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

[Nous]

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

There is a degree of integrity that many Republicans have exhibited during this campaign that should be acknowledged.

 

[metis]

There is a degree of integrity that many Republicans have exhibited during this campaign that should be acknowledged.

Ya, but they still are few and far between, although there is time.

The guy who really is looking bad now is Ryan, and this could well end any presidential hopes he may have had. He endorsed Trump and got nothing back in return.

 

[Quetzal]

Ya, but they still are few and far between, although there is time.

The guy who really is looking bad now is Ryan, and this could well end any presidential hopes he may have had. He endorsed Trump and got nothing back in return.

I do not envy that guy right now. He is between a rock and a hard place with this election.

 

[tytlyf]

Ya, but they still are few and far between, although there is time.

The guy who really is looking bad now is Ryan, and this could well end any presidential hopes he may have had. He endorsed Trump and got nothing back in return.

Ryan didn't endorse him, he claimed he's 'supporting' him. The republican party is crapping bricks.

 

[metis]

I do not envy that guy right now. He is between a rock and a hard place with this election.

I betcha he's really sorry he took the Speaker job, like "What was I thinking???!!!

 

[Acim]

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

I already answered this.

In some ways, I don't even see why this is a question. Why would it matter who is POTUS if the most elite judges in our society are considered unbiased when it comes to their work? The fact that any politically aware person realizes that judges appointed to Supreme Court are likely to support bias of their appointees ought to be enough info on the claim I made. If not, I guess we could explore this further.

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?

Yes to the first question. No to the second.

As has been pointed out by many commentators, what Trump has said about judge Curiel is the definition of racism.

I don't see it even close to being racism. The only way I see it as in same ballpark is going with a PC, pseudo understanding of racism. Which is inconsistently applied. So far, anything similar I've posted in the thread with regards to Hillary isn't being called out by other thread participants as "definitely racist" which helps with the case of dictionary definition of racism, but hurts with the PC version of racism, indicating that it is inconsistently applied.

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."

Trump said - (Judge Curiel) has an "absolute conflict of interest" because he is "of Mexican heritage."
I see this as an assertion to judge this particular case, not (in any way) an assertion to be able to judge any particular case as if he is inferior to other judges because of his Mexican heritage. In the sound bite form where PC version of racism reigns supreme, I get how it is being understood as racist. I find that despicable. Arguably more despicable than Trump's original claim. I find your attempts at equivocation on par with being despicable.

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.

The inconsistency of the PC version of racism emerges. Actually, it was never hidden, but like all things Dems do, it can't possibly be racism because we can find an angle to spin it another way. But with the Pub version, there can be no spin, no critical thinking. Charge racism and ask questions later. Heck, don't even ask those questions later, lest you be accused of being inherently racist yourself.

Obama is (or was) saying that because this person looks like me, it ought to matter in how we view the whole situation. Never mind what Trayvon allegedly did that lead to his eventual death. That can't matter when you realize the killed person might look like Obama, and looks are everything under the PC version of racism.

What Obama said was clearly not racism. But it was meant to invoke a sense of prejudice.
What Trump said was clearly not racism. But it was meant to invoke a sense of prejudice.

 

[tytlyf]

Obama is (or was) saying that because this person looks like me, it ought to matter in how we view the whole situation. Never mind what Trayvon allegedly did that lead to his eventual death. That can't matter when you realize the killed person might look like Obama, and looks are everything under the PC version of racism.

What Obama said was clearly not racism. But it was meant to invoke a sense of prejudice.
What Trump said was clearly not racism. But it was meant to invoke a sense of prejudice.

Wrong. Obama didn't say anything racist ever in his presidency. Although the right loves to call him a racist. No proof whatsoever.

Only a racist would take offense to Obama's comments about Trayvon and not see the obvious racism in Trumps statement. That's the difference. Some people are oblivious to what constitutes racist language (dog whistles) or not.

 

[Acim]

Wrong. Obama didn't say anything racist ever in his presidency. Although the right loves to call him a racist. No proof whatsoever.

I'm wrong for saying "What Obama said was clearly not racism?" Interesting.

Only a racist would take offense to Obama's comments about Trayvon and not see the obvious racism in Trumps statement. That's the difference. Some people are oblivious to what constitutes racist language (dog whistles) or not.

Since I'm the only one to offer up a dictionary definition in the thread on what constitutes racism, I'll take it this cannot possibly apply to me.

Anyone claiming Trump's assertion is "obviously racism" demonstrates very little to no understanding of actual racism.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm wrong for saying "What Obama said was clearly not racism?" Interesting.



Since I'm the only one to offer up a dictionary definition in the thread on what constitutes racism, I'll take it this cannot possibly apply to me.

Anyone claiming Trump's assertion is "obviously racism" demonstrates very little to no understanding of actual racism.

Many conservatives point to the presidents' comments as racist. You're in the minority then. Trump's statement was a dog whistle, which is something only a racist would use. After all, he brought up the judge's race when it had no bearing on anything.

Trump isn't a racist himself, but he's using language that appeals to his base. Hence the support.

 

[Acim]

Many conservatives point to the presidents' comments as racist.

It's not challenging to find Obama comments that are expressing reverse discrimination, prejudice or comments about race (tinged with vitriol). I'm yet to find one that constitutes racism.

Trump's statement was a dog whistle, which is something only a racist would use.

