Do You Agree with Trump’s Comments on Judge Curiel?

[Acim]

Would I post the same if either Bernie or Hillary made such bigoted statements? Yes, and without hesitation.

I think it's always good to thank (such) people when they openly endorse you (and correct their assertions so they can appear to be as PC as possible)

 

[Acim]

As an outspoken atheist, no religious person should ever judge any case I'm a part of because it's a clear conflict of interest. They will pass improper judgement because clearly they can't be trusted to do their job when faced with someone who disagrees with them.

That would be similar type stereotyping.

Anyone else have more examples?

 

[tytlyf]

I said that I thought it was a racist statement, not that Trump was a racist (there is a difference)..

I don't think Trump deep down is a racist, he's just appealing to his supporters. They love that language. Trump is probably further left than Hillary to be honest, I'll guarantee his children aren't even conservatives.

 

[tytlyf]

I think it's always good to thank (such) people when they openly endorse you (and correct their assertions so they can appear to be as PC as possible)

Hillary didn't say anything about CP time. Try to focus.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't think Trump deep down is a racist, he's just appealing to his supporters.

I am not convinced, either. But its tough to see through the muddled water sometimes.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That would be similar type stereotyping.

Anyone else have more examples?

Good, we've established that it's stupid and wrong. Mine was specifically about stereotyping religious people. Doing the same stereotyping people due to their race is called racism.

 

[Acim]

You need to be careful if you want to play semantics. I said that I thought it was a racist statement, not that Trump was a racist (there is a difference). That is, I believe that the statement he made was a statement that was made in a derogatory fashion based solely on the race of the individual. It is a statement I stand by for now.

And I'm saying the statement is not racist, representative of racism. Since you are pushing it, I'll go to the dictionary for all to read and take from that for better understanding of racism:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior:​

While the assertion appears to be prejudicial, it doesn't appear to be based on the belief that Trump considers his race superior. In fact, I don't see that observable in the statement, even a little bit.

I actually don't think I've seen Trump utter that type of assertion ever. But the PC version of racism - anything a (Republican) person says that is not upholding all the wonderful positive traits about any specific race, other than their own, is inherently racist. In this way, Trump was (ahem) racist.

 

[Quetzal]

And I'm saying the statement is not racist, representative of racism.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

 

[Acim]

Hillary didn't say anything about CP time. Try to focus.

She's the one that uttered the words of what it means (after dramatic pause). She's the one that deflected it away, ya know, to appear politically correct. Admittedly though this did backfire, but is just one of many examples of Hillary's own prejudicial beliefs. Seeing that anything about race is possibly 'racist' just google "Hillary Clinton racism" and see if you come up with the 7+ million hits I got.

 

[Acim]

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

No, I'll just take that as a concession on your part. And I appreciate that.

 

[Quetzal]

No, I'll just take that as a concession on your part. And I appreciate that.

You see, when I approach a discussion/debate there always comes a time when my opponent (for lack of a better term) demonstrates one of two traits: the desire to converse or the desire to be "right". One is productive while the other is not. You demonstrated yours and I decided my time would be better spent doing other things. Like gardening, car restoration or signing up for an elective root canal! Enjoy the rest of the thread.

 

[Acim]

This February 2016 HuffPo piece probably makes the assertion better than I can

How Can Black People Trust Hillary Clinton After the 2008 Campaign?

Hillary Clinton’s decision to use race-based attacks to undermine Obama says something about who she is. It’s one thing to miss the mark on policy – to not foresee consequences of a policy you support 20 years into the future (Michelle Alexander and others have covered how Secretary Clinton’s policy positions have been quite damaging to Black America). It’s another to actively play upon prejudice and fear in the pursuit of power, and in the course of doing so help to perpetuate a destructive status quo that continues to wreak havoc on people’s lives.

In 2008, Secretary Clinton damaged Obama’s candidacy by validating right-wing racist memes and smears, and she could have cost him victory against Republicans in the general election. She also helped hamstring the President’s ability to battle racism by supporting and legitimizing the right-wing fear-mongering that Obama would have an agenda to work for Black people at the expense of everyone else.

If we support Clinton in the primary now, without confronting this history, it excuses and rewards this behavior, affirming that there is no political cost to throwing Black people under the bus, and making it more likely that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats will continue to use racism for political gain.

I observe it is quite likely that Hillary Clinton and other Democrats will continue to use racism for political gain. Apparently after the first African American president in U.S. history, the best the Dem party could do in its primaries was serve up 3 white candidates for president. And select the one that has most racism charges associated with her, as their presumptive nominee. 'How to deflect from this? How? Oh, duh, there's a Republican running in the race. Our prayers have been answered.'

 

[Nous]

Trump is saying exactly whatever he needs to get the leftists to keep whining about him in the press.He's a genius really.

