"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

[Modified]

Actually the left calls him a "racist" because of his comments on Mexicans who have come here and raped and murdered.

But they rape and murder at a rate lower than that of US citizens, while "... some of them, I assume, are good people" was an implication that most of them are murderers and rapists. Unless you thought he meant that some of the rapists and murderers are good people, which is entirely possible.

 

[logger]

But they rape and murder at a rate lower than that of US citizens, while "... some of them, I assume, are good people" was an implication that most of them are murderers and rapists. Unless you thought he meant that some of the rapists and murderers are good people, which is entirely possible.

So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.

No, the point he was making was "Run! Browner people than you are coming! They're going to take your jobs, murder your neighbors and eat your brains with rusty spoons!"

But do try to keep up. We've established that since Mooslim and Beaner are not races, he can't be a racist and his supporters cannot be racists or racist enablers. Instead, in generally accepted parlance, Trump is a bigot. His supporters are therefore either bigots or bigot-enablers. We assume you will now correct people who say Trump's a racist with..... "LOL Libruls! Conservatives don't see race. We're bigots!"

 

[logger]

No, the point he was making was "Run! Browner people than you are coming! They're going to take your jobs, murder your neighbors and eat your brains with rusty spoons!"

Lol
I've never heard him say "run brown people are coming" looks like he only talks about sealing our border and stopping illegal immigration. But please continue with your man worthy dramatic rant.

But do try to keep up. We've established that since Mooslim and Beaner are not races, he can't be a racist and his supporters cannot be racists or racist enablers. Instead, in generally accepted parlance, Trump is a bigot. His supporters are therefore either bigots or bigot-enablers. We assume you will now correct people who say Trump's a racist with..... "LOL Libruls! Conservatives don't see race. We're bigots!"

Actually he can't be a racists from calling some Mexicans rapists and muderers. Just like he can't be racist against Asians for calling the Chinese currency manipulators. But please, let your rant continue, its very exciting!

 

[The Big Dog]

That was a beautiful "Well, Actually."

They aren't mutually exclusive; they're functionally equivalent. Anyone who expresses one form of bias almost always expresses the other.

I just posted actual law with actual links to actual lawyers opinions and actual statutes that showed that you were actually unmistakably wrong, as a matter of law.

and yet, you decided to post that and made everyone less knowledgeable.

 

[Modified]

So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat. Everyone knew the point he was making, we need to get control of our southern border.

Said it wrong? Perhaps he meant to say "They're reducing the overall rates of murder and rape slightly by coming here, though increasing the raw numbers a bit." It really came out wrong.

How about something honest that can still support his position? "They're committing identity theft at a high rate, and the overall cost of that crime is probably quite high."

 

[TraneWreck]

I just posted actual law with actual links to actual lawyers opinions and actual statutes that showed that you were actually unmistakably wrong, as a matter of law.

and yet, you decided to post that and made everyone less knowledgeable.

Yeah, that's not really relevant in this context. You've just engaged in a massive equivocation. Why are the standards for workplace discrimination causes of action relevant to what is meant when we describe someone as "racist" or as a "bigot"?

You know, there's a legal definition for "assault" that is rarely meant when someone says an assault took place. Just listing a specific cause of action yields little to no insight on language usage.

Again, this is a doofy "Well, Actually..." It's a comical effort at dissecting an issue that is well understood.

Notice that when ICE goes looking for "Mexicans" they end up harassing a lot of Americans. Why do you think that is? How would you identify a suspicious looking Mexican, compared with someone who was born here?

 

[Mumbles]

Lol
Your post is nothing more than division. Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have

That's not going to fly when the GOP leader is birther Donald Trump, and he's brought white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and neo-nazis like Sebastian Gorka, into the White House. There's also the obvious attempts at suppressing black voters, the absurd claims that Black Lives Matter is "violent" or "terrorists", the claim that the rapper Common (!) is a "thug" or a "gangsta", the lily-white republicans of around 1900, and so forth, but the current President is more than enough.

