lol at Trump suggesting Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger and Dana White give speeches on his behalf on at the RNC. Roethlisberger has already declined. And I'm sure Brady will too. But just the thought is hilarious.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
Nope
Do you need an old fashioned lynching as evidence?'
Either way, it's a distraction from the main point. We all know Trump is a racist or... intentionally uses racial language. However, Trump U. is a wonderful example of how he is a con artist. Part of me thinks this is media manipulation from the true story. If those video depos are released, I'm guessing that's gonna hurt.
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
Nope
Do you need an old fashioned lynching as evidence?'
Either way, it's a distraction from the main point. We all know Trump is a racist or... intentionally uses racial language. However, Trump U. is a wonderful example of how he is a con artist. Part of me thinks this is media manipulation from the true story. If those video depos are released, I'm guessing that's gonna hurt.
Ha...and there it is! "An old fashion lynching"! That is the exact idiocy I'm talking about. It really is so silly and demeans the whole history of people who were subjugated to actual racism in your country.
Now as far as Trump University is concerned you could be absolutely right. I have no idea which way that case will go but if you think it is disqualifying to Trump I wonder what your thoughts would be with repsect to Clinton University...
It looks like Hillary was giving grants to Laureate University, Bill was taking kickbacks, and all the while it was the students who were getting screwed!
That is very damning; one must wonder why the Trump campaign isn't all over it.... I guess because bringing it up will just further highlight Trump's own ponzi scheme, eh? I wouod like to know if Hillary was even aware of the lack of investment in academic in this case. That they worked so hard to get Bill in there earning $16 million in 5 years is not surprising in the least. So BS.... how does this story make Hillary worse than Trump? Just curious to know what makes Trump more worthy of your admiration or whatever the fuck it is you're feeling about him. Better than Clinton for you, I'm gathering.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
That is very damning; one must wonder why the Trump campaign isn't all over it.... I guess because bringing it up will just further highlight Trump's own ponzi scheme, eh?
You could be right. The actions of the Trump campaign (if there even is one) never makes sense to me. That being said there could be a little rope-a-dope going on.
That is very damning; one must wonder why the Trump campaign isn't all over it.... I guess because bringing it up will just further highlight Trump's own ponzi scheme, eh?
You could be right. The actions of the Trump campaign (if there even is one) never makes sense to me. That being said there could be a little rope-a-dope going on.
I added a question to my post... why choose Trump over Clinton, as you have appeared to do?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
Nope
Do you need an old fashioned lynching as evidence?'
Either way, it's a distraction from the main point. We all know Trump is a racist or... intentionally uses racial language. However, Trump U. is a wonderful example of how he is a con artist. Part of me thinks this is media manipulation from the true story. If those video depos are released, I'm guessing that's gonna hurt.
Ha...and there it is! "An old fashion lynching"! That is the exact idiocy I'm talking about. It really is so silly and demeans the whole history of people who were subjugated to actual racism in your country.
Now as far as Trump University is concerned you could be absolutely right. I have no idea which way that case will go but if you think it is disqualifying to Trump I wonder what your thoughts would be with repsect to Clinton University...
It looks like Hillary was giving grants to Laureate University, Bill was taking kickbacks, and all the while it was the students who were getting screwed!
Let's see you defend Crooked Hillary now!
Really? Walden University? You mean the fully accredited institution that was started in 1970? Or do you mean Laureate, which was started by the guy that started Sylvan Learning Center which is highly respected in the States. Laureate is exporting US style liberal education around the world. Are you against that? This is completely inline with what the Clinton Foundation does.
So let's point out the differences:
1. Only one of these is part of a class action law suit in the US 2. Only one has the name of the presumptive nominee on the door 3. Only one has the presumptive nominee on film in the deposition 3. Only one had a 'playbook' that specifically described how to separate consumers from their money, by encouraging them to run up their credit cards "We don't take excuses and neither does Mr. Clinton Trump."
