|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:25 puerk wrote:On June 08 2016 06:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Because the showing required to disqualify a judge is really high. how high/low would you like it to be? is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind? and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america? The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain. That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements.
So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet.
|
On June 08 2016 08:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:04 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 07:54 On_Slaught wrote:On June 08 2016 07:40 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 On_Slaught wrote:
It's only a matter of time before the next Trump fuck up. He will continue to attack his critics and the media will continue to ask provokative questions and he will take the bait. He can't help himself. We can call them fuck-ups, but a few more and he'll probably have a 15 point lead over Clinton. Another instance of wishful thinking from Trump supporters that isn't based in reality. I'll take being "another instance" in whatever your worldview is than swallowing whole every case of people crying wolf about the candidates. On June 08 2016 07:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:12 On_Slaught wrote:Lol, a complete 180 from his interviews. The fact this came out today just shows he realized he stepped on a mine and is trying some damage control by giving arguments he never made when confronted on the issue. I think you would benefit from applying the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity to how you judge others, especially others you have a confirmation bias to judge negatively. It's interesting how people see the same material and say "this is what he said all along" and others think it means someone sat down and had a stern chat with him about his bad behavior and finally got him to back off. The reality is it's probably somewhere in between. I'm not really sold by the people constantly going 'no he said this but this is what he meant'. I'm not also sold by the blatantly confirmation-biased interpretations of the things he says either. He definitely walks a fine line but the shit he gets for it is extraordinarily disproportional to him stepping over it or not. If he was a minority he wouldn't even be doubted as the presumptive next POTUS.
Hahahaha, if only Trump was Mexican. He would be president!
I'm sorry but that is hilarious.
|
On June 08 2016 08:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:If he was a minority he wouldn't even be doubted as the presumptive next POTUS.
But of course, as a wise man once said:
On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism.
|
On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:56 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
How is this not relevant? Again, if the judge displays obvious bias a motion can be filed to have him replaced. If big judicial mistakes are made (potentially the one you highlighted) an Appeal can correct them. What you don't do is make no formal protest and instead slam a judge infront of the national media from your position as Presidential candidate. The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best. Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one. Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief? 'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST! Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades. Every white male is a racist to the left That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are. He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security. I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump.
I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not.
Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'.
Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination.
|
On June 08 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:56 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:11 Gorsameth wrote:Lot of deflection and pointless words, not a single fact present. So yeah. He has jack shit and was blowing steam for news air time. Guess something he said is finally coming back to bite him. Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue How is this not relevant? Again, if the judge displays obvious bias a motion can be filed to have him replaced. If big judicial mistakes are made (potentially the one you highlighted) an Appeal can correct them. What you don't do is make no formal protest and instead slam a judge infront of the national media from your position as Presidential candidate. The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best. Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one. Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief? 'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST! Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades. Every white male is a racist to the left
Stupid is as Stupid does.
|
Gauging interest:
Poll: Temporary prohibition on posting less than 3 complete lines?(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No preference
(Vote): No
|
On June 08 2016 08:13 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:If he was a minority he wouldn't even be doubted as the presumptive next POTUS. But of course, as a wise man once said: Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism.
I don't see the problem. The latter statement is justification for the former.
edit - maybe I see what you were saying.
The fact that he's white is the only reason he isn't the presumed POTUS because if he was a minority he wouldn't get all this shit for being 'racist/sexist/homophobe' which is racist in-of-itself.
|
On June 08 2016 08:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I don't see the problem. The latter statement is justification for the former.
Of course you wouldn't see the problem, because you agree with both statements. But for those who don't, the second statement is race baiting.
|
On June 08 2016 08:15 oBlade wrote:Gauging interest: Poll: Temporary prohibition on posting less than 3 complete lines?(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No preference
(Vote): No
Mods do read this thread.
|
On June 08 2016 08:21 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I don't see the problem. The latter statement is justification for the former. Of course you wouldn't see the problem, because you agree with both statements. But for those who don't, the second statement is race baiting.
Sorry I misunderstood what race-baiting meant. That renders what I said very silly.
|
On June 08 2016 08:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:21 zf wrote:On June 08 2016 08:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I don't see the problem. The latter statement is justification for the former. Of course you wouldn't see the problem, because you agree with both statements. But for those who don't, the second statement is race baiting. Sorry I misunderstood what race-baiting meant. That renders what I said very silly.
