It's September 06, 2025, 01:02:58 AM
Look I don’t like Trump but what I really hate is the woke mob. Whatever happened to difference of opinion, freedom of speech and political choices. You can’t try to simply cancel everybody you disagree with.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that performing at an pre-inaugural event is worse than murder, abuse, or neglect. Those are obviously far more severe. The issue is that performing for a politician—especially one with a well-documented history of racist actions—raises serious ethical questions about endorsing or lending credibility to that politician’s platform. For instance, Donald Trump has faced racism allegations going back to the 1970s, including but in no way limited to: 1. 1973 Fair Housing lawsuit: Trump Management was sued by the DOJ for refusing to rent to Black tenants. Trump Management admitted to violating hr Fair Housing Act in court. 2. The 1989 Central Park Five ads: He took out full-page ads calling for the death penalty for five Black and Latino teenagers who were later exonerated. He continued to advocate. 3. Casino discrimination: Multiple testimonies and complaints about Black employees being removed from high-roller tables, plus an upheld discrimination penalty in 1992. 4. Offensive comments about Native Americans: Suggesting certain tribes weren’t “real Indians” due to their skin tone and lineage. No one is saying these issues equal murder or child abuse, but they do indicate a pattern of racist remarks and policies over decades. If an entertainer prides themselves on supporting social justice or equality, performing for a figure with this track record can undercut those principles. That’s where the moral concern lies—not comparing it to violent crime, but asking whether the performer’s actions align with what they claim to stand for... which is the entire point of the thread's topic. So yes, we can condemn murder, abuse, and also question the ethics of supporting or legitimizing someone who has a longstanding history of racist behavior. They’re different issues with different degrees of severity. Pointing out the contradiction is not the same as saying it’s a bigger deal than murder—it’s just asking for consistency between claimed values and public actions.
1. This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself2. This was an isolated case of murder and had nothing to do with skin color or the discrimination against an entire race.3. Again, this was in casinos Trump owned, but management of each individual casino made those decisions, not Trump himself4. "offensive comments", come on. Again, not racismI think it's pretty telling that you accuse him of being a racist, yet your only 'proof' are things that happened close to 50 years ago and were again, on properties he owned. If you owned a house and rented it to a tenant and the tenant burned a cross in the front yard, are you a racist because you owned the property??? Trump has done more for the black community in his prior administration than Biden or any of the Democrats ever did. There are more wealthy democrats out there than republicans. You have the wool pulled over your eyes. Our race needs to wake up, and they have started to. More blacks voted republican in this election than ever before. But this really has nothing to do with Trump, but more about how you think you should be able to control which celebrities do work for which organizations and which representatives, pretty much the opposite of freedom, which is what you are all about.
he’s trolling you, you idiot and me having the back of the forum members here by calling out your pretentious behavior has nothing to do with me your dumbass is too stupid to see the difference between a real poster and a troll playing a character.. and then u have the nerve to question the collective intelligence of the entire forum. classic.
You need a hood translator homes? I'm talking to YOU puto lol. Look at the dumb snow bunny right here lol thinking he's all smart and important.You think you a big deal online huh lol. I can smell the bitch in you homes - you the type of whiteboy with the big mouth talking all kinds of shit online acting black but you ain't hood homie. You'd be someone's house mouse washing their dirty drawz hahaha. Stay your puppy ass on the keyboard and keep barking snow bunny lol. F-Gang homie, we outside. I got your character right here in HP. Get sum
I. “This was people managing Trump properties, not Trump himself.”In many of these lawsuits, including the 1973 Fair Housing case, Trump and his father Fred (a Nazi sympathizer who attended Klan rallies) were named personally—not just “Trump properties.” Testimony showed staff were directed to code Black applicants’ rental applications with a “C” for “colored.” If it were entirely rogue employees, we wouldn’t see the DOJ specifically naming Donald Trump in the suit, and we wouldn’t have had a settlement explicitly mentioning his compliance failure with the Fair Housing Act. II. “An isolated case of murder… not about skin color.”I believe you’re referring to Snoop Dogg’s case in the 1990s, which is a different conversation entirely. My examples of racism were about Trump—not about a murder case. The discrimination claims (e.g., Black employees being removed from casino floors, racially coded rental policies, the Central Park Five ads) point to racial bias, not a singular incident of violence. III. “It was the casino’s management, not Trump himself.”Similar to the rental discrimination case, ownership and executive leadership matter. Trump was known to actively oversee and publicize his casino ventures. At least one lawsuit leading to a $200,000 penalty concerned a high-roller who didn’t want a Black dealer. If top leadership (i.e., Trump or his immediate management) didn’t condone it, you’d expect them to step in. Plus, the fact that the penalty stuck suggests it wasn’t just a lower-level employee acting entirely on their own initiative. IV. “Offensive comments aren’t racism.”Repeated patterns of targeting certain ethnicities—e.g., calling for the death penalty for the Black and Latino Central Park Five (later exonerated), questioning Native Americans’ heritage because they don’t “look” the part, claiming a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t be impartial—form more than just casual “offensive” remarks. They reveal a consistent tendency to demean people based on race or ethnicity. V. “It’s all from 50 years ago.”Actually, these incidents span decades—from the 1970s Fair Housing lawsuit, to the 1989 Central Park Five ads, to 1990s casino discrimination, up to more recent statements about immigrants or entire nations. Some occurred 40–50 years ago—others are more recent. The pattern didn’t cease in the early ’70s. In fact, if you'd like a more recent example, Trump just issued a sweeping executive order revoking decades of diversity and affirmative action practices in federal government, abolishing decades of government standards on diversity and equal opportunity, and seeking to crack down on the