Nobody is here posting about how much they love the Republican nominee?

Everybody's completely exhausted from pointing out the flaws in the Democratic nominee...that's pretty much a full time job

Nobody is here posting about how much they love the Republican nominee?

We don't want to be attacked by rogue Mexicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i think its because he isn't really a republican. ;)

We don't want to be attacked by rogue Mexicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And their judges.

Nobody is here posting about how much they love the Republican nominee?

It's a tie spence....no one, not even UUUUU have posted to show the love for Hillary.....:)

It's a tie spence....no one, not even UUUUU have posted to show the love for Hillary.....:)

When you are stuck in an abusive relationship all you can do is defend. Just defend.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And their judges.

Not many people genuinely admire the guy, Spence.

He could lose 49 states, it could be that bad. Unless, you know, that pesky FBI decides to recommend an indictment against a certain witch who recently wore a $12,000 jacket to a speech where she talked about, of all things, the horrors of income inequality.

It's a tie spence....no one, not even UUUUU have posted to show the love for Hillary.....:)
I don't start too many political posts. It's enough work pointing out the obvious lack of fact checking with Jim's...

If you are following the BS the GOP is doing now to Trump , there should be little doubt in your mind that the Dems and the GOP are both pulling for Hillary . The tax payers are the slaves . Wake up people .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you are following the BS the GOP is doing now to Trump , there should be little doubt in your mind that the Dems and the GOP are both pulling for Hillary . The tax payers are the slaves . Wake up people .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think Lindsey Graham said it best...

“There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

I think Lindsey Graham said it best...

“There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

Made my point . Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Made my point . Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And what pray tell do you anticipate Trump doing to change anything?

I think Lindsey Graham said it best...

“There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

You read the same article that I did. It had some other interesting points.

And what pray tell do you anticipate Trump doing to change anything?

He already has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He already has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
True, he's let millions know it's ok to be racist and a pig.

He's going to get crushed in the general and the GOP will just heal back up.

And what pray tell do you anticipate Trump doing to change anything?

I cannot fathom, given the field that the GOP started with, that we ended up with this guy. I just can't. Every time I hear Obama talk, what he says, makes me sick. Every time I hear Trump talk, even when I agree with the point he is trying to make, I cannot believe what a simpleminded, thin-skinned, egomaniacal, horse's ass he is.

That being said...if Hilary governs the way she says she will govern, there will be little to differentiate her from Weird Harold.

With Trump, I guess there is a chance that he would have better policy vision (in the opinion of anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung) than Hilary.

(1) If I was an unborn baby, I'd certainly rather see Trump in there.
(2) If I'm a jihadist, I am pretty sure that I'd rather see Hilary in there.
(3) If I own a business or I'm looking for a white-collar job, I'd rather see Trump in there.

Those are the things that matter to me personally. So while it's a distasteful choice, it's an easy choice. I will plug my nose and vote for Trump.

There is a real chance he loses 49 states, and hands the Senate to Hilary as a going away gift.

Unless she gets indicted, in which case who the hell knows what will happen. That is still unlikely, but probably not as unlikely as I thought 6 months ago. 10 percent chance.

True, he's let millions know it's ok to be racist and a pig.

He's going to get crushed in the general and the GOP will just heal back up.

"True, he's let millions know it's ok to be racist and a pig."

At the least, he's saying it's OK to be amazingly crass.

Based on the way your side is behaving everywhere he shows up, I'm not sure they are learning any better lessons. Are Trump's fans rioting at Hilary speeches? If not, why is that, exactly? Even when the GOP is being led by the biggest jerk ever to get the nomination, his fans still aren't rioting.

"He's going to get crushed in the general "

I think that's the most likely outcome. She probably has higher unfavorable than anyone either party has ever nominated. Beating her was low-hanging fruit. And my side somehow managed to find someone who manages to turn even more people off. Amazing.

True, he's let millions know it's ok to be racist and a pig.

He's going to get crushed in the general and the GOP will just heal back up.

What they need to do is pull out the report they commissed after losing 8 years ago which gave them a blue print for winning back the Presidency. Instead they have a candidate who doubled down on the things that study said they shouldn't do.

Well Hillary did break the glass ceiling ...while admitting she will need her husband help with little things like the economy 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, he's let millions know it's ok to be racist and a pig.

He's going to get crushed in the general and the GOP will just heal back up.

Yea you have your finger in the pulse of America . If he cleans up his act , even a little he will crush Bill' " wife "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Hillary did break the glass ceiling ...while admitting she will need her husband help with little things like the economy ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, if she handles the economy the way her husband did (who cut taxes and spending and kicked people off welfare, right out of the Tea Party playbook, and it WORKED), I'd vote for her. Anyone who espoused what Bill Clinton did, could never get the Democratic nomination today - unless it was Bill Clinton. That party is WAAAAY to the left of where it was, at least at the national level.

She might Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're just about done with this 8 year failed social experiment so I'm ready for anything whether it be a pompous Trump or a smart but very weak woman.

Hey, if she handles the economy the way her husband did (who cut taxes and spending and kicked people off welfare, right out of the Tea Party playbook, and it WORKED), I'd vote for her. Anyone who espoused what Bill Clinton did, could never get the Democratic nomination today - unless it was Bill Clinton. That party is WAAAAY to the left of where it was, at least at the national level.

There is no .com boom to make the Clinton's look like wizards this time around . Actually quite the opposite .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only important distinction between Trump and Clinton is what the Supreme Court will be for the next twenty or more years. Everything else is fixable. Twenty years of Progressive rulings may be an irrevocable destruction of the U.S. Constitution. All that may remain of it is the name.

As for that overused, misused, and rather meaningless word "RACISM," there's this:

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Be advised you "white conservatives," only you are the racists.

She might Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Definitely true. But the way she campaigned in the primary, would lead one to believe that she is way to the left of where Bill was. Hell, if the 1992 version of Bill Clinton were running against Trump, I would possibly vote for him (I voted for Clinton once, and think we was a decent president).

There is no .com boom to make the Clinton's look like wizards this time around . Actually quite the opposite .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's a good point. But he slashed (and I mean SLASHED) capital gains taxes, which made investing in the dot-com companies, more attractive. Maybe the next wave is green energy (or some other kind of technology) that would benefit from having someone in there who doesn't hate the idea of success.

