How come...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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....

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

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

...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

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.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

CORRECT!!!!.....