I think it's the cognitive dissonance. People have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler incarnate, that they are unable to read anything positive about him. Sam would be crucified for this "Trump is right post" if he hadn't followed that up with 10 paragraphs of negative (some false) things.
I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.
Doesn't look down-voted to me but I think should be based on inaccuracies. Trump said "it's an inherent conflict of interest" which very much does imply that he does not think the judge can do his job (before considering his rulings) specifically because of his heritage.
If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says:
- he is being unfair, so now I say "why"
Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage".
Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
You're nitpicking man. It's not about the exact wording Trump used. Candidates are constantly paraphrased, that's part of the way it goes. Trump agreed with the reporter's assertion, and the basis of what he says is the same; that the guy's heritage implies his ability to do his job. Which is absurd, AND one of the main reasons that it has gotten so much attention is it highlights that Trump is aware that he has angered latinos with his overt racism.
Anyway, whatever, man. Keep nitpicking if you want. It's really sad that you feel a need to do that to make even a weak attempt to defend that horrible piece of human garbage.
>Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
Why are you splitting hairs over semantics when the bottom line is that Trump is racist? Seriously... if the misquote leads to the same conclusion as the actual quote then why does it matter?
The implication that he's not doing his job because of his heritage is still pretty bad. It minimizes the judge's experience and boils him down to a skin tone. He has a conflict of interest because of his heritage? Appeal, sue him, whatever. Prove it.
I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.