|
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. |
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did .
He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success.
Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. This is what I find fascinating. Supposing it were all true, it would still be racism, I imagine.
Let's thought experiment and suppose it is true. Play this game with me and make some assumptions that are literally best-scenario assumptions for trump because why not it's a though experiment humor me-
-Trump is innocent in the Trump U case and he knows he's innocent
-Trump gets various forms of proof to get the case dropped, the plaintiff gave his U great reviews etc etc
-Various lawyers give him the 'yea this case should be dropped now any other judge would have dropped it already
-The judge is therefore being unfair to you in the hearings
-Why is the judge being unfair to you? you discover he stands to benefit from you doing poorly in this case
-Why would he benefit from you doing poorly? Because of his background
-You conclude the judge is treating you unfairly because of his background
-I repeat it is because of his background that he is treating you unfairly
If a judge is treating you unfairly because of their background (because that background dictates that they have a stake in your case - i.e. they stand to gain if you lose), then they are incapable of being a fair judge. This is now a fact.
So we've arrived at something that is factual, but it becomes racist when you point out that fact?
That's where you lose me
Black people disproportionately commit more crimes than whites in America. That is a fact. It's not racist to say, it's a simple fact.
If you went a step further and said "Mexicans are incapable of being judges because unlike white people, they are not capable of being partial", then THAT is racist.
He didn't say that.
And thus lies the media-scam trend - extrapolating to the general from the very specific.
|
On June 08 2016 10:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:06 zlefin wrote:
your response and use of the term media scams pretty clearly you puts you in the camp of someone taking extreme bias. everyone likes to think of themselves as reasonable and unbiased and not making assumptions, but not so many actually are.
Whether Trump thinks he's being racist is quite different from the question of whether he is in fact being racist.
You don't respond to an assertion of cognitive bias by saying if you assumed he was racist it'd be an easy conclusion; that means you truly haven't considered your own bias adequately, and haven't considered the opposing viewpoint to a serious degree, but regard it as nonsense. The media has done it multiple times. It's factual to point this out. I've seen them do it a dozen fucking times and it's horrible. Still, I heard about this latest Trump scandal and went into it saying 'wow this looks pretty bad, I wonder what Trump has to actually say about it. Maybe he actually has lost his mind. Nope there's a rational explanation for it, it just isn't politically correct so the media's slamming him on it after baiting him into saying it. honest journalism right there' It's a fact. If I assumed he was a racist I would come to the same conclusion as you. I see it clear as day. So I ask myself 'what if I went into it just trying to look at it from Trump's perspective as if I was Trump', When I did that it became absurd and it's no wonder he flames the media so much. The reporter questioning him is a shill who is asking him under the assumption that what he said was racist just like you. Remember when actual journalism was supposed to be about questions to discern the truth not paint a narrative? I just don't understand why it's so hard to put yourself in his shoes. You're in a court case and you have a controversial platform as president that adversely affects the country of Mexico. You believe your case should have been dropped and have plenty of evidence that supports it's a farce. You find out your judge is of Mexican heritage and a part of pro-mexican descent. What do you believe? 1. i believe mexicans can't be judges because im racist against them and i hate mexico it's full of rapists 2. my judge has a stake in the outcome of my case and that's the only explanation for why it hasn't been dropped yet when plenty of legal experts and lawyers are telling me it should have already been dropped Why is that such a hard choice?
a) where did I state what my conclusion was on this matter? you seem to be assuming my conclusion, though I don't recall stating it, I may've though.
Actual jounralism hasn't changed much; there's been PLENTY of narrative painting in journalism sinc eforever.
b) looking at it from trump's perspective may not change whether it was racism, as racism can be looked at by action as well as by intent. you need not consciously intend racism to be racist.
PS tl keeps annoyingly being laggy, it's messing with my ability to type stuf fin properly, since it only updates the text like every 5th second. sometimes less.
|
On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import.
No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist.
On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left.
nah, this lady was pretty bad.
But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening.
|
On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly.
It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen.
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far.
lol @ you clinging to the claim Trump's reasoning depends on the judge's group involvement. Why are you averse to admit that's not the case?
|
On June 08 2016 10:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:14 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning.
Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that:
1. The judge was "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. This is what I find fascinating. Supposing it were all true, it would still be racism, I imagine. Let's thought experiment and suppose it is true. Play this game with me and make some assumptions that are literally best-scenario assumptions for trump because why not it's a though experiment humor me- -Trump is innocent in the Trump U case and he knows he's innocent -Trump gets various forms of proof to get the case dropped, the plaintiff gave his U great reviews etc etc -Various lawyers give him the 'yea this case should be dropped now any other judge would have dropped it already -The judge is therefore being unfair to you in the hearings -Why is the judge being unfair to you? you discover he stands to benefit from you doing poorly in this case -Why would he benefit from you doing poorly? Because of his background -You conclude the judge is treating you unfairly because of his background -I repeat it is because of his background that he is treating you unfairly If a judge is treating you unfairly because of their background (because that background dictates that they have a stake in your case - i.e. they stand to gain if you lose), then they are incapable of being a fair judge. This is now a fact. So we've arrived at something that is factual, but it becomes racist when you point out that fact? That's where you lose me Black people disproportionately commit more crimes than whites in America. That is a fact. It's not racist to say, it's a simple fact. If you went a step further and said "Mexicans are incapable of being judges because unlike white people, they are not capable of being partial", then THAT is racist. He didn't say that.
It's racist when you ignore the myriad of other reasons the judge could be "unfair" to Trump over the "he's Mexican" narrative. Maybe the judge just fucking hates his comb over.
|
Wow guys, look at the effect of voter suppression in action. Thanks to corporate oligarchy (the AP), Clinton reversed her tremendous disadvantage and ended up winning NJ!
|
“Ah, look at my African-American over here (while pointing). Look at him. Aren’t you the greatest? You know what I’m talking about? Okay. So we have an African-American guy at one of the rallies a month ago, and he’s sitting there behaving.”
|
On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:40 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
It is racist to say that a person by virtue of his ethnicity (and no other evidence) is not doing his sworn duty correctly.
It is racist to question that the President of the United States by virtue of his heritage and no other evidence is not an American citizen.
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did . He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success. Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far.
You are inventing that the judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. This is you creating your own alternate reality. You know nothing about that judge, you discovered his existence with Trump's comments, and you have zero clue whatsoever of how he feels about the case.
Trump laid out as explicitly as possible why he thinks the judge is being biased against him. Let's quote him again:
4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job."
5:07 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..."
5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
This is not about "values". It's about the judge's ethnicity, and the fact that Trump says the judge's heritage is making him biased against Trump because of Trump's position on the wall. There is no other factor at play.
On June 08 2016 10:15 biology]major wrote:
You're first point is that the judge is mexican and that implies racism by trump no doubt. However you fail to recognize his initial point is actually that he feels wronged by the judge, regardless of race or gender. He offers the judge's race as an explanation for why he feels wronged. This makes trump a sore loser at worst like templar said.
edit:
oops responding to kwiz argument
I don't "fail to recognize" that at all, in fact if you read my posts you would see that from the beginning I have explicitly said I was describing Trump's reasoning behind his accusing the judge of bias. That doesn't change the facts I've described, and that you've acknowledged yourself (he feels the judge's "race" explains why the judge is biased). I disagree with you that this makes him "a sore loser at worst".
|
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did .
He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success.
Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. lol @ you clinging to the claim Trump's reasoning depends on the judge's group involvement. Why are you averse to admit that's not the case?
I don't get what is so hard about stepping inside someone's shoes to try to see it from their perspective before you condemn them one of the worst labels you can be attributed with in western society
|
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:14 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said.
You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0.
Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias.
Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. This is what I find fascinating. Supposing it were all true, it would still be racism, I imagine. Let's thought experiment and suppose it is true. Play this game with me and make some assumptions that are literally best-scenario assumptions for trump because why not it's a though experiment humor me- -Trump is innocent in the Trump U case and he knows he's innocent -Trump gets various forms of proof to get the case dropped, the plaintiff gave his U great reviews etc etc -Various lawyers give him the 'yea this case should be dropped now any other judge would have dropped it already -The judge is therefore being unfair to you in the hearings -Why is the judge being unfair to you? you discover he stands to benefit from you doing poorly in this case -Why would he benefit from you doing poorly? Because of his background -You conclude the judge is treating you unfairly because of his background -I repeat it is because of his background that he is treating you unfairly If a judge is treating you unfairly because of their background (because that background dictates that they have a stake in your case - i.e. they stand to gain if you lose), then they are incapable of being a fair judge. This is now a fact. So we've arrived at something that is factual, but it becomes racist when you point out that fact? That's where you lose me Black people disproportionately commit more crimes than whites in America. That is a fact. It's not racist to say, it's a simple fact. If you went a step further and said "Mexicans are incapable of being judges because unlike white people, they are not capable of being partial", then THAT is racist. He didn't say that. It's racist when you ignore the myriad of other reasons the judge could be "unfair" to Trump over the "he's Mexican" narrative. Maybe the judge just fucking hates his comb over.
Lol I hope this is satire
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening.
the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues.
moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans
|
I don't think there is a single judge in the United States who does not, in some way or another, have a stake in whether Trump succeeds or fails. If nothing else, he might become the president of the country in which they reside, and I can imagine many would have strong feelings about that.
If there were significant actual evidence that this judge in particular was biased because of his Mexican heritage in particular, then maybe there is a point here. In the absence of said evidence, I'm not sure I'd call such allegations racist but they are both slanderous and stupid.
Of course, slander and stupidity have never stopped Trump appealing to his base before now.
|
On June 08 2016 10:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:26 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning.
Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that:
1. The judge was "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. lol @ you clinging to the claim Trump's reasoning depends on the judge's group involvement. Why are you averse to admit that's not the case? I don't get what is so hard about stepping inside someone's shoes to try to see it from their perspective before you condemn them one of the worst labels you can be attributed with in western society
That wasn't responsive to what I said. You Trump apologists are so averse to admitting that his stated reasoning does not depend on the involvement by the judge in various groups. It is just,
1. He's "a Mexican"
2. Trump's building a wall
3. Therefore, he's biased
|
On June 08 2016 10:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 08 2016 10:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:14 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. This is what I find fascinating. Supposing it were all true, it would still be racism, I imagine. Let's thought experiment and suppose it is true. Play this game with me and make some assumptions that are literally best-scenario assumptions for trump because why not it's a though experiment humor me- -Trump is innocent in the Trump U case and he knows he's innocent -Trump gets various forms of proof to get the case dropped, the plaintiff gave his U great reviews etc etc -Various lawyers give him the 'yea this case should be dropped now any other judge would have dropped it already -The judge is therefore being unfair to you in the hearings -Why is the judge being unfair to you? you discover he stands to benefit from you doing poorly in this case -Why would he benefit from you doing poorly? Because of his background -You conclude the judge is treating you unfairly because of his background -I repeat it is because of his background that he is treating you unfairly If a judge is treating you unfairly because of their background (because that background dictates that they have a stake in your case - i.e. they stand to gain if you lose), then they are incapable of being a fair judge. This is now a fact. So we've arrived at something that is factual, but it becomes racist when you point out that fact? That's where you lose me Black people disproportionately commit more crimes than whites in America. That is a fact. It's not racist to say, it's a simple fact. If you went a step further and said "Mexicans are incapable of being judges because unlike white people, they are not capable of being partial", then THAT is racist. He didn't say that. It's racist when you ignore the myriad of other reasons the judge could be "unfair" to Trump over the "he's Mexican" narrative. Maybe the judge just fucking hates his comb over. Lol I hope this is satire
Less satirical than a conspiracy to stop a wall that will never get built.
|
United States7226 Posts
On June 08 2016 10:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 08:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
Yes it is racist to suggest that. I do not believe that is what Trump did .
He has clearly stated motivations for believing that the trial was being conducted unfairly and offered the judge's 'perspective' or 'race' as a possible motivator for why it might be unfair. The organization the judge is a part of clearly indicates he has some stake in Trump's success or not and that his judgment of this trial will directly affect that success.