The only important distinction between Trump and Clinton is what the Supreme Court will be for the next twenty or more years. Everything else is fixable. Twenty years of Progressive rulings may be an irrevocable destruction of the U.S. Constitution. All that may remain of it is the name.

As for that overused, misused, and rather meaningless word "RACISM," there's this:

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Be advised you "white conservatives," only you are the racists.

You won't get a response on this. Too many obvious facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only important distinction between Trump and Clinton is what the Supreme Court will be for the next twenty or more years. Everything else is fixable. Twenty years of Progressive rulings may be an irrevocable destruction of the U.S. Constitution. All that may remain of it is the name.

As for that overused, misused, and rather meaningless word "RACISM," there's this:

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Be advised you "white conservatives," only you are the racists.

Agreed on SCOTUS. And my biggest fear is that Trump single-handedly loses the Senate too. Of the 33 (or so) seats that are up for re-election this year, there are twice as many GOP seats as Democratic seats, and several GOP incumbents are in purple states, which thanks to Trump, may go blue.

Hilary was SO EASILY beatable, and we had a lot riding on the Senate elections. It was the worst possible time to nominate someone so polarizing.

The only important distinction between Trump and Clinton is what the Supreme Court will be for the next twenty or more years. Everything else is fixable. Twenty years of Progressive rulings may be an irrevocable destruction of the U.S. Constitution. All that may remain of it is the name.

As for that overused, misused, and rather meaningless word "RACISM," there's this:

http://humanevents.com/2016/06/08/stunning-new-development-media-calls-trump-racist/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Be advised you "white conservatives," only you are the racists.
I love it, defending racism with more racism.

Trump is actually the perfect candidate to go against Hillary in the general election..this is going to be wildly entertaining :uhuh:

I love it, defending racism with more racism.

I see it more as "Selective Outrage".....

I hate Trump. Still don't know what I am going to do. But I also hate how the extremely biased media has gleefully fed the pig. The left has progressed off the cliff of rational (I was a Dem, while ago, no more - radical independent).

Interesting historical note, the last time the country was this divided, parties collapsed, and major party convention daces all occured at the same time, we went to war with ourselves. And racsim.

But at least this time we'll have a POTUS that can pardon herself.

I love it, defending racism with more racism.

Why not - everyone redefines racism to fit their own model. Whether real or imagined.

I hate Trump. Still don't know what I am going to do.
You're likely going to vote for Johnson.

You're likely going to vote for Johnson.
I don't know. I may vote Trump purely for SCOTUS.

We get the government wet deserve, The Crook and The Thief, interchangeable, perhaps.

Vermin supreme
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see it more as "Selective Outrage".....

Exactly.

I love it,

Me too.

defending racism with more racism.

Not defending. Comparing. Pointing out, as TDF said, the "selective outrage." We're supposed to be all shocked and outraged by something Trump said. And he's supposed to be unqualified for dog catcher because of what he said. But it's a good and proper thing to say similar things when those on the left say them, and have been saying this stuff for 40 years.

And it isn't really racism. It's a misuse of the term in order to vilify, ostracize, and disqualify.

And not only is what Trump said not racism, but he has some legitimate reasons for saying them.

Why not - everyone redefines racism to fit their own model. Whether real or imagined.

This kerfuffle is a case in point. Mexican is as much a race as American is a race. Mexico is comprised of various races. Mexican is a term of national origin or ethnic heritage. Defining Mexican as a race in order to impose a racist badge of infamy on someone is a vile misuse of "race" and "racism."

Within an hour of Barack Obama's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, his spokesman acknowledged that she faces a 'criminal investigation'

:rotf2:

This kerfuffle is a case in point. Mexican is as much a race as American is a race. Mexico is comprised of various races. Mexican is a term of national origin or ethnic heritage. Defining Mexican as a race in order to impose a racist badge of infamy on someone is a vile misuse of "race" and "racism."

Exactly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And not only is what Trump said not racism, but he has some legitimate reasons for saying them.
Undercutting someone's ethnicity like he did is racism by any contemporary measure. Trying to deny or explain it away is just as bad. This is why the GOP has hit a wall...

Coulter's article, as usual, is full of errors anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

Undercutting someone's ethnicity like he did is racism by any contemporary measure. Trying to deny or explain it away is just as bad. This is why the GOP has hit a wall...

Coulter's article, as usual, is full of errors anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

He didn't "undercut" it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Undercutting someone's ethnicity like he did is racism by any contemporary measure. Trying to deny or explain it away is just as bad. This is why the GOP has hit a wall...

Coulter's article, as usual, is full of errors anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

What is your ethnic background ? Irish? German? Italian ? Let me know so I can formulate a Trump comeback as to why I'd never hire you. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1102118]I love it, defending racism with more racism.[/QUOTE
We live in a bizarro world , where one is accused of racism when they point out another's racism .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1102118]I love it, defending racism with more racism.[/QUOTE
We live in a bizarro world , where one is accused of racism when they point out another's racism .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And where was that particular judges racism apparant, that Trump could point out?

[QUOTE=buckman;1102164]

And where was that particular judges racism apparant, that Trump could point out?

In his rulings , according to the defendant in the case
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=buckman;1102164]

And where was that particular judges racism apparant, that Trump could point out?
The judge had to be racist because he's a Mexican and Trump is losing the case...

And it isn't really racism. It's a misuse of the term in order to vilify, ostracize, and disqualify.

And not only is what Trump said not racism, but he has some legitimate reasons for saying them.

Not remotely racist. Crass, naturally, but not remotely racist. Trump wasn't saying anything about anybody, except this one judge.

Spence, you want actual racism? Guess who said THIS about the role that gender and ethnicity play, in determining the ability of a judge to render a legal opinion....

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

THAT QUOTE, is patently racist. That person is explicitly saying that one's gender and ethnicity make a female Latina, somehow superior to a white male, in terms of their ability to render legal opinions.

Sonia Sotomayor said that. You go ahead and tell me how that's not racist. The nutjob who said that, will be on the Supreme Court for 40 years. That's just swell.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/27/judicial-confirmation-network/Sotomayor-comment-Latina-women-versus-white-men/

Jim - you are wrong. The professional academics (not STEMs for the most part) and social justice industry have determined that statements like that are completely acceptable, encouraged even, unless you are white, particularly if male, and certainly if not progressive.

