....this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e

On 6/8/2016 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e


Is Trump a racist?

Well, I guess if you subscribe to contemporary notions of "political
correctness" and, with the PC rules overruling any
other considerations, yes, he has to be defined as a racist.

However, there are other ways to interpret what he said (and says)
but one has to look outside of the rules of political correctness
to understand or even give consideration to them, something difficult
to do with most progressives and certainly in the liberal media.

For example, his apparent racism related to referring to the judge as
being of Mexican heritage may not be based in racism at all. The
Donald's "Trump University" is being sued. The original lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit requested and was granted removal from being a plaintiff
in the case. In normal court proceedings, that would be end end of the
lawsuit. But in this case the judge allowed the suit to continue under
conditions and rulings made uniquely by him.

Trump has already ****ed off many (or most) Mexicans by insisting that
he is going to build a wall for which Mexico will pay for. Trump's
comments about the judge could simply be related to the fact that the
judge, being of Mexican heritage, may be sympathetic to the those who
oppose a wall and, according to Trump, is exercising his sympathy's in a
manner that is not germane to the lawsuit. If so, his comments can't be
regarded as being "racist".

The media has whipped this whole thing up to where no other
interpretation can be considered. I fully expect Harry to reply
with a four-word post:

"Trump is a racist"

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:36:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/8/2016 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e


Is Trump a racist?

Well, I guess if you subscribe to contemporary notions of "political
correctness" and, with the PC rules overruling any
other considerations, yes, he has to be defined as a racist.

However, there are other ways to interpret what he said (and says)
but one has to look outside of the rules of political correctness
to understand or even give consideration to them, something difficult
to do with most progressives and certainly in the liberal media.

For example, his apparent racism related to referring to the judge as
being of Mexican heritage may not be based in racism at all. The
Donald's "Trump University" is being sued. The original lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit requested and was granted removal from being a plaintiff
in the case. In normal court proceedings, that would be end end of the
lawsuit. But in this case the judge allowed the suit to continue under
conditions and rulings made uniquely by him.

Trump has already ****ed off many (or most) Mexicans by insisting that
he is going to build a wall for which Mexico will pay for. Trump's
comments about the judge could simply be related to the fact that the
judge, being of Mexican heritage, may be sympathetic to the those who
oppose a wall and, according to Trump, is exercising his sympathy's in a
manner that is not germane to the lawsuit. If so, his comments can't be
regarded as being "racist".

The media has whipped this whole thing up to where no other
interpretation can be considered. I fully expect Harry to reply
with a four-word post:

"Trump is a racist"

Trump was stupid to bring up this guy's distant heritage. He should
have simply attacked the decision on legal grounds or, better, let his
lawyer do it.

On 6/8/2016 10:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:36:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/8/2016 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e


Is Trump a racist?

Well, I guess if you subscribe to contemporary notions of "political
correctness" and, with the PC rules overruling any
other considerations, yes, he has to be defined as a racist.

However, there are other ways to interpret what he said (and says)
but one has to look outside of the rules of political correctness
to understand or even give consideration to them, something difficult
to do with most progressives and certainly in the liberal media.

For example, his apparent racism related to referring to the judge as
being of Mexican heritage may not be based in racism at all. The
Donald's "Trump University" is being sued. The original lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit requested and was granted removal from being a plaintiff
in the case. In normal court proceedings, that would be end end of the
lawsuit. But in this case the judge allowed the suit to continue under
conditions and rulings made uniquely by him.

Trump has already ****ed off many (or most) Mexicans by insisting that
he is going to build a wall for which Mexico will pay for. Trump's
comments about the judge could simply be related to the fact that the
judge, being of Mexican heritage, may be sympathetic to the those who
oppose a wall and, according to Trump, is exercising his sympathy's in a
manner that is not germane to the lawsuit. If so, his comments can't be
regarded as being "racist".

The media has whipped this whole thing up to where no other
interpretation can be considered. I fully expect Harry to reply
with a four-word post:

"Trump is a racist"

Trump was stupid to bring up this guy's distant heritage. He should
have simply attacked the decision on legal grounds or, better, let his
lawyer do it.


I agree. Trump is demonstrating daily that he is not a career
politician nor a lawyer. Hillary is going to cream him in the general.

In article ,
says...

On 6/8/2016 10:46 AM, wrote:

Trump was stupid to bring up this guy's distant heritage. He should
have simply attacked the decision on legal grounds or, better, let his
lawyer do it.


I agree. Trump is demonstrating daily that he is not a career
politician nor a lawyer. Hillary is going to cream him in the general.

You can't cure stupid, and you can't buy smarts.