I barely get your dog whistle invocation, but wouldn't the latter take a racist to know this to be accurate? To me, an actual racist person is fairly proud of their racism. Hence why you don't usually see racism in non-racist people. Not that you never have or never will, but it does rest on assertions of superiority/inferiority.

After all, he brought up the judge's race when it had no bearing on anything.

He made the case for what it would have a bearing on in any judgments against him. That's the whole aspect being downplayed while the political hype is played for all its worth.
If it weren't this assertion regarding this case, it would've been something else, very soon. Again, all it needs is appearance for PC version of racism to be invoked, then run with by PC press to get full mileage out of it.

Trump isn't a racist himself, but he's using language that appeals to his base. Hence the support.

Are you able to find a person from his base that supports his remarks on this particular claim? Not just support Trump, but support what is being deemed racism and argue it was right for him to make note of the Mexican heritage?

 

[tytlyf]

Are you able to find a person from his base that supports his remarks on this particular claim? Not just support Trump, but support what is being deemed racism and argue it was right for him to make note of the Mexican heritage?

Yes, Fox's very own Bull O'Really sided with Trump. Another example of conservatives calling black people racists is that they voted for the first black president by over 90%. They always repeat this.

 

[Acim]

Yes, Fox's very own Bull O'Really sided with Trump.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, especially in the way I was asking.

 

[tytlyf]

I'm pretty sure that's not true, especially in the way I was asking.

Don't you watch the news?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ly-follows-donald-trump-into-racist-hellhole/

 

[Acim]

Don't you watch the news?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ly-follows-donald-trump-into-racist-hellhole/

Lemme know when you're ready to back up the assertion. Find the words by Bill that say, "because of his Mexican heritage he is incapable of being a fair judge in all cases."

I know, I know, you'll never find that. How about the non-racist assertion that "because of his Mexican heritage, he has an absolute conflict of interest in this case." That's what Trump originally went with. See if you can find O'Reilly saying that.

Here's the part where you argue for it being implied. Go!

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Did I say that?
No.
But I don't ignore the possibility that this judge (a La Raza supporter) might be inclined against someone behaving as Trump has.

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?

You'd have to ask Trump.
I'm merely opining on judges being imperfect, & often prejudicial instead of judicial.

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 don't know that old white guys are generally fans of his.
What matters is a judge's record & any significant traits.

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?

In general, judges aren't punished for disagreeing with me.
However, I do think judges should be sanctioned when demonstrating incompetence, prejudice, or corruption.

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.?

You keep telling me what I'm saying, when I'm not saying it, but softening it with a question mark.
Tis better to ask less strongly leading misleading questions.
I don't say "most", but I do say many....very many decisions are based upon a greater number of personal traits than what you list, but including those.

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

It seems you believe that I think decisions are deterimined by race, age & gender.
I only say that it's possible for any of those (along with many others) to be a factor at times.

Try to look for nuance & variable intermittent influence as the theme I present, instead of trying to make it so extremely deterministic.

 

[metis]

Many conservatives point to the presidents' comments as racist. You're in the minority then. Trump's statement was a dog whistle, which is something only a racist would use. After all, he brought up the judge's race when it had no bearing on anything.

Trump isn't a racist himself, but he's using language that appeals to his base. Hence the support.

But even that isn't the point, and the point is that Trump has been and continues to use racist language, so whether one wants to label him as a "racist" becomes a moot point.

We don't know exactly what his motivation for such talk is, and it may well be that he is appealing to so many that are largely racists themselves, and I got plenty of those in my extended family, let me tell ya. We get along very well, but we don't dare talk about politics.

To put it bluntly, there simply is no excuse for racist-type talk, imo, and people who do should be called out on it, and I'm pleased to see numerous Republicans now doing as such, including several more just today.

 

[tytlyf]

But even that isn't the point, and the point is that Trump has been and continues to use racist language, so whether one wants to label him as a "racist" becomes a moot point.

We don't know exactly what his motivation for such talk is, and it may well be that he is appealing to so many that are largely racists themselves, and I got plenty of those in my extended family, let me tell ya. We get along very well, but we don't dare talk about politics.

To put it bluntly, there simply is no excuse for racist-type talk, imo, and people who do should be called out on it, and I'm pleased to see numerous Republicans now doing as such, including several more just today.

Trump doesn't really believe what he's saying, he's just saying what he does to get the support from his angry base. I call out people all the time for racist comments. It's odd for republicans to call out their own, but this falls back on my previous statement. If they're calling out one of their own, given the establishments fear of Trump, they're doing so with the hopes of making sure he doesn't win the election.

 

[metis]

Trump doesn't really believe what he's saying,...

I don't care if he does or doesn't-- he's still saying racist-type statements and there simply is no excuse for that. I don't know what he's thinking, but actions have consequences, and what one says is an action and words can have impact. We teach our kids not to bully, and yet we see people justifying Trump's bullying of both groups and individuals, which make them just as morally despicable as what he's doing. As Gandhi often said, "Cooperating with evil is itself evil".

BTW, he is speaking right now on r.v. coverage, and his handlers now have him using a teleprompter to make sure he doesn't go off-script. I wonder how long that'll last?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At best, I agree the judge is biased.

Based on what evidence?

That all people are biased (foremost).

^ sophomoric drivel.

 

[Acim]

^ sophomoric drivel.

Middle school retort