No need to apologize. You're not "wrong." There's no uncontested definition of race baiting. It's just a term that people apply to racially inflected statements they dislike.
|
United States42014 Posts
On June 08 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:25 puerk wrote:
[quote]
how high/low would you like it to be?
is curiel qualified to lead a fair trial in the case on the trump university, in your mind?
and on a meta level, do you consider the existence of racially organized associations striving for equality by promoting themselfs, as a problem in america?
The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain. That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements. So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet.
I'm glad you can see the issues with your argument when someone else uses it. Of course I was using your argument back at you to illustrate the absurdity of it so I will now claim victory. You're not (to my knowledge) a rapist, I simply profiled you as one based upon one fact taken completely out of context.
|
United States42014 Posts
On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:56 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Again, if the judge displays obvious bias a motion can be filed to have him replaced. If big judicial mistakes are made (potentially the one you highlighted) an Appeal can correct them.
What you don't do is make no formal protest and instead slam a judge infront of the national media from your position as Presidential candidate.
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best. Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one. Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief? 'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST! Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades. Every white male is a racist to the left That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are. He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security. I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination.
You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said.
You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does.
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better.
|
On June 08 2016 08:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The standard is fine. It should be tough to disqualify judges. Making too easy would wreck the judiciary, which is already under serious strain.
That said, just because judges don't have biases or prejudices sufficient to warrant disqualification does not mean that they do not have biases and prejudices that materially affect the outcomes of cases. Any attorney who has ever litigated a case knows otherwise. Though I haven't looked at the merits of the Trump U case and why Judge Curiel released the records, I fully expect that he is predisposed to being adverse to Trump. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements. So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet. I'm glad you can see the issues with your argument when someone else uses it. Of course I was using your argument back at you to illustrate the absurdity of it so I will now claim victory. You're not (to my knowledge) a rapist, I simply profiled you as one based upon one fact taken completely out of context.
This is actually the problem with discussing politics. Everyone wants it to be about 'I'm right you're wrong if I argue you I can show you you're wrong and then be the winner'
It's not a fight it's not a game you don't 'win'
|
On June 08 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:26 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements. So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet. I'm glad you can see the issues with your argument when someone else uses it. Of course I was using your argument back at you to illustrate the absurdity of it so I will now claim victory. You're not (to my knowledge) a rapist, I simply profiled you as one based upon one fact taken completely out of context. This is actually the problem with discussing politics. Everyone wants it to be about 'I'm right you're wrong if I argue you I can show you you're wrong and then be the winner' It's not a fight it's not a game you don't 'win'
That was literally the most meaningless part about his post. You could totally ignore it and it wouldnt change one important part about his comment. Thanks for the bullshit lecture though. Im sure everyone is off polishing their imaginary trophies everytime they think they "won" on a message board.
Also he doesnt want to be right. He is right.
Also we all know Trump is orange and not white, so supposing the left is racist towards white males, that still doesnt work.
Regardless of how stupid that comment is.
|
On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:14 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:05 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:56 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 07:49 Plansix wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
The media makes shit up like this all the time to get good ratings and now they want to act like they have the moral highground. It's laughable at best. Paul Ryan said the remarks were classic racism. It seems like everyone but Trump is on the same page on this one. Is that supposed to legitimize your incorrect belief? 'everyone's on the same page on this one' so you know I'm right when I call him RACIST! Trump is racist. It's been fact for a long time. He has been accused of it over and over for decades. Every white male is a racist to the left That's not how it works, only the ones who say and do racist things are. He got called a racist for saying we should halt immigration from muslims. They just want to make everything about race when it has nothing to do with race it has to do with facts and national security. I honestly think race-baiting is a bigger problem in the west at this point than actual racism. You do understand that your argument was that "the left call all white males racist, that means that if a white male is called a racist by the left then no matter what he has said or done, he must not be racist", right? An argument that incidentally also exonerates Hitler. Now I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, just that maybe instead of going "the left calls all white males racist" and dismissing it based on that, you should actually look at what Trump has said and done and base the decision upon that. Because otherwise we have to dismiss a lot of charges of racism and some of them will cover racists, like Hitler, and Trump. I have never made that conclusion. I'm sure some whites are dirty racists in our country but widespread or dangerous? I think not. Western white countries are literally the least racist countries in the world and that's not a racist thing to say that's a fact. How many refugees has the West taken in just from this Syrian conflict compared to actual Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain or UAE? The west is so anti-racist places like the UK and Germany are literally passing authoritarian laws to censor any sort of criticism of immigration because they're too afraid of 'looking racist'. Nowhere else in the world would you get the amount of humanitarian aid and tolerance shown by Western countries. The whole 'radical conservative backwards racist conservative' hoax is literally white guilt indoctrination. You're right, the liberal West is far more liberal than the rest of the world. But that's irrelevant to what you said. You responded to accusations of Trump being a racist by saying that the left thinks all white males are racists. That's enough to respond to an accusation rooted purely in his gender and ethnicity but people aren't calling him a racist because of that, they're calling him a racist because of all the racist things he says and does. Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better.