same in the private sector. Trump's order revokes one that President Johnson signed on September 24, 1965 that was a direct result of nearly 80 years of civil rights work. LBJ's order gave the Secretary of Labor the authority to ensure equal opportunity for people of color and women in federal contractors' recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices. It required federal contractors to refrain from employment discrimination and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity "based on race, color, religion, and national origin." The order came more than a year after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and just months after he signed the Voting Rights Act following violent attacks on voting rights advocates in Selma, Ala. Close Trump allies want to dramatically change the government's interpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on "anti-white racism" - an oxymoron in itself - rather than discrimination against people of color. VI. “If you owned a property and a tenant did X, would you be responsible?”If a tenant commits a hate crime in your yard, that’s not on you unless you encouraged it or had policies enabling it. The difference here is that Trump’s companies were sued because there was substantial evidence managers were directly told or allowed to discriminate. That’s different from an uninvolved landlord scenario. VII. “Trump did more for the Black community than Democrats.”People can debate which administration’s policies helped or hurt certain communities. But it doesn’t negate the documented record of racially charged statements and discriminatory practices. Some individuals might argue that passing certain legislation or funding certain programs doesn’t erase a pattern of racist incidents, just as any positive contribution by someone doesn’t automatically absolve them of other problematic behavior. VIII. “It’s about controlling which celebrities do work for which organizations.”The conversation isn’t about disallowing free association; it’s about holding entertainers accountable when they publicly partner with someone who has a track record of racist remarks or actions—especially if those entertainers claim to stand against such discrimination. People can choose who they perform for, and the public can voice disapproval if that choice seems at odds with their stated moral stance. That’s not suppressing free speech; it’s part of open discourse. Reasonable people can disagree on the weight of the evidence, but it’s not accurate to say these are all “someone else’s actions.” Many suits and controversies directly named or involved Trump, and the comments in question are on record from Trump’s own words. However, taken in totality, the pattern of evidence is overwhelming and its cumulative weight therein is significant. As for celebrities or performers, we generally accept that they have the freedom to support whoever they want—but that also means fans and the public have the freedom to react, criticize, or even boycott if they find a performer’s alliances morally inconsistent. That’s the nature of a free society: everyone makes choices, and everyone else is free to respond.
This is way too much to debate all at once, but i'm simply going to start with #1. Of course Trump would be included in the lawsuit, thats how it works. You sue where the money is. Suing an entity is usually fruitless. When Eminem says something on a record that gets him into legal trouble, they usually sue him, Interscope, Iovine, etc. You go where there is the most money. You think Trump himself in the 1970s was reviewing every application to see if there was a C marked or not and HE was making the decision across all of his properties with thousands of tenants? Come on now, you're smarter than that. I do agree with Sccit though, i kinda stopped reading as well with the whole KKK thing. It's obvious you're just regurgitating what the media has fed you over these years and aren't doing your own independent research or using any sort of logic.
It seems contradictory that on one hand you say I'm just “regurgitating” media stories and don’t do “independent research,” but on the other hand you ask me for citations or documentation on a topic in a another thread. If you truly believe my info is unreliable, why would you look to me as a source of references in the first place?This inconsistency raises a question: Do you really want my cited evidence, or are you trying to undermine it no matter what I provide? If you have reasons to doubt the quality of my research or the studies I’ve presented, that’s valid—just share the specific criticisms. Otherwise, asking for sources and then dismissing them out of hand as “media-fed” doesn’t contribute to genuine discussion or fact-finding.Speaking of which, I don't think you read or processed the fact-check thoroughly—especially if you’re wielding it as a definitive refutation while ignoring its caveats and disclaimers. It’s also common in heated discussions for people to seize on a headline that appears to bolster their point without delving into the underlying nuances. That said, without direct confirmation, I can’t know for certain if you truly misread the article or simply interpret it differently. Still, your behavior (like not fully reading my post and citing a fact-check that doesn’t actually exonerate Fred Trump) indicates selective reading or surface-level engagement rather than a deep, fair-minded analysis.1. On “Suing Where the Money Is”It’s true that in many lawsuits, attorneys name the highest-level individuals (or those with the deepest pockets). But in the 1973 Fair Housing case, the Department of Justice explicitly named Donald and Fred Trump because of evidence the DOJ said tied them personally to discrimination. This wasn’t just a random lawsuit tactic; the court filings referenced them in relation to property management practices, not just the corporate entity. Given how hands-on Donald Trump was known to be with his properties—even in the ’70s, marketing them with his name - it's quite unlikely that he’d be oblivious to widespread racial coding. Could it have been all “rogue employees”? Possibly. But the federal investigation concluded otherwise, which is why the Trumps ultimately signed a settlement agreeing they had “failed and neglected” to comply with the Fair Housing Act.2. On Fred Trump and the 1927 KKK RallyThe article shared (the USA Today fact-check) doesn’t disprove that Fred Trump supported the Klan; it only says we don’t have conclusive evidence he was actively a member or sympathizer. The fact that you don't find it suspicious for a white male to be “caught up” in a KKK event in 1927—especially at a time when such rallies were deliberate and far from subtle, is... interesting. Fred Trump was detained, and no official record explains exactly why. Essentially, the fact-check shows that his being there is documented, but it stops short of confirming any specific motive or allegiance. Although, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.
Home
Help
Login
Register
Print
