Ok I see your point about quote out of context, but:
also if I were to take only the tweets (which btw are fully reprinted on bbc usually) you would still say I took the single tweets out of the context (which is the only way of highlighting one ;-)).
I'm going to quickly re-step here to be sure we're on the same page:
I'm fairly certain I asked for direct proof of racism and you claimed his Charlottsville comments/tweets are proof of racism. You were unable to actually verify your claim, and actually self-identified a major telltale of illusory truth. The only evidence Re: Charlottsville shows nothing at all what you claim, but DOES reflect 3rd party libel and hearsay.
It's unfair of you to presume that IF you can provide what I indicated I'd say something like that. I set those goalposts, I have not moved them once in this exchange. I HAVE pointed out that you are not meeting those goalposts, and I'm glad that you finally seem to understand WHY you were not. When you say there is "proof" you should probably actually have "proof." The lack thereof and the latest deflection attempt directly reinforces what I've said regarding cognitive dissonance and Illusory truth effect being in play on your position. I sincerely hope you will think deeply on those and how they are causing you to make false claims and develop a negative view based on falsehood.
Congo: it is fun you fall exactly into the trap I did not say here, but did when I posted this article on facebook. I said someting like "of course, there is a lot people who say the additional money is just/mainly going to corruption. Thing is that is probably right, but local people can do something about that, while against money disappearing in a foreign company they can't do much". So thanks to this, the blaming if nothing changes moves more and more to locals.
Come'on Gahd, in the discussion we are having there is a logical chain which led here. Yeah, of course, out of context like you like to point out , it has nothing to do.
See, this is how our system is sick...I know if somehow a law is passed worldwide that minimum wage has to increase and maximum work hours reduced with the end product at same price it only implies a lot of people lose their job...Another fun example of this: I had a friend you doing civil service (instead of army in Switzerland, one of the 2 is compulsory) he went to Madagascar to teach physics, when he got there the school director told him that he can have a private cook, he said wtf this is colonialist bullshit, then director said that she has 4 kids and no income otherwise, so my friend had a private cook for a year...
Anyway that is why I am advocating for fair trade along the whole chain, implying that we have to pay more....
On the other hand:
You know slavery, also tends to make people not die (as long as they a re fit to work at least). This is where your argument breaks down and where it shows how sick the system is. Because such that we can live in our excess and afford it (eg. always last iphone), many are forced to work in conditions close to slavery (forced because as you say otherwise they die). This is what I say is wrong. This is why I say we should pay more for our excess such that it goes down the whole chain of production.
So no, sorry, it is not a partial thought and neither irrational conclusion.
Wrt to your sportscar example:
1) I prefer the decadent rich people to the non-decadent because they put money back in circulation.
2) Of course, it helped feed people along the whole production chain, what I am saying is not enough gets to the ones at the bottom (see previous paragraph).
Re Congo: Without foreign investor would the mining operation and it's revenue exist at all, yes/no? This directly relates to the infrastructure/excess chain I talked about earlier. I challenge you to consider foreign investment in your native country and trade related to that, as well as your own country's foreign investment practices. Since the topic of thread is an examination of Trump; it might even be good to use one of his companies as an example. Eg hotel chains and/or resorts, rather than a completely unrelated one (AFAICT).
This is once again deflection from the root of the "logical chain which led here." AFAICT it's another move/expand of goalposts to avoid reconciling simple facts about Immigration(and finance, and infrastructure) in the western world(in relation to Trump and his presidency). It appears to be an ideologue form of reasoning rather than a rational and/or fruitful one. Can you see why I'm viewing it as such?