Is that still controversial? Yes. Is it as simple as him judging the judge as being incapable due to his race? No. What narrative is the media selling? You guess How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning. Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that: 1. The judge was "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. You are inventing that the judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. This is you creating your own alternate reality. You know nothing about that judge, you discovered his existence with Trump's comments, and you have zero clue whatsoever of how he feels about the case. Trump laid out as explicitly as possible why he thinks the judge is being biased against him. Let's quote him again: 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." This is not about "values". It's about the judge's ethnicity, and the fact that Trump says the judge's heritage is making him biased against Trump because of Trump's position on the wall. There is no other factor at play. Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:15 biology]major wrote:
You're first point is that the judge is mexican and that implies racism by trump no doubt. However you fail to recognize his initial point is actually that he feels wronged by the judge, regardless of race or gender. He offers the judge's race as an explanation for why he feels wronged. This makes trump a sore loser at worst like templar said.
edit:
oops responding to kwiz argument I don't "fail to recognize" that at all, in fact if you read my posts you would see that from the beginning I have explicitly said I was describing Trump's reasoning behind his accusing the judge of bias. That doesn't change the facts I've described, and that you've acknowledged yourself (he feels the judge's "race" explains why the judge is biased). I disagree with you that this makes him "a sore loser at worst".
I've heard the medias side of the story.
That is Trump's side of the story.
Please look at my other response to this quote because you're literally rehashing the same conversation I just had with someone else.
|
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat.
|
On June 08 2016 10:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 09:57 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 09:40 KwarK wrote:
My chief objection to it was that it does nothing to resolve the problem of illegal immigration. Your defence of it didn't address that but instead had points 2, 3 and 4 explaining why it's good policy for American to spend 25b on what is effectively a big stone middle finger pointing at what is still one of her closest trading partners because "what are they gonna do about it?".
I like immigration reform but the wall is really, really bad policy and has been executed even more poorly with the confrontational attitude towards Mexico. At the very least it's shitty diplomacy, he's not even been elected and the Mexican political establishment, with whom he will have to work to get changes, refuse to work with him. Throwing poor white bastards a bone is shitty politics if that bone costs you the ability to actually get something done. On June 08 2016 09:40 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 09:32 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 09:08 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 09:03 SK.Testie wrote:On June 08 2016 08:55 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2016 08:44 SK.Testie wrote:
So you're against the Migrant crisis? Or perhaps at least a far more sensible solution to it. Not this mass migration that is coming from WAY more countries than just Syria. Do you think Republicans have a point in saying, "accept Christians and families please! Muslims, no thank you?" Of all the Muslims I talk to they tell me the only hopeful country in the region is Iran. And judging from my own readings it seems to be the only one.
So why would the left keep forcing mass immigration against our will?
What of Mexico? It's full of beautiful and awesome people I agree and I loved my visit there. But I was also robbed within one day of being there which hadn't happened to me once in all my days of being in the west. So maybe.. republicans can say.. BUILD THE WALL? Everyone is "against" the migrant crisis in the sense that they'd rather people were staying back home in a stable country with jobs and prospects etc, hell, I think even the migrants would agree on that. What people disagree with is what to do about it. I'd rather secure borders with camps outside of the EU for processing, screening and so forth and ideally for getting them back home when shit stops hitting the fan there. As for the Muslims coming to the US, no, I don't agree. The hysterical claims of millions of ISIS members crossing into America are false, we are talking small numbers of heavily screened individuals to the point that I feel no more threatened by knowing they're a Muslim than I do by anything else. If there was a murderous army waiting to destroy America and Obama wanted to invite them in I'd object to that policy. But that isn't the reality of the situation, that's a propaganda piece that the far right tell themselves. I work with handful of Muslims day to day from all over the Middle East (foreign students doing their PhDs mostly) and the reality of the situation is that once they get their doctorates they will probably be denied the right to stay in the US due to their backgrounds. Which is insane, they're overqualified for their home nations, they're