How come...

[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!!!!.....