Edit - and I love this statement by the Examiner And like other Clinton scandals, it appears Laureate Education was above the law, skirting "gainful employment" regulations by having a large number of schools outside the U.S. with students that did not receive federal aid
The whole fucking point of the program is to export US education around the world. However, the Examiner decided their business model was enacted to skirt gainful employment regs. Are they also pissed that the students in Spain did not receive federal student aid?
If Obama made racist comments about Iranians, and was being sued, and then tried to have an Iranian judge removed from the case in which he was being sued because he was worried that she wou)don't be impartial due to his racist comments, then I would definitely have a problem with this.
I know little about the case, but I am still under the impression that the Iranian judge actually did some things to show that she wasn't being impartial. If that is the case, there is no story. Either way, it's not comparable to what Trump is attempting.
Nope. Tis the same. Obama administration is claiming an Iranian judge can't make impartial decisions due to her heritage.
And not because Obama is racist towards Iranians and is trying to get her off of a case against him. 'Tis not the same at all.
Please provide some evidence that the justice department doesn't have any reason,based on her behaviour, to dismiss this judge from immigration cases. You haven't shown that the judge never gave them any reason. I am not denying it. I just want to know why you are saying that she never gave them any reason.
On the contrary...where is your evidence that this judge had done anything wrong? It could be true but I have not seen that reported anywhere. This should be a claim that you have to prove before tarnishing the reputation of this judge.
If Curiel is biased, why hasn't his counsel filed for recusal? There's a very simple answer: Lack of merit and attorney sanctions. Therefore Trump is trying to litigate the matter a personal matter as part of the campaign. What a fool.
I completely agree with you on this. Where I part ways is on the charges of racism.
So Paul Ryan thinks trumps statements were the textbook definition of racism, but thats not good enough for you?
Nope
Do you need an old fashioned lynching as evidence?'
Either way, it's a distraction from the main point. We all know Trump is a racist or... intentionally uses racial language. However, Trump U. is a wonderful example of how he is a con artist. Part of me thinks this is media manipulation from the true story. If those video depos are released, I'm guessing that's gonna hurt.
Ha...and there it is! "An old fashion lynching"! That is the exact idiocy I'm talking about. It really is so silly and demeans the whole history of people who were subjugated to actual racism in your country.
Now as far as Trump University is concerned you could be absolutely right. I have no idea which way that case will go but if you think it is disqualifying to Trump I wonder what your thoughts would be with repsect to Clinton University...
It looks like Hillary was giving grants to Laureate University, Bill was taking kickbacks, and all the while it was the students who were getting screwed!
Let's see you defend Crooked Hillary now!
And this statement makes no sense. I'm just asking what YOU need to see in order to call something racism, since Trump's statements obviously don't meet your standard of excellence.
That is very damning; one must wonder why the Trump campaign isn't all over it.... I guess because bringing it up will just further highlight Trump's own ponzi scheme, eh?
You could be right. The actions of the Trump campaign (if there even is one) never makes sense to me. That being said there could be a little rope-a-dope going on.
I added a question to my post... why choose Trump over Clinton, as you have appeared to do?
I've stated before that I'm not a Trump supporter. That probably gets lost in the weeds with my dislike for the Clintons and my arguments against labeling Trump as a racist. Truthfully I do not like either but I haven't actually decided yet who would be worse.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
Haha...mister I don't care what a known chicken hawk has to say. Clearly you care. Once Gambs posts an actual question I will be happy to answer. Then you can reply with your intelligent ad hominem.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
Haha...mister I don't care what a known chicken hawk has to say. Clearly you care. Once Gambs posts an actual question I will be happy to answer. Then you can reply with your intelligent ad hominem.
I asked a question that is obviously articulate enough for someone of your intelligence to answer. You are known to me as intelligent and honest, and I have backed you on that before, so please don't make me into a liar.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
Haha...mister I don't care what a known chicken hawk has to say. Clearly you care. Once Gambs posts an actual question I will be happy to answer. Then you can reply with your intelligent ad hominem.