With his comments on judge Curiel, Trump has succeeded in getting more people than just “the leftists” to criticize him. Is that a good move for him to provoke the Republican leadership to denounce his comments?

So, are you saying that you do not believe that his accusations against judge Curiel are true, but are just an election gimmick?

 

[Acim]

You need to be careful if you want to play semantics. I said that I thought it was a racist statement, not that Trump was a racist (there is a difference). That is, I believe that the statement he made was a statement that was made in a derogatory fashion based solely on the race of the individual. It is a statement I stand by for now.

And I'm saying the statement is not racist, representative of racism. Since you are pushing it, I'll go to the dictionary for all to read and take from that for better understanding of racism:

You see, when I approach a discussion/debate there always comes a time when my opponent (for lack of a better term) demonstrates one of two traits: the desire to converse or the desire to be "right". One is productive while the other is not.

So apparently, telling me I need to be careful is 'desire to converse' and not a desire to be right. When I cite dictionary definition of racism, that is only my desire to be right. You say nothing to that and then say we agree to disagree. I take that as concession, not wanting to discuss what dictionary says about racism. As if actual definition of racism has nothing to do with the conversation where PC version of racism does, and if that is not up for discussion, the conversation amounts to 'agree to disagree.'

 

[Quetzal]

So apparently, telling me I need to be careful is 'desire to converse' and not a desire to be right. When I cite dictionary definition of racism, that is only my desire to be right. You say nothing to that and then say we agree to disagree. I take that as concession, not wanting to discuss what dictionary says about racism. As if actual definition of racism has nothing to do with the conversation where PC version of racism does, and if that is not up for discussion, the conversation amounts to 'agree to disagree.'

Have you ever had that girlfriend that once you broke up with them they kept nagging you for stuff?

 

[Acim]

Have you ever had that girlfriend that once you broke up with them they kept nagging you for stuff?

Only the white ones.

I kid, I kid.

 

[Nous]

Having been in front of judges many times, I find that they're often capricious & ruled by their own demons.
Whether Trump's accusation is reasonable or not, I completely understand wanting avoid being judged by
someone with the least possibility of prejudice towards one.

So, you’re claiming that “Mexican” judges like judge Curiel are generally biased against parties they believe to have a bad attitude toward Mexicans?

If there is any rational reason to believe that judge Curiel is biased in the case against “Trump University,” then why hasn’t he filed a motion for recusal?

If “Mexican” judges such as judge Curiel would generally be biased against Trump because of his proposals about building a wall, then why wouldn’t judges who are old white men be biased for him?

I'm indicting the system here, particularly
what's called "black robe syndrome", ie, the propensity to make bad rulings based upon personal peccadilloes
with impunity.

Except for cases decided by the Supreme Court, all “bad rulings” can be appealed. What punishment do you think should be handed out to judges for a ruling that you disagree with?

So you're saying that most court decisions are the product of the judges' biases on the basis of race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, disability status, etc.?

How do you explain the fact that Brown v. Board of Education was issued by 9 old white men?

 

[metis]

Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) just announced he will not support or vote for Trump.

 

[Nous]

At best, I agree the judge is biased.

I repeat Jayhawker's question: Based on what evidence?

Whatever Trump was trying to argue for ought to have been handled by his lawyers if there was even a hint of conflict of interest.

Apparently his lawyers don't agree with Trump's claims of judge Curiel's bias, or they would have filed a motion for recusal. In fact, I believe about a month ago one of his attorneys made a comment lauding judge Curiel's fairness in this case.

I would hope Hispanic voters would be thinking critically rather than emotionally when it comes to upcoming elections for POTUS.

So you think Hispanic voters should overlook his comments about judge Curiel's bias? Hispanic voters should agree with Trump about judge Curiel being biased?

Had Trump made a claim that no person of Mexican descent is capable of being a (American) judge, then I could see the charge of racism. As this is not what he said, nor close to it really, then I'm wanting to call out / debate anyone that would wish to claim Trump's comments are racist.

As has been pointed out by many commentators, what Trump has said about judge Curiel is the definition of racism. What Trump has said about judge Curiel being biased because "he's Mexican" is no different than someone saying, "He's Black, therefore he's stupid and lazy," or "She's a woman, therefore she's weak and emotional."

To me, it's as poor of a comment as saying, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

How the hell do those two comments compare? What President Obama said is not a false assertion, is it? It isn't a racist assertion. It isn't a claim of someone being biased or incompetent because of the person's race.

 

[tytlyf]

Ah, I see what's going on with the republican establishment. They're trying to save face and their party when they lose in the election. "Supporting" Trump is a disguise, don't believe it. They know they're gonna get less angry conservatives backing Trump if they say they support him.

I do find it funny that Fox is attacking Trump now. That's how the establishment media rolls. If they don't want Trump to be the nominee, they'll play negative 'news' 24/7 in hopes of scaring away voters from him.

Enjoy the party while it lasts, it's on life support waiting for the ever close death.