Where?

Person in position of huge power makes blatantly racist comments in writing. He repeats the comments in person. He further expands upon those comments, again, in person. He narrows his target down to one individual and repeats the comments yet again with further embelishment.

In any court of law in the Western world, there is ample...nay...a plethora of evidence that a certain individual has just been subjected to racial harassment by a political leader. Just WOW!!!! How anyone in their right mind can possibly attempt to excuse his words and deeds in this matter is utterly beyond comprehension.

Isn't the whole "he's only doing it to wind up the opponents" angle getting a bit tedious now?

What's with labelling anyone who thinks he's full of shit as "progressive" anyway? As if it means something or is some kind of derogatory comment. Anyone with half a brain-cell and even a sketch of a decent upbringing, not to mention a fleeting dash of humanity can see that the man is a total offensive embarrassment. Is that your definition of "progressive"? If so, I hold my hand up.

Rambling on about MAGA is absolutely nothing to do with anything. Yes, "make America great again" but the method he is promoting will not give that result. Pointless semantics or not.

Some time ago there was a big debate going on. I think it was about schoolgirls showing maybe too much skin in class and teachers being told off for telling them to cover up. If the boys in the class couldn't deal with it, that was their problem and not that of the girls. Fair enough.

But strange that when some kid wears a MAGA hat to school, that is then considered to be highly disruptive and it needs to be removed, rather than telling the other kids that if they feel provoked, that's their problem and they need to deal with it.

Let us consider exhibit number one.

You missed the point. Whether people are wound up or not is by the by. Using it to EXCUSE or even justify his bile is the tedious, repetitive bit.

But nice try, eh..? smh

"I can do over brown people to appease my baying followers."

How's that?

You are confusing an excuse with a causality.

Didn't take long...

Fo sho.

It's just ethnic cleansing. Clean is good, right?

Trump gets so easily hated by the exact sort of people who he wants America get to hate, eventually. Him helping them show their negativity and reactivity earns him voters. I dislike that reversed bs, tbh, but people have to at some point own up to their reactiveness and get on with being pro-active and focus on positive alternatives and suggestions.

Pray tell, what's the pro-active and / or positive alternatives or suggestion to tackle blatant racism being spouted by a World leader?

Often anecdotes are amusing or interesting but actually are evidence of nothing.

Congratulations on stretching whataboutery to its galactic limits

Anyway these stories of schools banning Trump gear are fake news.

More documents released re the payment made to Stormy Daniels on Trump's behalf.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/documen...-star/45105362

Simple: come up with a credible presidential candidate.
If the democrats would have done that 3 year ago, Trump would never have been elected.

Remorse?

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...rally-11765940

Nobody believes a large crowd like that start spontaneously such a brand new chant.
There are people in the audience trained to work together to generate these at appropriate times.
Trained and paid by whom?

Trump ran on policy incoherence and racial grievance.

Clinton had detailed policy proposals on a large number of issues and actually understood how government works.

She may not have tickled your identity politics or policy preferences but to pretend Trump was the more credible candidate is laughable.

Trump won because white Christian identity politics is still the most potent politics in the US, the electoral college split the electorate in a weird way (Clinton wasn't far from beating Trump by the vote margin Obama beat Romney), and Trump knew how to activate the base in a way McCain and Romney were unable or unwilling to.

Clinton was hated so much that she was beaten by the worst candidate in history. That says it all.

Yes, was it George Soros, or was it Putin? And are those two maybe indeed the same person? Or was it the joooos. Better hide under the bed because they're going to get you tooooo, the jooooos

So you don't think it's possible to convey a negative message using words normally used in a positive sense? aye, right.

<facepalm> and yet none of the insiders who left/got pushed out/ran screaming from the white house have any story to tell of a calculating genius manipulating his foes on social media, on the contrary the narrative is of a deeply flawed individual out of his depth, or is that part of his plan too???? pass the tinfoil hat.