>>>You're kidding right? The list is miles long John! Y
>
>The list of politicized paraphrases is indeed miles long. And about as credible as a $3 note based on previous lists.
>
>I asked for a single reputable quotation, though I doubted you could provide one. Seems I was right. And no, I am not so stupid as to hoover down politicized paraphrases about *any* topic.
>
>>>..oh and then why don't you read this NYT article from today to get some more...
>>>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
>
>I did you the courtesy of reading this opinion piece in NYT. It appears that any time that Trump says or does anything involving a black person, it's racist. No attempt to validate differences between treatment of black versus any other skin color: just if it involves a black person, it's automatically racist. He calls for the death penalty for Central Park rapists: that's racist, because they're black and Latino. Not because they perpetrated a terrible rape, but because they're black. Political paraphrase after political paraphrase flows like sewage.
>
>Here's an exercise for you: compare Trump's actual words in the video in your citation, with the caption that "He began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech disparaging Mexican immigrants as criminals and “rapists.” You've only got to listen for about a minute to see the shocking misrepresentation that has been repeated so often that people start to believe it- including me. So thanks for the clarification.
>
>>>Why don't you do some research on the level of education accomplished by Haiti immigrants vs those from Norway - or for that matter vs the native American population before you spew out garbage like this.
>
>Yes, that's your other favorite sh*thouse tactic, acting superior and telling others to do homework on straw men arguments you invent for them.
>
>Even if I hadn't seen Vox's article on achievement of immigrants from some countries, why are you linking it to me? Or to Trump if- IF his point was that he wants Norwegians rather than Haitians.
>
>To be valid, of course you ought to be parroting Vox's comparison between Norwegian and Haitian immigrants. Except that it doesn't exist.
>
>For the record: the UN rates Norway number one on the Human Development Index. By this measure, people from Norway come *very* highly recommended. They're going to be educated and civic-minded. But that couldn't possibly be Trump's point, because he's a racist, right?
>
>Haiti ranks 163rd on the index, 25 from the bottom- and all of the 25 countries below it, are in Africa.
>
>Were newcomers moving in next door, that they are Norwegians would be great news. That they are Haitians? Well, here's another statistic: Haiti may rank down in the sh*thole, but immigrants from Haiti and similar nations often are the cream of their society. Especially Syria, at least until the current exodus. so maybe Haitians moving next door is good news as well. Syrians are likely to be doctors or professionals, so that's also very good.
>
>But here's my question for you: if immigrants accepted from the nations ranked the lowest by the UN tend to be their professionals and movers and shakers: what are we doing to those nations by taking their best and brightest? Why is it not less bigoted/racist to help sort out the problems at home so they can help uplift their nations and societies?
>
>Besides, if your view is that Haitian immigrants make America great, that ought to be your calm argument. Rather than Trump hate hysteria that makes educated people roll their eyes and switch off "here we go again."

So you deny facts and think Trump is not a racist. Got it. Don't be offended next time I question if you are a racist then - since there seems to be some discrepancy between what you and I think dictates what a racist is or what racist actions are. I thought most civilized people knew - guess I was mistaken.