He literally only came to prominence in the race for the republican nomination because of his racist views. It's only common sense that he, a Reality TV star, would know how to market himself to a particular audience. He chose the extreme right and ran with it.

Well.That settles that then.He disavowed them.Numerous times.

But you and the other black and white lady are just surmising and that is my point in this matter and then selling it off as factual information?

It's called analysing the situation.

Trump only got the nomination because of his views, this is proven by the fact that his support and odds drifted during the election any time he tried to backtrack on those views or be more moderate in his approach.

Well I would call it making things up but that is my opinion on this matter and im not saying anymore?

Then you don't understand what a debate is.

If you disagree with what someone has said then it's down to you to prove their logic wrong. you can't just demand proof and then throw a fit when things don't go your way.

Dictionary doesn't say anything about having to prove you wrong. :shrug: The idea is for each side to give their arguments and back them up accordingly or not. The burden of proof isn't on someone else to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove you are right.

Am thinking it isn't Saturn who doesn't know what a debate is.

debate
dɪˈbeɪt/Submit
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
"last night's debate on the Education Bill"
synonyms: discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley; More
verb
1.
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
"MPs debated the issue in the Commons"
synonyms: discuss, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot; More

Why are you saying that I am "throwing a fit" just because I said that you were presenting surmisation as fact, that is mean?

I said you were throwing a fit because you said ended the post with 'I'm not saying anymore' which very much sounds like you taking the ball and going home.

If someone makes a statement I disagree with, I'll research it and prove them wrong, I expect everyone else to do the same. Demanding proof is just a lazy out, find the proof and attempt to prove me wrong.

Trump came to prominence because he wanted to build a wall, he called Mexicans rapists and he wanted to ban Muslims from the US. That's what got him the Republican nomination. If he was more moderate he would not have gotten the nod. Look at any time his support dipped and I'd bet money that it coincided with occasions where he tried to backtrack on his earlier campaign promises.

He got the white house because of an ignorant anti-establishment vote but he wouldn't have gotten anywhere if it weren't for the bigoted core demographic he courted early on with the Republican race.

Can I also tell the lady that made this debate thread that it is the Ku Klux Klan and not Klu as that for some reason is a common error in the spelling.

My advice to you in this thread would to avoid making statements that you cannot back up and then the whole issue will be avoided, that would be far easier and the debate would flow smoother for you and for the other people in this discussion? No one surely has time to research all the claims that you make? Thankyou for understanding this.

:laugh: Facts, especially checkable facts Paul, SHOULD indeed settle arguments - But this is TIBB. :hee:

Well said.

It's down to you to counter what I've said if you disagree.

Well why let facts get in the way of a good debate(slagging match) eh?:laugh:

Do you guys have anything to actually add apart from jibes at my expense or are you just going to keep patting each others' backs?

Like I said before, if what I've said isn't factual then prove me wrong, it shouldn't be difficult if what you say is true.

Facts can be used to anyone's own agenda at times selectively.

We have on here, a few words he has said and that he has said those words many times, he says.

Well words are cheap,what has he done ad campaigned for to get this vile organisation out of existence for good.
Where are those facts?

he is backtracking a lot on things he said in the campaign, however his perceived racist rhetoric in this campaign for President is what has helped bring this filthy vile organisation back into the glare of publicity again.

They are holding a celebration, in part as to his victory,where has he said they must not use his name or attach anything to him as to their vile celebrations.
Where are the facts he intends to do that?

Leaders and politicians say many things in public that are just words,what facts are there as to what he says and thinks of this organisation in private.

Actions speak louder than words, he can say anything in public or an interview but who has the facts, real facts of what he really is thinking.
Therein lies a different story.

However, for me, going off some of his poison he chose freely to spout out in the election campaign, people have every right to be, and remain, suspicious of his real thoughts as to organisations like the KKK.

Fact's in a post fact era?... Experts?...pfffft.

#imwithmilo