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

Huh?

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.

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

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald...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...

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.

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:

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 ?

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 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.

I'm not sure what your point was.

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.

You have a convention.

Sounds like Paul Ryan is pretty right.

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

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

Everything? So the Republican Senate Majority leader and Speaker of the House agree with me and I'm on the fringe...sweet mother.

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:

Why?

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?


Hardly.

...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.