So while it can successfully be argued that he has said things that can be construed as racist (doesn't mean he is or not - I think the only practical Trump "ist" is narcissist ) anything he says will be considered racist simply because the defenders of social justice have deemed who is a racist, who cannot be, and who is judge.

Sticks and stoned might break my bones, but words will never hurt me, unless I am labeled persona non grata by the SJW crowd.

We are doomed.

[QUOTE=buckman;1102164]

And where was that particular judges racism apparant, that Trump could point out?

If the judge is, in fact, a member of La Raza (a group that think Latinos are ethnically superior to everyone else on Earth), Trump has a legitimate argument.

Our esteemed Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is a proud member of La Raza. "La Raza" literally means, "the race". Not "a" race. Not "one race among money". But "the" race.

Albert Gonzalez is a Mexican American who was the US Attorney General. He wrote an article saying that while Trump used offensive language as always, that Trump might have a valid beef.

Let me ask you...what did Trump say in regards to this case, that's racist? Did he say "those wetbacks all stick together"? All I heard (and I may well be wrong on the facts as I try not to pay attention when Trump talks) is Trump bash this one guy. I didn't hear any broad statements about Mexicans, although I believe he said that somehow, the guy is not a real American. If Trump is saying that naturally born citizens of Mexican heritage are not real Americans, that would be racist.

If Sonia Sotomayor can say Latina women are ethically superior to white men (and that's EXACTLY what she said) and be qualified to be on SCOTUS, why is Trump held to a different standard?

You, and Spence, have fun answering that one.

For the record, neither one is qualified for the jobs they sought. They are both idiots. One is a confirmed, admitted racist...the other may be.

Jim - you are wrong. The professional academics (not STEMs for the most part) and social justice industry have determined that statements like that are completely acceptable, encouraged even, unless you are white, particularly if male, and certainly if not progressive.

So while it can successfully be argued that he has said things that can be construed as racist (doesn't mean he is or not - I think the only practical Trump "ist" is narcissist ) anything he says will be considered racist simply because the defenders of social justice have deemed who is a racist, who cannot be, and who is judge.

Sticks and stoned might break my bones, but words will never hurt me, unless I am labeled persona non grata by the SJW crowd.

We are doomed.

You are almost correct, but not quite. Some non-whites, like Clarence Thomas, are fair game for these racist attacks. As we all remember, during his confirmation, all those racially sensitive liberals played the dirtiest racist card there is, and suggested that Thomas (as a black man) could not be trusted around women. How progressive and tolerant.

where was the concern for the female victims of sexual predation, when Bill Clinton was using a young girls internal organs as an ashtray for his cigar?

These people have no shame. None.

"We are doomed"

Yep.

Undercutting someone's ethnicity like he did is racism by any contemporary measure.

NO. There are various "contemporary" measures. And they differ usually for convenience (such as census where race and ethnicity are sloppily mixed) or for odious political purposes. But, even by the most useful and rational "contemporary" measure, there is a strict difference between race and ethnicity.

Trying to deny or explain it away is just as bad. This is why the GOP has hit a wall...

What is bad is using race as a political tool. And the GOP is being forced to tear down the wall they built which made them a poor imitation of the Democrat party instead of the original GOP.

Coulter's article, as usual, is full of errors anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump-supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrant-group/

The Washington Post, as usual, is full of itself and its bias. Its article is full of "Latino, Hispanic, and Mexican" organizations which they claim are not "radical," whatever they mean by that, but which advance the interests of documented "Latinos, Hispanics, and Mexicans" in this country, and the entrance of undocumented ones into it. Ethnic and racial groups, societies, organizations unquestionably are biased. It is the nature of exclusive societies to be biased for their own. If one does not have such a bias, what is the point of belonging to a group rather than simply being a member of the society at large. Justice Sotomayor wasn't bashful in stating her Latina bias.

It is not unreasonable for Trump to fear a bias against him because of his position on illegal immigrants and his claim that he will build a wall between Mexico and the U.S.

And such ethnic an racial groups tend, if their bias is strong enough, to create division rather than diversity. The "contemporary" NAACP is an example. And the Democrat Party has used racial and ethnic biases to expand their power base. It has welcomed the division as a tool and encouraged as well as supported massive numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, to strengthen that divisive source of power. And left leaning media such as the Post are biased toward Progressive policy and so gloss over and make to seem perfectly innocent and harmless various organizations that divide us rather than unite us.

The Democrat "race" card BS is a tactic, and Trump is throwing the lefts various tactics back at them. The left keeps accusing him of doing what they do. He is returning the favor and acting as they do with a brash in-your-face demeanor. That's why so many people voted for Trump. They're tired of being marginalized by linguistic trickery and unwarranted name calling.

The left has distorted language so that even the word "fair" is now meaningless. Certainly, "racism" has become a powerful word to make the weak-kneed Republicans that people are tiring of cower and acquiesce to all manner of Constitution busting Democrat policies.

It was a leftist, Orwell, who exposed the deception of politically distorted words, but the left, rather than observing the evil outcome of such distortion, rather saw how to successfully apply it.

And Coulter's article was not "full" of errors. It was full of accurate instances of the left doing what it accuses Trump of.

If the judge is, in fact, a member of La Raza (a group that think Latinos are ethnically superior to everyone else on Earth), Trump has a legitimate argument.
He isn't.

Our esteemed Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor is a proud member of La Raza. "La Raza" literally means, "the race". Not "a" race. Not "one race among money". But "the" race.
She was a member at one time. It's astounding to think a successful latino would want to help others.

If Trump is saying that naturally born citizens of Mexican heritage are not real Americans, that would be racist.
That's basically what he said. Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law. The fact that he in a quite snide and conspiratorial manner charged him as being a Mexican when he's a natural born American just made things worse.

From what I've read so far the Trump U thing was a total scam. Making a racist remark to lash out at a judge to cover your own quite likely criminal activity...it just keeps going down hill.
If Sonia Sotomayor can say Latina women are ethically superior to white men (and that's EXACTLY what she said) and be qualified to be on SCOTUS, why is Trump held to a different standard?
That's not what she said. Perhaps you should read your own link.