I asked a question that is obviously articulate enough for someone of your intelligence to answer. You are known to me as intelligent and honest, and I have backed you on that before, so please don't make me into a liar.
I for real do not understand your question as you have just phrased it. Would you care to try again?
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
So BS, what about race and discussions of race gets shut down? What do you want to talk about, but can't? What's the difference when someone says something racist vs. just "aggressively confronting" an issue?
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Lets have your definition of racism then. Curious to know.
It's not about my definition...it's about the definition:
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
So, if one has to assume that some individuals in a particular race are good people, doesn't that mean that one is assuming the majority are not? Sounds like a belief in superiority to me... and everyone but you lol
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
I probably haven't answered it because you keep asking it in a way that is beyond understandable.
Haha...mister I don't care what a known chicken hawk has to say. Clearly you care. Once Gambs posts an actual question I will be happy to answer. Then you can reply with your intelligent ad hominem.
I asked a question that is obviously articulate enough for someone of your intelligence to answer. You are known to me as intelligent and honest, and I have backed you on that before, so please don't make me into a liar.
I for real do not understand your question as you have just phrased it. Would you care to try again?
I don't see how it is incomprehensible to you, can someone help me out here? The question makes perfect sense to me.
Maybe if I change it to a statement with which you can agree or disagree.
I assume that some politicians must be honest. Implicit in that statement is the fact that I assume that most politicians are not honest, otherwise there is no need for the words "some" and "must". Agree? Disagree?
In addition, my assumption that some politicians must be honest means that I have never met an honest politician, or that I have never met a politician at all, but that isn't relevant to Trump, who has surely met Mexican immigrants. Agree? Disagree?
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
So BS, what about race and discussions of race gets shut down? What do you want to talk about, but can't? What's the difference when someone says something racist vs. just "aggressively confronting" an issue?
Well in politics/academia any discussion of illegal immigration always leads to accusations of racism. It is pretty much inevitable. What Trump is doing is aggressively confronting the sacred cows surrounding the issue. Mentioning crimes that are actually occurring is tough to hear but that in it of itself is not racism.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
So BS, what about race and discussions of race gets shut down? What do you want to talk about, but can't? What's the difference when someone says something racist vs. just "aggressively confronting" an issue?
Well in politics/academia any discussion of illegal immigration always leads to accusations of racism. It is pretty much inevitable. What Trump is doing is aggressively confronting the sacred cows surrounding the issue. Mentioning crimes that are actually occurring is tough to hear but that in it of itself is not racism.
This all may be true, but not what we were discussing. Weren't you saying that his attacks on Curiel were not racist? Curiel is a native American citizen and a Federal judge. Further, his original state appointment was by a Republican Governor. However, Trump said he can't get a fair hearing because Curiel is Mexican (he isn't). Even though the case before Curiel has ZERO to do with immigration, Mexico, walls or anything of the like. Telling someone they cannot do their job because of their lineage is pretty much an excellent example of racism.
Our illegal immigration problem involves many people of many races, not just a single ethnicity. The problem is our policy. So why doesn't that politician just talk about the issue instead of making nasty comments about a single race and wanting to build a wall to separate us from one of our allies? I'm disturbed by how that politician categorizes people by race instead of just seeing human beings as human beings. Example, Senator Warren and her ethnicity. Why bring that up at all? It's how he sees people...how he defines them. Racist? If it quacks like a duck....
I've said it before...when there's a hostile alien invasion, we'll all be in it together...humans vs ? Maybe they'll be peaceful aliens. Have a beautiful Sunday. all.
I guess I am just also intrigued by your lack of concern or even acknowledgement that Trump incites racism and is using it in his campaign. Your denial of something that seems so self-evident I suppose comes off as support, since that level denial usually accompanies blind support for something. So apologies for the misconception.
