Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Didn't the Supreme Court, stacked by Republicans, decide that Presidents on official business are immune to prosecution, on a case against a Republican president? That's one massive check eviscerated for political reasons. The constitutional “checks and balances” are between the three branches. The prospect of the President being prosecuted by his own executive branch is not a “check” contemplated by the constituti…
They didn't ask you to define racism. They asked you to find sources for your claim, which you have conspicuously forgotten to include. It's a public source too, so it doesn't cost you anything to support your claim. Are you recalling something that actually exists, or trying to warp the narrative into whatever supports your perception?
They raised the definition of racism by preemptively asserted that articles leveling “legitimate” accusations of racism wouldn’t count.
For example, here’s an article trying to tie Trump’s growing support among minorities to “multiracial whiteness” and minorities “embrac[ing] white power movements.” From where I’m standing that sure seems like calling minority supporters of Trump white supremacists.