How come...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I hate Trump. Still don't know what I am going to do.

You're likely going to vote for Johnson.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

Exactly.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/...migrant-group/

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...migrant-group/

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...migrant-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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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-me...sus-white-men/

[JohnR]

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.

[buckman]

[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

[RIROCKHOUND]

[QUOTE=buckman;1102164]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[buckman]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[spence]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]

Originally Posted by buckman

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...

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;1102165]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[Nebe]

Vermin supreme
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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/...migrant-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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Slipknot]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/ju...he-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/ju...#ixzz4BC6tG2hZ

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/ju...he-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/ju...#ixzz4BC6tG2hZ

You're confusing different organizations.

[wdmso]

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.