You, and Spence, have fun answering that one.
I did.

Spence -

"He isn't (a member of La Raza)."
Well pardon me if I don't take your brainwashed word for it. It may well be that he was never a member. Again, the former US Attorney General, who also happens to be of Mexican heritage, thought Trump might have had a legitimate beef. Perhaps he knows almost as much about this, as someone who never questions anything a liberal says or does.

"From what I've read so far the Trump U thing was a total scam"

I'm sure you are reading balanced sources. I fit was a scam, he should be held accountable. How about that controversial for-profit "school" that benefitted the Clintons so much? Bill made a fortune from that school, and the CEO made donations to the Clinton foundation, and around and around we go...You probably read that school is awesome.

"That's not what she said. Perhaps you should read your own link"

You really are hopeless, aren't you. She said that by virtue of being a Latina and a woman, she would be ethnically and sexually predisposed to render superior legal opinions, than a white man.

How about one god damn time, instead of lobbing a vague insult and scurrying off with your tail between your legs, you tell me exactly the difference between what she said, and what I claimed she said.

How about one god damn time, instead of lobbing a vague insult and scurrying off with your tail between your legs, you tell me exactly the difference between what she said, and what I claimed she said.
How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

It is not unreasonable for Trump to fear a bias against him because of his position on illegal immigrants and his claim that he will build a wall between Mexico and the U.S.

I thought Mexicans loved Trump for all the jobs he's created? He should have nothing to fear. Perhaps he can point one out at his next rally just to put the issue to bed.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/judges-can-belong-to-la-raza-but-not-the-boy-scouts/


Judge Curiel is also a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is no stranger to politics, protests, and community agitation. They played a prominent role in the protests and riots in March at a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. This is the same La Raza that is strongly pro-illegal immigration. In other words, encouraging breaking the law.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/judges-can-belong-to-la-raza-but-not-the-boy-scouts/#ixzz4BC6tG2hZ

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/judges-can-belong-to-la-raza-but-not-the-boy-scouts/


Judge Curiel is also a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is no stranger to politics, protests, and community agitation. They played a prominent role in the protests and riots in March at a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. This is the same La Raza that is strongly pro-illegal immigration. In other words, encouraging breaking the law.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/judges-can-belong-to-la-raza-but-not-the-boy-scouts/#ixzz4BC6tG2hZ

You're confusing different organizations.

How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it. Here it is, an exact quote...it's not very complex or ambiguous.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the experience of being a white man, somehow leaves one less qualified to render quality legal opinions, than one who is Latina and female (all other things being equal, I suppose).

It's racist. It's sexist. And it's absurdly stupid. I know it's stupid, because I don't see white, male, Georgetown Law School graduates risking their lives to float on rafts to emigrate to Latino nations, in search of "that life", which according to this dolt, would instantly make them superior jurists.

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it.
Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Oh, I see! We should ignore what people actually say, and focus on their likely intent! And who determines the intent of what everyone says? Liberals!!

Let's re-state your handiwork on this post, in terms of gauging "intent".

"Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law"

So even though Trump never explicitly said as much, you are able to determine that his insinuation, or "intent" was racist. His statement isn't racist. But you are able to conclude that his intent is racist.

Sotomayor, on the other hand, comes right out and says that in terms of judicial ability female Latinas are superior to white males. That is textbook racism. Fortunately for her, you can see past that to her "intent", which even though you chose not to share it, was certainly something worthy of a Nobel Prize.

In other words, according to you, (1) conservatives are racist even when they are not, and (2) liberals aren't racist, even when they are.

Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music...

You still haven't read your own link have you...

You still haven't read your own link have you...

She also belonged to a group called, in Spanish, "The Race". Again, they don't call themselves "A" Race or, "One Race Of Many". No, no, they are "the" race.

Racism

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

I bounce trumps comments against the definition in Miriam Webster and it doesn't pass the smell test....he maybe a crass a-hole

Now I bounce Sotamayors comments against it and.....if it walks like a duck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Spence, in that link, the quote is what we KNOW she said. The rest of the link, was the self-serving liberal spin, from a liberal drone, telling me why she didn't mean what she said. If I used another link, written by Glenn Beck, explaining why that quote makes her unfit for night court let alone SCOTUS, would you buy into that?

We all know what she said. Try to spin it any way you want. Those words aren't open to a lot of different interpretations. I chose a liberal link, because if I chose The Blaze, you might have claimed they were making it up.

She also belonged to a group called, in Spanish, "The Race". Again, they don't call themselves "A" Race or, "One Race Of Many". No, no, they are "the" race.
Well, that's not really true either. It also means the people or the community.

"The phrase "La Raza" is actually truncated from "La Raza Cósmica," a phrase coined by politician and philosopher José Vasconcelos (also a former secretary of education and 1929 presidential candidate in Mexico) to describe the ideology that the mixture of ethnicities in the New World ushered in a new era of humanity characterized by love and inclusivity."

I do believe it was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino civil rights. But to assume the use of the word "la" indicates superiority...shows you really don't understand how to address a feminine noun.

From the link...

"The purpose of the speech, she said, was to "talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench."

Spence, if she said "I believe my experience as a Latina female gives me a good foundation upon which to judge fairly", NO ONE would have a problem with that. That's not what she said. She didn't just celebrate her own heritage. She said, with no abiguity, that her heritage (and gender) are superior to that of a white man.

If she made that same exact statement during questioning for jury duty, she would be rightly excluded. She's unfit to serve on a jury, but there she is on SCOTUS. Thanks to your hero.

Well, that's not really true either. It also means the people or the community.

"The phrase "La Raza" is actually truncated from "La Raza Cósmica," a phrase coined by politician and philosopher José Vasconcelos (also a former secretary of education and 1929 presidential candidate in Mexico) to describe the ideology that the mixture of ethnicities in the New World ushered in a new era of humanity characterized by love and inclusivity."

I do believe it was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino civil rights. But to assume the use of the word "la" indicates superiority...shows you really don't understand how to address a feminine noun.

http://www.spanishcentral.com/translate/raza

"I do believe it The Klan was adopted frequently this century to promote Latino white civil rights"

See what I did there?

