Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    That's different because Obama was actually born in the US but Trump claimed that he was lying and sent "investigators" over to Hawaii to prove it. Obama even ended up producing a copy of his birth certificate to shut Trump up.
    Cruz was born in the US, I think. But what's the difference, he tries to question his opponent's citizenship to benefit himself, irrelevant of race. To claim that he did it because of Obama's race is just stupid.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people think the Pope is Catholic?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    Cruz was born in the US, I think. But what's the difference, he tries to question his opponent's citizenship to benefit himself, irrelevant of race. To claim that he did it because of Obama's race is just stupid.
    No, he was born in Canada. Trump did not go to the lengths of "investigating" him and he has not done so for any other candidate.

    So it seems that the only other Presidential candidate whose birthplace he brought into question was Cruz for being born in Canada, which he was. On the other hand even after Obama confirmed that he was born in the US Trump kept insisting that he was lying and trying to prove that to be the case. So it makes perfect sense to assume that he was doing this because of Obama's race.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people think the sky is blue?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sunni money)
    You cannot use "liberal" interchangeably with "fascist". That is stupid, although I agree with the sentiments behind it - in that many who oppose Trump do so on emotionally-charged grounds, and have no actual arguments to substantiate many of the assertions they make about him (illustrated in this thread).


    Source?
    That's why I put the word in inverted commas.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Last time I checked free speech goes both ways. We are just as free to call him out on his views as he is to express them. One could just as easily say that it's "fascist" to voice your dislike for liberals if we were to go by the context in which you used the word.
    Indeed they could. However, since I am not actively trying to impose my views on others I'm not actually being fascist. The 'liberals' try to force people to adopt their views by accusing them of racism, fascism and of being xenophobic. Such accusations can and do have major negative impacts on people's lives, regardless of whether the claims are true or not. So this whole labelling thing is effectively a form of both threats and blackmail, meaning that views are being forced upon people. This is exactly what I mean when I say that the 'liberals' are fascist. See the difference?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Indeed they could. However, since I am not actively trying to impose my views on others I'm not actually being fascist. The 'liberals' try to force people to adopt their views by accusing them of racism, fascism and of being xenophobic. Such accusations can and do have major negative impacts on people's lives, regardless of whether the claims are true or not. So this whole labelling thing is effectively a form of both threats and blackmail, meaning that views are being forced upon people. This is exactly what I mean when I say that the 'liberals' are fascist. See the difference?
    And if someone really is racist or bigoted or xenophobic then what's the problem? We're not forcing them to change their views by calling a spade a spade, where's the threat? They can embrace who they are or if it bothers them so much then that's not our problem, but goes to prove that they have a problem with themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    He's an idiot

    He will make America a sad place when he gets in
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    No, he was born in Canada. Trump did not go to the lengths of "investigating" him and he has not done so for any other candidate.

    So it seems that the only other Presidential candidate whose birthplace he brought into question was Cruz for being born in Canada, which he was. On the other hand even after Obama confirmed that he was born in the US Trump kept insisting that he was lying and trying to prove that to be the case. So it makes perfect sense to assume that he was doing this because of Obama's race.
    It's not sensible at all! Once again you've jumped to conclusions. Let's take a look at some important details.

    1) Undermining the opponent's claim to presidency can weaken his campaign and strengthen your own. It's a trick all politicians worth their salt know and use. This is what Trump was doing.

    2) Uncertainties in the facts can be manipulated to create doubts among the opposition's supporters, which helps to achieve the above point.

    3) The other candidates (other than Obama and Cruz) didn't have any uncertainty about their birth place.

    4) Once doubt has been created among the opposition's supporters, insisting that you're correct can increase that doubt. It also puts the opposition under a great deal of pressure, the stress of which makes them much more prone to mistakes and/or of momentarily losing their cool and revealing their true colours.

    5) Obama is a greater threat as an opponent than Cruz because he has a lot more experience. It therefore becomes necessary to do more investigating to find good dirt on him.

