Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
The man's been in the public eye for 3 decades.... not once, that I recall, has anyone ever alleged the man to be a racist.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump is the last person anyone who knows him would call a racist. We can't say the same thing about the Clintons.
Dinesh D’Souza: Clintons Have A Long History Of Racial Insensitivity, Not Trump
Do you want to know the truth? Donald Trump had a history of friendship with dozens of black sports figures, employees, business owners and had never accused of being racist until running for office!
Whatever history Trump has it is in the private sector and doesn’t affect this country as a whole. But Clinton’s mistakes or bad judgement has done significant damage to us.
Hillary is not just a disgrace to Democrats; she is a disgrace to the human race. She can’t win legitimately, so she cheats. Apparently over her entire life. She will continue her lying, deceptive, corrupt practices, as always. How can people be so brain dead not to understand this?
Filmmaker, Author Dinesh D’Souza joined Fox and Friends on Saturday to discuss the truth about both presidential candidates in regards to their history with racism or lack thereof. Hillary has been trying to rewrite history to put Trump into the crosshairs of bigotry and hatred.
From Fox News:
“Hillary and Bill themselves have a much greater history of racial insensitivity than Trump,” D’Souza said, pointing out that Hillary once called young black males “super predators,” while Bill said of Barack Obama in 2008, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
He added that both Clintons publicly praised Sen. Robert Byrd, who was active in the Ku Klux Klan.
“Donald Trump has no history, nothing, that even compares to any of this,” D’Souza said, noting that doesn’t even take into account the Democratic Party’s history with the KKK.
“I think the Democrats are used to going to this playbook and pointing to the Republicans as the party of bigotry, but the actual history reveals something quite different,” D’Souza said.
“This is a party that has never acknowledged its own history. It has never apologized for its crimes. It blames the South, it blames white people, it blames America. It blames everybody except themselves.”
Trump is the last person anyone who knows him would call a racist. We can't say the same thing about the Clintons.
Dinesh D’Souza: Clintons Have A Long History Of Racial Insensitivity, Not Trump
Do you want to know the truth? Donald Trump had a history of friendship with dozens of black sports figures, employees, business owners and had never accused of being racist until running for office!
Whatever history Trump has it is in the private sector and doesn’t affect this country as a whole. But Clinton’s mistakes or bad judgement has done significant damage to us.
Hillary is not just a disgrace to Democrats; she is a disgrace to the human race. She can’t win legitimately, so she cheats. Apparently over her entire life. She will continue her lying, deceptive, corrupt practices, as always. How can people be so brain dead not to understand this?
Filmmaker, Author Dinesh D’Souza joined Fox and Friends on Saturday to discuss the truth about both presidential candidates in regards to their history with racism or lack thereof. Hillary has been trying to rewrite history to put Trump into the crosshairs of bigotry and hatred.
From Fox News:
“Hillary and Bill themselves have a much greater history of racial insensitivity than Trump,” D’Souza said, pointing out that Hillary once called young black males “super predators,” while Bill said of Barack Obama in 2008, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
He added that both Clintons publicly praised Sen. Robert Byrd, who was active in the Ku Klux Klan.
“Donald Trump has no history, nothing, that even compares to any of this,” D’Souza said, noting that doesn’t even take into account the Democratic Party’s history with the KKK.
“I think the Democrats are used to going to this playbook and pointing to the Republicans as the party of bigotry, but the actual history reveals something quite different,” D’Souza said.
“This is a party that has never acknowledged its own history. It has never apologized for its crimes. It blames the South, it blames white people, it blames America. It blames everybody except themselves.”
And you're a racist for even bringing up that fact.
Yep...they want to ignore facts.how come Donald became a racist right after he claimed a 10 point lead over Hillary? what was Donald when he was one point behind Hillary? a barking dog?
He was a racist years ago when he was being sued for racism.
The man's been in the public eye for 3 decades.... not once, that I recall, has anyone ever alleged the man to be a racist.
“This is a party that has never acknowledged its own history.
I'm just laughing at you. You think Trump would have been OK with a white pro-illegal immigration judge. I'm not the one who needs to be thinking before posting. You're not thinking at all. Democrat hacks never do.
How's that book going you can fill with your knowledge of the differences between the Kiwis and the Yanks going? So far you have that you're partially civilized and we're partially civilized, that was an interesting perspective on the differences between us. Originally we weren't civilized, but you unsaid it which means you think you never said it. You're a trip. The only thing that oozes from you is ignorance.
LOL, you think Trump is OK with white illegal immigration supporting judges. Now that is funny
You're laughing at me? I'm in hysterics here. Trump himself has said the guy's surname (ie MEXICAN) is the issue, not the case itself. He might or might not have an issue with a white judge who is sympathetic to illegal immigrants (note I say sympathetic, not supportive - again there is a difference).
No, I said we were relatively civilised and you're partially. As I explained (and will do so again), there is a difference.
Yeah, that's what Trump meant. Lookie here, I'll even post it to you in his own words:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
Now, just pretend I'm speaking slow so you understand. See those bits in quotation marks? That means Mr Trumpie actually SAID those words. They are not paraphrased. Not made up. Trump said Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' due to his 'Mexican heritage'. NOT because of is stance on illegal immigration (BTW, do you even know Curiel's stance on illegal immigration? what is it?). Now, Katzie whatzie, we call that racism. Spell it is out with me R-A-C-I-S-M. There's a good widdle neocon whackjob....
Yes, of course. When Trump calls out a Mexican ethnic judge on illegal immigration, he'd be OK with a white judge who supports illegal immigration and he'd also attack a Mexican ethnic judge who is staunchly anti-illegal immigration. His issue was the judges ethnicity, not his position on illegal immigration.