No worries. I just happen to disagree on "the incites racism" bit. He is aggressively confronting sacred cows (illegal immigration, radical Islam, etc..) which discomforts the progressive and the establishment class. I have been called a racist on these boards for discussing the same. It is simply a label that I find unacceptable and is used by others to try and shut down speech. There is plenty to attack Trump on, lots of which I would agree with, but the political correctness angle will lose me every time.
Bull Shit. Trumps campaign strategy is to pander to dumb racists.
Our illegal immigration problem involves many people of many races, not just a single ethnicity. The problem is our policy. So why doesn't that politician just talk about the issue instead of making nasty comments about a single race and wanting to build a wall to separate us from one of our allies? I'm disturbed by how that politician categorizes people by race instead of just seeing human beings as human beings. Example, Senator Warren and her ethnicity. Why bring that up at all? It's how he sees people...how he defines them. Racist? If it quacks like a duck....
I've said it before...when there's a hostile alien invasion, we'll all be in it together...humans vs ? Maybe they'll be peaceful aliens. Have a beautiful Sunday. all.
Ditto , you too enjoy the day we never know when it will be our last on this planet !!
Comments
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Either way, it's a distraction from the main point. We all know Trump is a racist or... intentionally uses racial language. However, Trump U. is a wonderful example of how he is a con artist. Part of me thinks this is media manipulation from the true story. If those video depos are released, I'm guessing that's gonna hurt.
Now as far as Trump University is concerned you could be absolutely right. I have no idea which way that case will go but if you think it is disqualifying to Trump I wonder what your thoughts would be with repsect to Clinton University...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/youve-heard-of-trump-university-but-what-about-clinton-university/article/2593571
It looks like Hillary was giving grants to Laureate University, Bill was taking kickbacks, and all the while it was the students who were getting screwed!
Let's see you defend Crooked Hillary now!
I wouod like to know if Hillary was even aware of the lack of investment in academic in this case. That they worked so hard to get Bill in there earning $16 million in 5 years is not surprising in the least. So BS.... how does this story make Hillary worse than Trump? Just curious to know what makes Trump more worthy of your admiration or whatever the fuck it is you're feeling about him. Better than Clinton for you, I'm gathering.
So let's point out the differences:
1. Only one of these is part of a class action law suit in the US
2. Only one has the name of the presumptive nominee on the door
3. Only one has the presumptive nominee on film in the deposition
3. Only one had a 'playbook' that specifically described how to separate consumers from their money, by encouraging them to run up their credit cards "We don't take excuses and neither does Mr.
ClintonTrump."Edit - and I love this statement by the Examiner And like other Clinton scandals, it appears Laureate Education was above the law, skirting "gainful employment" regulations by having a large number of schools outside the U.S. with students that did not receive federal aid
The whole fucking point of the program is to export US education around the world. However, the Examiner decided their business model was enacted to skirt gainful employment regs. Are they also pissed that the students in Spain did not receive federal student aid?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism
As you can see the concept of superiority/inferiority has a lot to do with it...no matter what Paul Ryan says.
I have posed this question to you a number of times and I can't recall you actually addressing it without deflection.
http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/
Maybe if I change it to a statement with which you can agree or disagree.
I assume that some politicians must be honest. Implicit in that statement is the fact that I assume that most politicians are not honest, otherwise there is no need for the words "some" and "must".
Agree? Disagree?
In addition, my assumption that some politicians must be honest means that I have never met an honest politician, or that I have never met a politician at all, but that isn't relevant to Trump, who has surely met Mexican immigrants.
Agree? Disagree?
Our illegal immigration problem involves many people of many races, not just a single ethnicity. The problem is our policy. So why doesn't that politician just talk about the issue instead of making nasty comments about a single race and wanting to build a wall to separate us from one of our allies? I'm disturbed by how that politician categorizes people by race instead of just seeing human beings as human beings. Example, Senator Warren and her ethnicity. Why bring that up at all? It's how he sees people...how he defines them. Racist? If it quacks like a duck....
I've said it before...when there's a hostile alien invasion, we'll all be in it together...humans vs ?