How about we stop talking about things that don't matter (race and gender), and we judge people by what they actually say and do? why is that beyond the grasp of liberals? Answer - because what liberals say and do is indefensible (let's let Willie Horton use the girls room if he claims to identify as such), demonstrably false (if we tweak taxes on the 1%, we can balance our budget), and in some cases (abortion), practically Satanic.

Now I bounce Sotamayors comments against it and.....if it walks like a duck.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You should read Jim's link as well. He's having a terrible time understanding that words can have different meaning when used in different contexts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

You should read Jim's like as well. He's having a terrible time understanding that words can have different meaning when used in different contexts.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

OK, let's make this simple. I read that quote, and I conclude that she thinks that female Latinas, are superior to white men (in terms of rendering legal conclusions).

What other meaning can there possibly be, to that quote?

Again, instead of insulting me, tell me where I am wrong, please?

Read your own link Jim. Are you like afraid?

Read your own link Jim. Are you like afraid?

I read one Kool Aid drinking jerk's explanation. I don't know why he, or you, know how she meant something other than what was said. You have no alternative explanation, but Lord knows you cannot criticize her, so we'll leave it at that.

I read one Kool Aid drinking jerk's explanation.



that's it...release your inner Trump!

Spence, here is what the author said...

"it (her speech)amounted to little more than Sotomayor acknowledging that judges, like anyone, are products of where and how they grew up. "

That's pure bullsh*t. She didn't just say that she is the product of her heritage. She said that her heritage produces a superior jurist than a white man's heritage. Those are 2 very different things to say.

(1) I am white, therefore I am superior to blacks.
(2) I am white, and therefore I have a life experience that contributes to who I am.

Spence, you see no distinction between those 2 statements? They are the same to you? Because that's exactly how the author explains what she said. It's ridiculous.

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump is saying that naturally born citizens of Mexican heritage are not real Americans, that would be racist.

Why would it be racist, Jim? Is "real American" a race? Is "Mexican" a race? Would saying something that has nothing to do with race be racist?

There are white Mexicans. There are black Mexicans. There are yellow Mexicans. There are red Mexicans. And there are mixtures of these type of Mexicans. The U.S. also has white, black, yellow, and red Americans, and mixtures of those types. So if Mexican and American are races, are they the same race? It would seem so. The same can be said of all North and South American countries and Most European countries. Apparently, if the name of those countries is a race, the members of those countries must all belong to the same race. One might generalize and call it the human race

If you say something negative about someone who is of the same race as you, would that be racist?

On the other hand, if by race we mean human groups with common genetic markers which meaningfully differentiate from those genetic markers of other human groups, then the name of countries used as racial types is ridiculous. And, indeed in that case, a given American can be a racist in regard to another American.

And, as well, a given Mexican can be a racist in regard to another Mexican. And, indeed, in the social hierarchy of Mexico, there is a preference for whiteness and a racial discrimination against "the other," as per Wikipedia: "An important phenomenon described for some parts of Latin America such as Brazil and Mexico is "Whitening" or "Mestizaje" describing the policy of planned racial mixing with the purpose of minimizing the non-white part of the population." Mexicans can be quite racist, even, and especially, toward other Mexicans and Latin Americans. It is a Mexican policy not to allow "undocumented" immigrants to stay in Mexico. That was egregiously demonstrated when they wouldn't let the famous thousands of unaccompanied children from Honduras and Guatemala who crossed into Mexico stay there, but put them on trains to the U.S. border, dropping them there to enter this country. And that action was strongly supported by all those innocent Latino and Mexican organizations such as those in the Washington Post article that Spence posted. And those "non-political" organizations did not criticize Mexico for not helping the unaccompanied Latino children. Nor did they demand that Mexico should even take its "share." But they helped facilitate the immigration of those children into this country. And they condemned Americans who objected to keeping the children which in turn would necessitate bringing in the parents and families of those thousands of children who would all then be destined for citizenship. No, of course not . . . those various Mexican and Latino organizations had no ulterior racial or ethnic motivation in "helping" those children and their families, nor in helping all the other millions of their "race" (actually ethnicity) do well in this country. Even if it would be at the expense of other Americans. And, certainly, no one belonging to any of those apolitical, beneficent, non-discriminatory, organizations would have any bias against someone like Trump who says he wants to BUILD A FRIGGING WALL between Mexico and the U.S. And who has said things about some of their fellow ethnics which they have strongly condemned.

Anyway, Trump did not refer to a race. He referred to an ethnicity, and an ethnic heritage, in which a member of it might well be biased against him because of his statements regarding that ethnicity--NOT REGARDING ANY "RACE."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter

What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”

from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment. It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.

newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments

this seem to following the same old pattern

30!+ years Trump has been in the public eye .... Never once has he been accused as a racist .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LMAO!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Huh?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, appointed Curiel in 2006 to the state superior court, where he spent six years before ascending to the federal court.
Schwarzenegger affirmed his support for Curiel on Monday tweeting: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov."

Schwarzenegger is a Progressive "Republican" not a conservative one. He is a poor choice to represent the opposite side of the aisle. And even Reagan appointed judges who turned out to be less than he hoped.

As far as standing up to the Mexican cartels, Mexico is also fighting the Mexican cartels. How is fighting the Mexican cartels proof that Curiel would not have a bias against Trump for his comments and his Wall promise? Posing the Mexican cartels as a representative of Mexico or of being Mexican is an insult to Mexico and Mexicans. Oh . . . wait, only Trump has offended Mexicans. If Curiel has publicly commented on Trumps supposedly anti-Mexican rants it might clarify what his bias would be or not be. If he hasn't, then only he knows. He might well agree with Trump and support the Wall. If Trump knew that, he might be perfectly happy to have Curiel as the presiding judge. Of course, if everybody knew that to be true, then the plaintiffs against Trump would have an argument for Curiel to recuse himself. Or, if that pro-Trump bias were known, Curiel would not have been appointed to the case in the first place. But if Trump doesn't know how Curiel truly feels about him, and Trump may feel that the judge was appointed specifically because of his Latino heritage in order to make Trumps defense more difficult, then bashing Trump for stating his fears and, furthermore, calling it "racist" when it isn't is not only way overboard, but it gives the bashing a huge taint of politics.

