radical white Irishmen were the ones donning exploding vests in places like France, he'd ban Ireland and target anyone who looked white with stereotypical red hair.

Someone saying that "I don't understand racism" is not a logical argument when I point to his hiring history, which is a reasonable argument to make considering how it has already been discussed here, for instance, that if a business doesn't tolerate homosexuality for religious reasons they certainly won't go out of their way to hire people of that orientation. Racists who make decisions in life based on hatred follow a similar principle. If I have no credibility, then prove it with an argument that works.