[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Buster

I have no interest in defending Trump's history nor his policies. As an authoritarian his ideology shares little with mine.

I agree. I don't see you defending his policies or history, just his behaviors. I don't see you doing so because you actually believe in the guy either. All I see is someone who is doing so because so many people dislike the guy. You aren't doing it because of some actual belief in the guy, you are doing it because it gets a rise out of people. I think you get off on stirring it up and this is an opportunity for you to do so by defending the indefensible.

My claim here is simply that Trump's comments on Mexico and Muslim Immigration are not racist...and to claim otherwise is to simply participate in the confirmation bias machinations of his opposition.

Two things here. You're being obtuse on the racist definition. You play pretty loose with the use of terms and concepts, but expect people to abide by the strict definition of racist when talking about Donald Trump. That's ridiculous, especially when racist is synonym and catch-all for the words that best describe Donald Trump and his behaviors in this election cycle. Words like prejudiced, anti-Semitic, ethnocentric, xenophobic, intolerant, sectarian, chauvinist, bigot, are good descriptors of Trump, and they are all synonyms for racist. His comments toward African Americans, Arabs, and Asians are just as inflammatory as his comments towards Mexicans and Muslims, and those are definitely racist, so calling him is a racist is not off base. So far the only difference between Donald Trump and David Duke is one sleeps on fine linens and the other admittedly wears them.

Second point is your use of the term confirmation bias. If you're going to expect people to use the text book term for racism in proper context then please do so with the term and concept of confirmation of confirmation bias. People are no actively searching for content that supports their preconception of Trump being a racist. I don't see anyone going out of their way to find obscure passages where Trump has said anything ridiculous. All people are doing is waiting for Trump to speak or put out a tweet, and then pointing out the inflammatory terms in his own words. That is not confirmation bias. In fact, if you are trying to play the confirmation bias card it is you who is practicing confirmation bias, by jumping on people's reaction to Trump's own words and pointing out they are calling him what they perceive him to be, they by enforcing your belief that everyone is against Trump for all the wrong reasons, the most important of which is Trump is not a racist (by your definition).

I find it annoying because it just adds to reducing the level of discourse even further and is responsible for the same type of partisan driven vitriol that both sides spew to try to impact the Other Team.

You're seriously going to try and play the reduction-of-discourse card when you are the intentionally being obtuse and repetitive on this subject?

I'm more interested in the issues, and policy (in Trump's case bad or absent) policy, than trying to create a divisiveness through caricature-izing your opponent. It's a low form of political argument.

Really? Then how about trying to discuss an actual policy position instead of sticking with this ridiculously stupid defense of Trump based on the semantic use of the term racist? It is highly annoying when people spend a whole lot of time defending someone or something, then all of a sudden change course and try to claim they are actually a high road kind of guy and we should get out of the gutter that person steered us into. Don't be that guy. Own what you are and what you've been doing.