For now, the GOP is the party of white supremacy. Don't like it? Get rid of Trump, or at least reign him in, and stop trying to oppress black people and fear-mongering against "Arabs".

 

[WilliamSeger]

Lol
Your post is nothing more than division. Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have, this is a monster of the left, which they use to divide people to further their causes.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Nixon's racist Southern Strategy of supporting "states rights" reversed the meaning the Solid South, which produced the bulk of the Republican political power that you're so proud of today. And speaking of division, you seem to have missed the purging of liberals from the Republican Party and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[desmirelle]

And what race would that be? This is akin to saying Arabic is a race. <snip>

Arabic is a language. Arabian is an ethnic origin.

 

[logger]

How about something honest that can still support his position? "They're committing identity theft at a high rate, and the overall cost of that crime is probably quite high."

And if he said that, the left wouldn't label him a racist?

 

[logger]

That's not going to fly when the GOP leader is birther Donald Trump, and he's brought white nationalists like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and neo-nazis like Sebastian Gorka, into the White House. There's also the obvious attempts at suppressing black voters, the absurd claims that Black Lives Matter is "violent" or "terrorists", the claim that the rapper Common (!) is a "thug" or a "gangsta", the lily-white republicans of around 1900, and so forth, but the current President is more than enough.

That you support a racist group like BLM confirms so much.

For now, the GOP is the party of white supremacy. Don't like it? Get rid of Trump, or at least reign him in, and stop trying to oppress black people and fear-mongering against "Arabs".

Except your party has had actual known racists as Senator. With a host of others all through government.

 

[logger]

Your ignorance of history is astounding. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Nixon's racist Southern Strategy of supporting "states rights" reversed the meaning the Solid South, which produced the bulk of the Republican political power that you're so proud of today.

Interesting how so many of those known racist southern democrats were still democrats.

And speaking of division, you seem to have missed the purging of liberals from the Republican Party and the rise of Rush Limbaugh.

And you seem to have missed the purging of conservatives from the democrat party. You have maybe one? Joe Manchin and he's a poor one at that. One could argue we have a host of liberal republicans all fearful of the dreaded R word from disgusting liberals!

 

[Belz...]

I don't really think there's any confusion here.

Maybe not in this specific case, but the point is that the very broad use of the term will create that confusion down the line, and it'd be a good idea to stop it if we can.

 

[Belz...]

So he said it wrong, he's a bit dramatic. You can't really blame him, he used to be a democrat.

Oh, that's beautiful! There's so much insane nonsense in that post, I'll just quote it for posterity. It's truly your magnum opus.

 

[Belz...]

Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have, this is a monster of the left, which they use to divide people to further their causes.

You can't possibly believe this. It runs so contrary to reality that no one could possibly think it's true.

 

[TraneWreck]

And you seem to have missed the purging of conservatives from the democrat party.

No, I didn't miss that. It began when a Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act. Truly proof of the race-blind approach of the Republicans.

Where oh where could a poor, lost Dixiecrat find a home? Strom, the Republicans would love to have you...

 

[NoahFence]

You can't possibly believe this. It runs so contrary to reality that no one could possibly think it's true.

Par for the course.

 

[Darat]

Maybe not in this specific case, but the point is that the very broad use of the term will create that confusion down the line, and it'd be a good idea to stop it if we can.

Will it? I suspect it is only claimed to cause confusion. As can be seen in this thread the idea is not to refute the accusation but to use it as a smokescreen for the bigotry/racism.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yeah, that's not really relevant in this context. You've just engaged in a massive equivocation. Why are the standards for workplace discrimination causes of action relevant to what is meant when we describe someone as "racist" or as a "bigot"?

You know, there's a legal definition for "assault" that is rarely meant when someone says an assault took place. Just listing a specific cause of action yields little to no insight on language usage.

Again, this is a doofy "Well, Actually..." It's a comical effort at dissecting an issue that is well understood.

Notice that when ICE goes looking for "Mexicans" they end up harassing a lot of Americans. Why do you think that is? How would you identify a suspicious looking Mexican, compared with someone who was born here?

While you make a compelling case, I have decided to go ahead and continue being precise and correct.