Trump Defender Representative Duncan Hunter

What I like to do is take these arguments out to there logical extremes. So let’s say that Chris Kyle, the American sniper, is still alive and he was on trial for something, and his judge was a Muslim-American of Iraqi descent. Here you have Chris Kyle, who’s killed a whole bunch of bad guys in Iraq. Would that be a fair trial for Chris Kyle? If you had that judge there? Probably not. And Chris Kyle could probably say, “this guy’s not gonna like me.”

Sounds reasonable, if such a scenario existed.

from the author.. Moreover, Sotomayor’s point rather plainly was that ethnic minorities who enter the legal profession—intelligent people with diversity of experience—will have a wider range of understanding than their more cloistered peers, and that will aide their judgment.

If that's Sotomayor's point, she's comparing apples to oranges. I mean, come on, "intelligent" ethnic minorities "with diversity of experience" versus "more cloistered peers"? Wouldn't a relevant comparison be" intelligent" ethnic minorities with "diversity of experience" versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? Then there's "more cloistered ethnic minorities" versus "more cloistered peers." Or how about "more cloistered" ethnic minorities versus "intelligent" peers with "diversity of experience"? It's the same old pattern of progressive word play to suit situational ethics.

And having having a diversity of experience does not give you a wider range of understanding the law. The law is not dependent on the diversity of your experience. That diversity may even cloud your judgment depending on what that diversity entails. It may influence you to allow those experiences, favorable or unfavorable, to bend toward one over another. Justice is supposed to be "blind." A diversity of experience can enrich your life, but it may open your eyes in ways that abort justice.

It was not to say that white judges, by virtue of their whiteness, are incapable of standing in judgment of certain minorities impartially.

It's saying that they are less capable of doing so. Of course, if they're "more cloistered," and not "intelligent," they are probably incapable.

newrepublic.com/article/134110/annotated-guide-republicans-defenses-trumps-mexican-judge-comments

And, the New Republic is a far left publication, often Marxist in point of view. It's articles would be expected to support ethnic minorities over white capitalists.

this seem to following the same old pattern

Yup, the same old pattern of throwing out the red meat of "racism." That's my main objection. I don't know if Trump University was a scam. I think the Republican establishment wishes that it had already been legally established as one so that Trump would not be the nominee.

30!+ years Trump has been in the public eye .... Never once has he been accused as a racist .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Aside from the lawsuits and books detailing his racist remarks and actions.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

Even that's moot though, his behavior during the campaign seems to be evidence enough for the last GOP nominee, House and Senate leadership etc... etc...

Aside from the lawsuits and books detailing his racist remarks and actions.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/


Calling Mexicans (obviously not all Mexicans but referring to some of the illegal immigrants) rapists is not a reference to race. Again, Mexican is not a race. Mexico is comprised of a fairly universal spectrum of races. Donald shoots off at the mouth extemporaneously rather than from a well crafted prepared script which would be more careful and precise about to whom he is referring. Most people, if they're honest, would understand who he was talking about.

Proposing a temporary ban on Muslims is not a reference to race. Muslim is not a race.

Calling a black man "my African American," unless you're hyper sensitivity makes it so, is not a derogatory remark about blacks.

Not renting to blacks could be racist--unless you're just following daddy's orders. It also might be more economically based than on race per se.

Having the opinion, right or wrong, that a well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market is not a denigration of blacks. And it's certainly no more "racist" than saying a well-educated white has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated black.

The quote in the O'Donnell book could be racist, or it could be that "the only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes", which would exclude most other ethnicities and races including most white men from being those he wanted counting his money. It's kind of a funny statement if you're not too sensitive. Chris Rock could get away with saying it and get a laugh. And even though the "Besides that" portion of the quote is racist, he now denies saying it.

And Trump has several "important" people who say he is not a racist.

Dredging up old stuff that is not actually racist but casting it as so, smacks of desperation. And it offends millions who are tired of calling everything racism. Those who are adamantly opposed to trump, and want to believe anything negative about him, will eat up the examples in the article with private, self-satisfying glee. Those who are weary of "racism" around every corner will just be even more likely to vote for Trump.

And those who want to protect what's left of the Constitution, if they are really serious about that, and its their most important issue, will be forced to vote for Trump. Even the ones who really don't like Trump. I would, at this time, fall into that category.

Dredging up old stuff that is not actually racist but casting it as so, smacks of desperation. And it offends millions who are tired of calling everything racism. Those who are adamantly opposed to trump, and want to believe anything negative about him, will eat up the examples in the article with private, self-satisfying glee. Those who are weary of "racism" around every corner will just be even more likely to vote for Trump.

.






Trump has certainly cornered the "we're sick of your crap" vote....:humpty:

like Obama...he's much better on teleprompter than when he's running his mouth unfiltered

House Speaker Paul Ryan ripped Donald Trump's recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning :huh:

House Speaker Paul Ryan ripped Donald Trump's recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning :huh:

Yes, Paul Ryan is wrong. It may surprise you to know that he is not perfect. And that he doesn't want Trump to be the nominee. And that he appears to be as much afraid of the mainstream media as the rest of the establishment Republicans.

Mexican heritage is not a race. Mexican population is comprised of all the genetic races. And not all Mexicans have the same heritage. Mexican is not a race, but it is part of Curiel's heritage. And if Mexican were a race, and American were a race, then, if Curiel is American, not Mexican, what would be his race?

And if we insist that his Mexican heritage is his race, then Donald Trump is right--it would mean Curiel is, as Trump is reputed to have said, Mexican, not American.

Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?

BTW, another reason Trump is popular with so many is that he is not afraid of the media.

Yes, Paul Ryan is wrong. It may surprise you to know that he is not perfect. And that he doesn't want Trump to be the nominee. And that he appears to be as much afraid of the mainstream media as the rest of the establishment Republicans.

Mexican heritage is not a race. Mexican population is comprised of all the genetic races. And not all Mexicans have the same heritage. Mexican is not a race, but it is part of Curiel's heritage. And if Mexican were a race, and American were a race, then, if Curiel is American, not Mexican, what would be his race?

And if we insist that his Mexican heritage is his race, then Donald Trump is right--it would mean Curiel is, as Trump is reputed to have said, Mexican, not American.

Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?

BTW, another reason Trump is popular with so many is that he is not afraid of the media.

I only see it getting twisted and convoluted by those defending him.. "how devious that is when used to slander someones character? " so are you admitting wrong doing by Trump? or was that for those who pushed back against his comment ?

Do you see how twisted and convoluted it becomes when language becomes sloppy and words morph into incorrect meanings when it suits the speaker to use them that way? And how devious that is when used to slander someones character? And why the tactic is so prevalent in politics?
You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?

You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?

You would lean on the UN 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Richard Gonzales
RICHARD GONZALES ....
The Justice Department has settled with an Iranian-American immigration judge who alleged that her superiors had ordered her not to hear cases involving Iranian nationals.

Last year Los Angeles-based Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor sued the Justice Department, claiming that the order amounted to discrimination and violated her constitutional rights.

Tuesday, the Justice Department backed down. Judge Tabaddor's attorneys announced that the Justice Department had agreed to lift its order, review its recusal policies and pay her $200,000.

"We are pleased the DOJ came to terms on this matter," said Tabaddor's attorney, Ali Mojdehi, a partner with Cooley.

The back story: Tabaddor has been handling immigration cases since 2005. She says her battle with her superiors at Justice started three years ago when she was invited to a White House meeting with other Iranian-American community leaders. She asked for permission to attend and it was granted. But her bosses also recommended that if she attended the meeting she should recuse herself from all immigration cases involving Iranians. In her lawsuit, Tabaddor claimed that when she returned from Washington the recommended recusal turned into an order.

Fellow immigration judges rose to Tabaddor's defense. President of the National Association of Immigration Judges Dana Leigh Marks told NPR in January 2015, "We do believe that this appears to be discriminatory based on her Iranian heritage."

Typically, immigration judges are randomly assigned new cases. A party can request that a judge recuse him or herself if they suspect bias.

According to her lawsuit, no one accused Tabaddor of bias.

In their court brief, Justice Department lawyers argued that as an immigration judge, Tabaddor had a responsibility to abide by standards of ethical conduct, including "the importance of avoiding the appearance of bias or partiality." They also argued for a dismissal of the case because the judge, as an employee of the Justice Department, is a civil servant and the court has no jurisdiction over her complaint.

The case raised a few eyebrows in the legal community. Ira Kurzban, who teaches immigration law at the University of Miami, said the government's case "made no sense."

"If one takes this to the logical conclusion, then any African-American judge should never hear any case of any person from the Caribbean or Africa. Or any Jewish judge should never hear a case from Israel who's Jewish," said Kurzban.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said the department had no comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I only see it getting twisted and convoluted by those defending him..

If you can't explain it, don't say it. Your sentence, as it is, is a string of meaningless words other than you claim to see something. But we are not informed as to what you see.

"how devious that is when used to slander someones character? " so are you admitting wrong doing by Trump? or was that for those who pushed back against his comment ?

I am admitting nothing about Trump. I have already admitted that I don't like him. I didn't like him way before he ran for President. What I am doing is pointing out that the bulk of accusations against him that he is a racist really are not examples of racism. I am pointing out how deceptive use of words is a tactic. I am pointing out not only how that is vile, just as vile if not more, than whatever Trump is accused of. I am pointing out that Progressives have long been doing the kind of thing they accuse Trump of. I guess its a sort of "it takes one to know one." Or that should be more like "I see the world as I am." Or "I am the world and everybody does it . . . except when I do it it's OK. When others do it, they're not qualified."

And I was responding to you're post about what Ryan said. And that, per your sarcastic "I guess he's wrong", indeed he actually is wrong.

You have addressed none of that, yet you think you have some idea of what I am admitting.

Richard Gonzales
RICHARD GONZALES ....
The Justice Department has settled with an Iranian-American immigration judge who alleged that her superiors had ordered her not to hear cases involving Iranian nationals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not sure what your point was.

You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?

Wrong. I believe the UN is highly politicized. Up to this point, because of politics, the UN, in my opinion, has not been "equitable." As in democratic governments, it's the number of votes, not equity, that counts. Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition of it?

But it is not the word or concept "discrimination" as used regarding Trump, or anyone else for that matter, that I am cautioning against. It is, at least in this thread, the word and concept "racism." In Trumps case, the word is misapplied. And I think it is not only an unconscious ignorant application, but in many cases intentional. Why? Discrimination of a certain kind is not necessarily bad. It can be good. Or it can be favored by a majority whether it's good or bad. But the word "racism" is supercharged. It's inflammatory. We have been acculturated to react with revulsion to anyone who is a "racist."

So, a political trick, is to apply that inflammatory word in place of others with which it may have a kinship, such "race" for "ethnicity." Many, maybe most would favor not granting, "discriminating" against, citizenship to a large group of illegal aliens. But if that group is comprised of a common ethnicity, and if the word "race" is slyly substituted for ethnicity, the "discrimination" can be framed as being racist. The desired outcome is that most will then recoil at the thought of deporting the aliens, or not granting them citizenship. The same process can be applied to a temporary halt of immigration of a group who has in common the religion that is causing worldwide destruction.

In such a way, Trump is more easily demonized. And language is that much more debased.

And it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a common definition of anything if language is corrupted to vague, inaccurate, buzzwords. It is difficult, in that case, if not impossible, to even have common, equitable discussions.

Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition of it?
You have a convention.

Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.

From the leading republican in the GOP I guess he's wrong along with everyone else who took his meaning :huh:

CORRECT!!!!.....:)

Fixed it...

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it...

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The degree with which you're all bending backwards to justify racist remarks is pretty alarming.

The degree with which you're all bending backwards to justify racist remarks is pretty alarming.

The degree with which you're all bending over backwards to turn everything INTO a racist issue is even more alarming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The degree with which you're all bending over backwards to turn everything INTO a racist issue is even more alarming.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Everything? So the Republican Senate Majority leader and Speaker of the House agree with me and I'm on the fringe...sweet mother.