I do not literally believe every leftist believes that every white male is a racist. I am sorry I gave that impression. I was bitterly mocking his conclusion that 'trump's a racist everyone has always known he was a racist' as if it's matter-of-fact.
I simply disagree with the notion that Trump should be called a racist or sexist for the things he has said this election cycle. It's just racist scandal after racist scandal from the media and when you look at the actual things he says versus how the media portrays him as 'literally' hitler, it's no wonder he won the republican primary. People are fed up with this authoritarian political correct bullshit trying to police people.
Yes I agree bigotry and actual racism and actual sexism and actual homophobia are all very terrible things so I am somewhat understanding of the passion with which the 'progressive left' wants to stamp them out. But the war is over we won it's pretty much dead in the West. Where oppression like this isn't dead is in places ruled by Islamic Law where you ACTUALLY get murdered for dissenting beliefs/behaviors.
Trump takes some controversial positions on mexican illegal immigration. Is it nice to deport all the illegal immigrants back to their home country away from our richer welfare state? No. But is it racist? No. Is it racist to point out? No.
The MSM would have you believe it is though.
|
Wouldn't xDaunt have to be a member of a group called, "The Dominant Sex!" that just so happens to share the exact same name with a group of known pro-rapist agenda users also named, "The Dominant Sex!" Not to mention the other suspect things about the case? Wouldn't xDaunt have to "mistakenly" leak some files. Contribute to X political party and be an appointee of that same political party? Then yeah, the case seems a little more shady. Why is a member of THE DOMINANT SEX making this case last far longer than it perhaps should. And what's with the 'mistaken' leak? The lead plaintiff was taken off the case.. but you know.. we'll give you time to get your case together.
On June 08 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Also I think looking at Saudi Arabia and saying "why should we do more than them?" is pretty silly. It comes down to "let's find the worst people we can so we can feel okay when we're as bad as they are". Just because someone isn't the worst doesn't mean they can't do better.
Woah, you wouldn't say that other peoples from other countries are generally WORSE than us do you? "The worst people we can". Who are you talking about? The Muslims from Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Palestine? Egypt? Are we better than all of them?!? What about cultural relevatism? Aren't they just different from us, and not worse?
What of the peoples of Africa that are coming by boat? Are... are they also some of the WORST people? I don't know how many refugees they accepted myself.
|
United States42014 Posts
On June 08 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:26 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 06:45 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Setting aside the group associations, do you think he's adverse on the basis of ethnicity? Are Mexicans biased against Trump due to his wall plan? I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements. So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet. I'm glad you can see the issues with your argument when someone else uses it. Of course I was using your argument back at you to illustrate the absurdity of it so I will now claim victory. You're not (to my knowledge) a rapist, I simply profiled you as one based upon one fact taken completely out of context. This is actually the problem with discussing politics. Everyone wants it to be about 'I'm right you're wrong if I argue you I can show you you're wrong and then be the winner' It's not a fight it's not a game you don't 'win'
The politics were irrelevant, he was using flawed logic. He made an attempt to defend Trump's comments by arguing that bias exists, that people of Mexican heritage were more likely to be biased against Trump than people who were not of Mexican heritage and therefore that this meant that Trump's comments were excusable because "profiling works". That's such a shitty train of logic that it was very easy to reverse into something that was not only offensive to xDaunt personally but also completely absurd. Which, of course, he promptly rejected. Bad logic is bad logic, no matter where on the political spectrum you find yourself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On June 08 2016 08:34 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:26 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:10 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:52 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:34 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2016 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 07:00 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't know if I'd say that he is biased on the basis of his ethnicity (or that he's biased at all), but the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. Profiling works in the absence of other information. If you showed me two guys and told me one was a member of the IRA I'd pick the white ginger with the Irish accent. Similarly if you showed me a WASP and a Mexican and told me one didn't like Trump I might suspect the Mexican. In this case we