How come...

[detbuch]

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/st...tm_campaign=nl

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/st...tm_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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/st...tm_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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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/st...tm_campaign=nl

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

I love it, defending racism with more racism.

[scottw]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, defending racism with more racism.

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

[JohnR]

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.

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, defending racism with more racism.

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

[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.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[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."

[scottw]

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.