bright and motivated young men and they're very happy to be in the US. Hell, half of them eat pork. But this is where we end up from fearing the Muslim. You left out the Mexico bit & The Great Wall of Trump. And the migrant crisis should be handled closer to what you say. We don't want inhumanity but right now you have a native population all over Europe feeling displaced and many feel they are being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Which is a little messed up. Though I would note that all of ISIS top guys are engineers or have PhD's ironically. But still it's about what the citizens of the country want, and to decry the 'parent' population to make it feel marginalized and displaced is a little messed up. But there was an article a little while ago about how some euro countries were building factories in North Africa. And the comments section was lined with, "if the countries are safe enough to build factories in, why the hell are we taking migrants from NA?!" + Show Spoiler + Most illegal immigrants don't cross the border from Mexico, they overstay visas. The wall is an overpriced and ineffective fuck you to one of America's closest trading partners and "making Mexico pay for it" is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a bad policy built on bad ideas, bad economics and bad diplomacy. Immigration reform is needed but that's not what the wall is. The wall is the lowest common denominator response to a failed immigration policy, it's the anti-immigration equivalent of "why don't we solve crime by banning all guns". 1. It's not going to block trade routes. 2. The Mexican government was complicit in sending people over (albeit in a nice way so they didn't die!) But it certainly encourages more people to come rather than enforcing that they should not come. As there is no penalty for trying. 3. The Mexican government is essentially giving the USA a big "fuck you" by being cartel country and a massive problem with drugs flooding in. The citizens WANT to give a fuck you back. Mexico isn't going to crash both the economies because people can no longer illegally walk across the border. 4. A fuck you is needed back. "Hey, we're still buds. But fuck this illegal immigration shit". Mexico and the USA still need each other. I think it will be effective, and 10bn-25bn is not going to bankrupt the USA when it's 20trn in debt. It's a drop in the bucket for the US. It's jobs. And hell if they make it pretty, it can even be a tourist attraction. "The great wall of Fuck You Mexico!" 5. What is Mexico going to do? Cut off trade that they rely on? No. No matter what 'relations' the two countries have $ trumps all. They will never lose a dime if they don't have to. 6. Throw these poor white bastards a bone. They don't feel at home in their home country anymore. Walk outside, hear Spanish, think, 'ISN'T THIS AMERICA?' Pandered to and lied to about a wall for decades and nothing. Hell even Hillary and Bill both said they'd do it. No results. They just want legal immigrants, that's it. Slow down the flow. Stop displacing the home population so fast. 7. Open borders is a retarded idea when the immigration flows one way. I'm not saying you're a proponent of it, but I just want to make that position clear. I don't know about you but I'd feel very guilty if the whole population of Canada just up and moved to Japan because our economy was shit. And we just displaced a bunch of Japanese people and said, 'what, are you fucking racists? Respect our rights and religion and we're humans, faggots'. It's just not a nice thing to do to your neighbour to not respect their laws and customs. My chief objection to it was that it does nothing to resolve the problem of illegal immigration. Your defence of it didn't address that but instead had points 2, 3 and 4 explaining why it's good policy for American to spend 25b on what is effectively a big stone middle finger pointing at what is still one of her closest trading partners because "what are they gonna do about it?". I like immigration reform but the wall is really, really bad policy and has been executed even more poorly with the confrontational attitude towards Mexico. At the very least it's shitty diplomacy, he's not even been elected and the Mexican political establishment, with whom he will have to work to get changes, refuse to work with him. Throwing poor white bastards a bone is shitty politics if that bone costs you the ability to actually get something done. I'm of the opinion it will help a great deal with illegal immigration. I'm surprised that your chief argument is that it won't help. People are literally just walking across the desert, hitching a ride on trains, or fitting 30 people into a tiny van after all. As if diplomatic relations are going to change. They need each other. All this pandering about, 'oh did he offend this world leader?' is clearly nonsense. The bottom line is always money. So long as there's money to be made, nothing will change. It will definitely have an effect on slowing the illegal immigrants down, give border patrol a better defense, and may cost far less than the other plans they were thinking of running with like a drone program. A great deal of Americans want the symbol. Again, if it's pretty it's a tourist attraction. It's also jobs for a while, a public works project. That money is just going to go back into the economy anyway, it's not going to disappear. Pay your workers, they put it back into the economy anyway. Congrats, filled out some jobs for a while. Pretty sure the