    This is what Trump was doing. It had nothing to do with racism, it's merely a bit of political maneuvering. He performed it very well actually. His whole image is "here I am, this is who I am and what I think." He's very open about his opinions, so he comes across as an honest politician. This is what makes the tactics he's used so effective. He not only weakens the opposition with these relatively commonplace maneuvers, but it significantly strengthens his campaign by creating negative images of the opposition. It's a case of, "Cruz and Obama are hiding things from us, but not Trump! He's not afraid to show us who he really is, he's a real man!" It's ingenious!

    The thing to remember is that all politicians are scumbags, but the smarter ones end up being the better leaders.
    Sanders and Clinton have attempted to do the same thing to Trump by utilising this pathetic "dats wasist" craze, however neither of them has the brains to pull it off. Clinton's slander campaign didn't even get off the ground because interviews of her expressing some very bigoted opinions were available from all over the Internet. Sanders' campaign has had some success, though the whole thing is destroyed when people look at what Trump really said. In fact, the reason why Trump uses phrases which can easily be twisted is probably because when Sanders and Clinton twist them their supporters go and look at what Trump really says to find dirt on the guy. Upon doing so some of the smarter ones notice that he's not saying anything racist and start doubting what Sanders and Clinton say. In this way Trump is probably deceiving Sanders and Clinton into undermining their own campaigns! The man truly is a political genius.
    There's plenty more I could point out but I think the above sufficiently proves my point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    It's not sensible at all! Once again you've jumped to conclusions. Let's take a look at some important details.

    1) Undermining the opponent's claim to presidency can weaken his campaign and strengthen your own. It's a trick all politicians worth their salt know and use. This is what Trump was doing.

    2) Uncertainties in the facts can be manipulated to create doubts among the opposition's supporters, which helps to achieve the above point.

    3) The other candidates (other than Obama and Cruz) didn't have any uncertainty about their birth place.

    4) Once doubt has been created among the opposition's supporters, insisting that you're correct can increase that doubt. It also puts the opposition under a great deal of pressure, the stress of which makes them much more prone to mistakes and/or of momentarily losing their cool and revealing their true colours.

    5) Obama is a greater threat as an opponent than Cruz because he has a lot more experience. It therefore becomes necessary to do more investigating to find good dirt on him.

    This is what Trump was doing. It had nothing to do with racism, it's merely a bit of political maneuvering. He performed it very well actually. His whole image is "here I am, this is who I am and what I think." He's very open about his opinions, so he comes across as an honest politician. This is what makes the tactics he's used so effective. He not only weakens the opposition with these relatively commonplace maneuvers, but it significantly strengthens his campaign by creating negative images of the opposition. It's a case of, "Cruz and Obama are hiding things from us, but not Trump! He's not afraid to show us who he really is, he's a real man!" It's ingenious!

    The thing to remember is that all politicians are scumbags, but the smarter ones end up being the better leaders.
    Sanders and Clinton have attempted to do the same thing to Trump by utilising this pathetic "dats wasist" craze, however neither of them has the brains to pull it off. Clinton's slander campaign didn't even get off the ground because interviews of her expressing some very bigoted opinions were available from all over the Internet. Sanders' campaign has had some success, though the whole thing is destroyed when people look at what Trump really said. In fact, the reason why Trump uses phrases which can easily be twisted is probably because when Sanders and Clinton twist them their supporters go and look at what Trump really says to find dirt on the guy. Upon doing so some of the smarter ones notice that he's not saying anything racist and start doubting what Sanders and Clinton say. In this way Trump is probably deceiving Sanders and Clinton into undermining their own campaigns! The man truly is a political genius.
    There's plenty more I could point out but I think the above sufficiently proves my point.
    1) Obama was already President of the US, so it was too late to undermine his claim. He was never a political opponent of Trump either.

    2) See my first point.

    3) There was no certainty in Obama's birthplace, why would there? Donald Trump was insisting that there was uncertainty but that does not make it the case.

    4) There was no point in doing that due to the first point that I made.

    5) Same as #4
 
 
 

3,565

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.