You seriously believe that? Really? Yes, I'm just laughing at you
I'm just laughing at you. You think Trump would have been OK with a white pro-illegal immigration judge. I'm not the one who needs to be thinking before posting. You're not thinking at all. Democrat hacks never do.
How's that book going you can fill with your knowledge of the differences between the Kiwis and the Yanks going? So far you have that you're partially civilized and we're partially civilized, that was an interesting perspective on the differences between us. Originally we weren't civilized, but you unsaid it which means you think you never said it. You're a trip. The only thing that oozes from you is ignorance.
LOL, you think Trump is OK with white illegal immigration supporting judges. Now that is funny
You're laughing at me? I'm in hysterics here. Trump himself has said the guy's surname (ie MEXICAN) is the issue, not the case itself. He might or might not have an issue with a white judge who is sympathetic to illegal immigrants (note I say sympathetic, not supportive - again there is a difference).
No, I said we were relatively civilised and you're partially. As I explained (and will do so again), there is a difference.
Yeah, that's what Trump meant. Lookie here, I'll even post it to you in his own words:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
Now, just pretend I'm speaking slow so you understand. See those bits in quotation marks? That means Mr Trumpie actually SAID those words. They are not paraphrased. Not made up. Trump said Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' due to his 'Mexican heritage'. NOT because of is stance on illegal immigration (BTW, do you even know Curiel's stance on illegal immigration? what is it?). Now, Katzie whatzie, we call that racism. Spell it is out with me R-A-C-I-S-M. There's a good widdle neocon whackjob....
Yes, of course. When Trump calls out a Mexican ethnic judge on illegal immigration, he'd be OK with a white judge who supports illegal immigration and he'd also attack a Mexican ethnic judge who is staunchly anti-illegal immigration. His issue was the judges ethnicity, not his position on illegal immigration.
You seriously believe that? Really? Yes, I'm just laughing at you
Kaz - the case has NOTHING to do with immigration. Yet somehow the judge's ethnicity is an issue for Trump. Why?
I'm just laughing at you. You think Trump would have been OK with a white pro-illegal immigration judge. I'm not the one who needs to be thinking before posting. You're not thinking at all. Democrat hacks never do.
How's that book going you can fill with your knowledge of the differences between the Kiwis and the Yanks going? So far you have that you're partially civilized and we're partially civilized, that was an interesting perspective on the differences between us. Originally we weren't civilized, but you unsaid it which means you think you never said it. You're a trip. The only thing that oozes from you is ignorance.
LOL, you think Trump is OK with white illegal immigration supporting judges. Now that is funny
You're laughing at me? I'm in hysterics here. Trump himself has said the guy's surname (ie MEXICAN) is the issue, not the case itself. He might or might not have an issue with a white judge who is sympathetic to illegal immigrants (note I say sympathetic, not supportive - again there is a difference).
No, I said we were relatively civilised and you're partially. As I explained (and will do so again), there is a difference.
Yeah, that's what Trump meant. Lookie here, I'll even post it to you in his own words:
In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage”
Now, just pretend I'm speaking slow so you understand. See those bits in quotation marks? That means Mr Trumpie actually SAID those words. They are not paraphrased. Not made up. Trump said Curiel had 'an absolute conflict' due to his 'Mexican heritage'. NOT because of is stance on illegal immigration (BTW, do you even know Curiel's stance on illegal immigration? what is it?). Now, Katzie whatzie, we call that racism. Spell it is out with me R-A-C-I-S-M. There's a good widdle neocon whackjob....
Yes, of course. When Trump calls out a Mexican ethnic judge on illegal immigration, he'd be OK with a white judge who supports illegal immigration and he'd also attack a Mexican ethnic judge who is staunchly anti-illegal immigration. His issue was the judges ethnicity, not his position on illegal immigration.
You seriously believe that? Really? Yes, I'm just laughing at you
Kaz - the case has NOTHING to do with immigration. Yet somehow the judge's ethnicity is an issue for Trump. Why?
Because he's pro-illegal immigration. So answer the question directly and stop running, Nancy.
"When Trump calls out a Mexican ethnic judge on illegal immigration, he'd be OK with a white judge who supports illegal immigration and he'd also attack a Mexican ethnic judge who is staunchly anti-illegal immigration. His issue was the judges ethnicity, not his position on illegal immigration.
You seriously believe that?"
how come Donald became a racist right after he claimed a 10 point lead over Hillary? what was Donald when he was one point behind Hillary? a barking dog?
You must have slept through the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
"Donald Trump violated the civil rights act by refusing to rent homes to black people.
I'm sure Trump was able to point out all the black people that lived in his buildingsYou must have slept through the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
"Donald Trump violated the civil rights act by refusing to rent homes to black people.
Just running around finding anything on Google that "claims" Trump is a racist.
Well this story came up in another thread, so I looked into it. It turns out there was no discrimination at all. Trump didn't rent to welfare people, so the government sent out black agents posing as people that were on welfare, and they were denied apartments.
They knew well in advance the Trump policies for the apartments in question.
I'm sure Trump was able to point out all the black people that lived in his buildings
Because he's pro-illegal immigration. So answer the question directly and stop running, Nancy.
"When Trump calls out a Mexican ethnic judge on illegal immigration, he'd be OK with a white judge who supports illegal immigration and he'd also attack a Mexican ethnic judge who is staunchly anti-illegal immigration. His issue was the judges ethnicity, not his position on illegal immigration.
You seriously believe that?"
I'm sure Trump was able to point out all the black people that lived in his buildings
Yep, there were black people living in those buildings; black people that worked and could easily afford to live there.
Interesting.
Have a link that says that?