On 6/8/16 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/8/2016 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e


Is Trump a racist?

Well, I guess if you subscribe to contemporary notions of "political
correctness" and, with the PC rules overruling any
other considerations, yes, he has to be defined as a racist.

However, there are other ways to interpret what he said (and says)
but one has to look outside of the rules of political correctness
to understand or even give consideration to them, something difficult
to do with most progressives and certainly in the liberal media.

For example, his apparent racism related to referring to the judge as
being of Mexican heritage may not be based in racism at all. The
Donald's "Trump University" is being sued. The original lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit requested and was granted removal from being a plaintiff
in the case. In normal court proceedings, that would be end end of the
lawsuit. But in this case the judge allowed the suit to continue under
conditions and rulings made uniquely by him.

Trump has already ****ed off many (or most) Mexicans by insisting that
he is going to build a wall for which Mexico will pay for. Trump's
comments about the judge could simply be related to the fact that the
judge, being of Mexican heritage, may be sympathetic to the those who
oppose a wall and, according to Trump, is exercising his sympathy's in a
manner that is not germane to the lawsuit. If so, his comments can't be
regarded as being "racist".

The media has whipped this whole thing up to where no other
interpretation can be considered. I fully expect Harry to reply
with a four-word post:

"Trump is a racist"


Several key leaders in the GOP have already pointed out Trump's racism.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:02:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Several key leaders in the GOP have already pointed out Trump's racism.

The scary thing in this election might be how many racists there are
in the country. If they had put the civil rights act up to a national
vote it would not have passed in 1964. The question might be, will it
pass now?

Gary looks better to me every day. He is the one least likely to be
indicted by November.

On 6/8/16 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:02:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Several key leaders in the GOP have already pointed out Trump's racism.

The scary thing in this election might be how many racists there are
in the country. If they had put the civil rights act up to a national
vote it would not have passed in 1964. The question might be, will it
pass now?

Gary looks better to me every day. He is the one least likely to be
indicted by November.


And unelected.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:37:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 6/8/16 1:49 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:02:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Several key leaders in the GOP have already pointed out Trump's racism.

The scary thing in this election might be how many racists there are
in the country. If they had put the civil rights act up to a national
vote it would not have passed in 1964. The question might be, will it
pass now?

Gary looks better to me every day. He is the one least likely to be
indicted by November.


And unelected.

There is polling right now as reported on Charlie Rose that has
Johnson up in the double digits instead of the normal 1% (assuming it
is Trumpy and Dumpy)
There are a lot of democrats who hate Hillary and plenty of
republicans who can't hold their nose tight enough to vote for the
Donald. They will either stay home or cast a protest vote. That might
be a Bernie write in or a 3d party candidate.
I doubt past is prolog this year unless it is 1824. This is a totally
unprecedented election.
I would say 1968 but the GOP does not have Nixon. Hillary is more
disliked than Humphrey. It would be funny is Trump got Wallace
numbers. That is the racist vote. (5 1/2 states in the EC)

On 6/8/2016 12:02 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/8/16 10:36 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/8/2016 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/zwyhe3e


Is Trump a racist?

Well, I guess if you subscribe to contemporary notions of "political
correctness" and, with the PC rules overruling any
other considerations, yes, he has to be defined as a racist.

However, there are other ways to interpret what he said (and says)
but one has to look outside of the rules of political correctness
to understand or even give consideration to them, something difficult
to do with most progressives and certainly in the liberal media.

For example, his apparent racism related to referring to the judge as
being of Mexican heritage may not be based in racism at all. The
Donald's "Trump University" is being sued. The original lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit requested and was granted removal from being a plaintiff
in the case. In normal court proceedings, that would be end end of the
lawsuit. But in this case the judge allowed the suit to continue under
conditions and rulings made uniquely by him.

Trump has already ****ed off many (or most) Mexicans by insisting that
he is going to build a wall for which Mexico will pay for. Trump's
comments about the judge could simply be related to the fact that the
judge, being of Mexican heritage, may be sympathetic to the those who
oppose a wall and, according to Trump, is exercising his sympathy's in a
manner that is not germane to the lawsuit. If so, his comments can't be
regarded as being "racist".

The media has whipped this whole thing up to where no other
interpretation can be considered. I fully expect Harry to reply
with a four-word post:

"Trump is a racist"


Several key leaders in the GOP have already pointed out Trump's racism.

Of course they have. It's the politically correct thing to do. The
ones that floor me are the ones who state that Trump is clearly a racist
however they will continue to support him in the general election. This
demonstrates clearly how f*&A%Ked up career politicians are and how bad
our political system has degenerated to.