I am admitting nothing about Trump. I have already admitted that I don't like him. I didn't like him way before he ran for President. What I am doing is pointing out that the bulk of accusations against him that he is a racist really are not examples of racism. I am pointing out how deceptive use of words is a tactic. I am pointing out not only how that is vile, just as vile if not more, than whatever Trump is accused of. I am pointing out that Progressives have long been doing the kind of thing they accuse Trump of. I guess its a sort of "it takes one to know one." Or that should be more like "I see the world as I am." Or "I am the world and everybody does it . . . except when I do it it's OK. When others do it, they're not qualified."

And I was responding to you're post about what Ryan said. And that, per your sarcastic "I guess he's wrong", indeed he actually is wrong.

You have addressed none of that, yet you think you have some idea of what I am admitting.

What should I address? I posted comments from the leading GOP Official Paul Ryan...the only topic here is what he said about the judge.. how is Ryan wrong in his conclusion or I Beside not agreeing with your View?

So when trump uses his words to slander someones character
you dont find it devious.. But when others push back against Trump its devious Slander attacking his character ...read you loud and clear

TDF is right, these looney libs can think of any reason to turn an insensitive comment into racism. They are really trying to turn our society into Whoville. Too bad the grinch is still around,and if you don't like him, you must be a racist. If Ryan disagrees Spence, what is his future looking like? You truly have a one dimensional outlook which is why you don't see the whole picture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's popularity is about to soar :bgi:

Trump's popularity is about to soar :bgi:
Why?

What should I address? I posted comments from the leading GOP Official Paul Ryan...the only topic here is what he said about the judge.. how is Ryan wrong in his conclusion or I Beside not agreeing with your View?

I explicitly explained how Ryan was wrong. I stuck to that part of your topic. But you did not respond to my explanation. Was that because you disagreed with my view? I disagreed with your view and responded to it by stating why I though it was wrong. You did not respond to that.

So when trump uses his words to slander someones character
you dont find it devious.. But when others push back against Trump its devious Slander attacking his character ...read you loud and clear

I explicitly stated that what I thought was devious was the intentional misuse of the word "racism" in place of ethnicity or nationality. And I pointed out why that use, or any such misuse of words was not only incorrect but devious and a corruption of language which also makes it difficult to even have a discussion. You responded to none of that.

As far as your Trump "uses his words to slander someone's character" goes, I don't recall him trying to deviously misuse words. When he called something or someone stupid, or lying, or crooked, or whatever name-calling he resorted to, he used the correct diction to convey what those words actually mean in order to cast exactly what those words mean onto someone's character. He wasn't being sly, tricky, or devious. He wasn't corrupting language. Whether it was slander or not, is up to you to decide. I said a few times now that I don't like him . . . or, I should say, I don't like the persona he creates. If I were to meet and associate with him, I might feel otherwise. He is reputed to be quite different than the image he creates. Many of those who personally know him say he is actually polite, kind, generous, and respectful.

As far as your "when others push back against Trump," a great deal of his comments are push backs. So, I take it that those comments are OK with you because he was pushing back against others?

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Anyway, how can a political organization which does not display an understanding of "equitable" agree on a common definition?


You have a convention.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: A convention of folks who hate each other and would gladly see others wiped off the face of the earth agreeing on an equitable definition? Really?


Quote:

Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

TDF fixed the UN definition quite well. And quite correctly.

You don't see the built-in contradictions with that definition? To begin with, it separates race from "colour, descent, or national, or ethnic origin." The structure of that definition separates thus makes different all those disparate categories. If they all had a common characteristic which could be grouped under an all inclusive word which is not one of the listed but separate and different categories, that might make sense. But to use the adjectival form of one of the categories "racial," makes one wonder what happened to all the other words. Is "ethnic" not really ethnic but really "racial"? Same for "colour, descent, national." What is race? Is race "racial" as well? What does race have in common with the other categories that makes it "racial"? Does the UN define "race"? Does it define "colour," "descent," "national," "ethnic"? If all those words can be defined as "race," then lets get rid of the clutter and replace them all with "race."

It seems, also, that the umbrella of categories is big enough to include everyone and every category of harmful discrimination in the public arena. Is there a person you know that doesn't fit into one or more of the "racial" categories defined in the UN definition of racial discrimination? No matter what a discriminator may say that her reason for discrimination is, since everybody fits into the UN definition of what racial is, and discrimination is defined as that "which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life", it can be construed that ultimately, all discrimination is racial.

How about, instead of trying to make words mean what they don't, the UN decrees that nobody shall be denied any of those things that it says racial discrimination would deny them.

Why is it necessary to basically make all discrimination "racial"? Why must all harmful discrimination in public life be labeled "racial" discrimination? Because the UN is illiterate? Because it is stupid? Because it is sly as a fox and uses the most inflammatory, fear laden, word to cow the world into submission? Because it is made up largely of little, comparatively backward nations who want unrestricted access to the big guys stuff?

I have suspicions, but don't really know. Except that the UN is not really united. It is composed of opposing, often warring, factions who infest it with their prejudices and contradictory desires. Any definition of a word it concocts is bound to be opaque enough to satisfy its bigoted, discriminatory, members.

United Nations has a nice ring to it. It seems like a good idea. But I prefer national sovereignty to a one world government. Star Trek was a fun series. It took human foibles into outer space. And united us against what was supposed to be "the other," but was really humanity wearing a different mask. And it assumed a unity back on earth. Well, we still don't have that unity here. And we don't have a Captain Kirk to put it all together for us. The mask is off here and the wars involve humans, are bloody, continuous, and not relegated to the dust bin of history by the UN. I prefer the US. And I cringe at the thought of being under the command of the UN or any other World Government.

Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.

Hardly.

You would think a global organization like the UN should form a convention to agree on a common definition for an equitable discussion around discrimination...right?

...this is actually brilliant...really...we could have a corrupt global organization like the UN dictate speech codes for the world and then they could send their "Peace Keepers"(who apparently do more raping than peace keeping these days)..all around the world to enforce their speech codes :kewl:

...this is actually brilliant...really...we could have a corrupt global organization like the UN dictate speech codes for the world and then they could send their "Peace Keepers"(who apparently do more raping than peace keeping these days)..all around the world to enforce their speech codes :kewl:

That's funny! And so right. And you didn't, other than some justifiable sarcasm, have to resort to the use of deceptive word morphs. And it does seem, that according to its own definition, the UN commits a lot of racial discrimination.