have no reason to assume either dislikes Trump so jumping to "one is more likely to than the other and therefore one does because profiling works" is insanity. Furthermore, given this guy is a judge we should assume that his decisions will be impartial and rooted in the law until we see otherwise. He isn't just a Mexican (well, he isn't even a Mexican but let's assume he is), he is a Mexican judge, profiling him based only on his race and ignoring his attributes that contradict that profile is also insanity. There is so much room for actual knowledge in this case that resorting to profiling is absurd. You can't just say "profiling works" and leave it at that. It doesn't work that way. As Trump is always telling us, the Hispanic population of America adore him. The bolded above means nothing. Every argument that an attorney makes to a judge is "rooted in the law," and every opinion issued by a judge is similarly rooted in the law. It is entirely possible to have two completely inconsistent rulings on a given issue, where each ruling is "rooted in the law." Judges have a ton of legal gray area and inherent discretion to work with when making their rulings. Bias and predisposition play very large roles in how their conclusions are formed. Then show the bias. Right now it's no better than saying xDaunt is a rapist because he's a man and profiling works. Well, if you gave me a xDaunt and an infant and told me one of them was definitely a rapist, I'd pick xDaunt but that's not how shit works. You made a huge leap from "more likely to be biased", as indeed you are more likely to be a rapist, to "is biased". It just doesn't work that way. What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't said that Judge Curiel is biased against Trump. I have only said that there are numerous indicators that suggest that he could be. And even presuming that he biased against Trump, then the issue becomes whether the bias has played a role in his decisions, which I have offered no comment on (and won't, because I don't have the time to look at the record). You wrote this On June 08 2016 07:47 xDaunt wrote:
the fact that he's of Mexican heritage taken by itself certainly indicates that Judge Curiel is more likely to be biased against Trump. I can say the same thing about his professional affiliations, his profession overall, and the fact that he was appointed by Clinton. Who do you think is more likely to be sympathetic to Trump? Judge Curiel or a white/WASP judge who is a Bush appointee and member of the NRA? As I infamously have remarked, profiling works. and I pointed out the total idiocy of saying "more likely to be biased" as if it means anything and the absurdity of the argument that "profiling works" in the absence of any other information. You tried to spin substance out of air to flesh out what Trump said and I pierced it. That's what the fuck I am talking about. "More likely to be biased" isn't biased and given that Trump is making accusations of actual bias your suggestions that he might be more likely to be biased are no more relevant, or likely, than my equally fleshed out claim that you're more likely to be a rapist.Are you a rapist? Or would you suggest that the whole "more likely to be a rapist" line of reasoning is completely retarded? Because I think it is, but it's the line of reasoning you're using to attempt to defend Trump's indefensible statements. So what? You're going to resort to baseless strawmanning to salvage your dignity? I don't give a shit about what Trump said. I have not endorsed what he has said about Judge Curiel, and I'm not about to. All that I have done is point out what is obvious to every legal professional who has ever been in a courtroom: judges carry their biases and predispositions to court. I don't know Judge Curiel. I don't know whether he is, in fact, biased against Trump. But I can look at his background and suss out several facts suggesting that he could be, all of which should be blindingly obvious to everyone. But apparently you're more interested in making retarded, nonsensical analogies just to have the opportunity to put my name and rapist in the same sentence. Nice work. You're a true poet. I'm glad you can see the issues with your argument when someone else uses it. Of course I was using your argument back at you to illustrate the absurdity of it so I will now claim victory. You're not (to my knowledge) a rapist, I simply profiled you as one based upon one fact taken completely out of context. This is actually the problem with discussing politics. Everyone wants it to be about 'I'm right you're wrong if I argue you I can show you you're wrong and then be the winner' It's not a fight it's not a game you don't 'win' That was literally the most meaningless part about his post. You could totally ignore it and it wouldnt change one important part about his comment. Thanks for the bullshit lecture though. Im sure everyone is off polishing their imaginary trophies everytime they think they "won" on a message board. Also he doesnt want to be right. He is right. Also we all know Trump is orange and not white, so supposing the left is racist towards white males, that still doesnt work. Regardless of how stupid that comment is.
<Calls out someone on a meaningless post>
<Makes an absurd orange-skin not white-skin race argument/joke>
<Says I'm the one making stupid comments>
10/10 can't make this shit up
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