Mexican people will understand, and if they don't understand that America doesn't like its laws broken, well, the wall will tell them how Americans feel about it and they'll just have to learn to forgive and forget. Mexico and America have been screwing each other over for a while, they don't care about it. The bottom line is $. So long as they can make $ off each other, they will. If anything, race relations will ease a little because you don't have a white majority feeling like it's going to be a white minority even faster. The # of border arrests speak are pretty astronomical, and I quite simply don't buy the articles that say more are leaving than coming in. ![[image loading]](http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/06/FT_15.06.25_hispanic_trend.png) Is this indicative of normal population growth? Canada was at 24 million in 1980 for reference. We're at 35 million now. Yet 14 to 55.5 million is.. normal? Not to mention the countless arrests / turn aways that just try try again. They're only catching a fraction of people and they keep saying that. The border is much too big for 16,500 patrol members. Canadas beside it: ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pkJoz/3d1f4b0edf.png) Saying a wall is a fuck you would also be saying a border patrol is a fuck you. Because that implies people are breaking the law and that their border needs to be patrolled. I can't see a real argument against the wall because I've seen begrudging articles that admit yes, it will work and the only factor is whether or not how well it will work. Will it slow illegal immigration down by 30%? or much more. That'll be seen. But a large portion of Americans want to see it through. I argued that most illegal immigrants overstay visas rather than walking across the southern border so the wall wouldn't stop them and you show me total population increasing? It doesn't refute my objection.
I argue that you cannot determine that most illegal immigrants overstay visas rather than walking across the southern border, because the southern border cannot be appropriately tallied or monitored but there are instances of massive amounts of illegal aliens crossing it at certain times let alone the fact that it's porous and happens daily. And by porous, I mean wide open lol.
This is a pretty insane number of arrests. And again, having a border patrol alone is a "fuck you" to mexico, is it not? What, the wall is a bigger fuck you and is thus irredeemable? Can we not capitulate to the cartel country that has strong gang ties in America? The wall's always been a good idea. That's why politicians have pretended to want to build it for the last 20+ years. Again, both Bill and Hillary have said they would build it but clearly did not. It's a good idea, it's always been a good idea, and it's silly to state otherwise. And race relations aren't exactly getting better with Mexican & African American gang wars and African Americans getting 'driven out' of their neighbourhoods.
![[image loading]](https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/total-apps-april-20160517.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pkKvH/0d3c3ff644.png)
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pkL5J/fda0229aba.png)
half a million annually on the trains alone. This doesn't count all the routes or just plain walking across the desert, a number that you cannot know or tally because it's a nearly 2k mile long border.
|
On June 08 2016 10:30 Aquanim wrote:
I don't think there is a single judge in the United States who does not, in some way or another, have a stake in whether Trump succeeds or fails. If nothing else, he might become the president of the country in which they reside, and I can imagine many would have strong feelings about that.
If there were significant actual evidence that this judge in particular was biased because of his Mexican heritage in particular, then maybe there is a point here. In the absence of said evidence, I'm not sure I'd call such allegations racist but they are both slanderous and stupid.
Of course, slander and stupidity have never stopped Trump appealing to his base before now.
I think this position is fair, even though I disagree. I just don't see the value of throwing around labels, it completely invalidates the opposing side due to stigma alone. There is no argument to be had, someone can say 2+2 = 4 but if he's got a label of 'racist' on him then no one is gonna give a shit.
|
On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans
If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party.
Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already.
On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat.
And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling.
|
On June 08 2016 10:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:27 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:16 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 08:59 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
How can you possibly still be pushing a narrative that is flat-out false at this point in the discussion? Trump did not mention the organization the judge is a part of to justify his position (an organization which by the way still in no way at all supports Trump's assertion). The organization was initially brought up by other parties, not by Trump. Stop mentioning it to explain Trump's reasoning.
Trump made his reasoning explicit in several interviews. The reason why the judge was unfair to him was, in his eyes, that:
1. The judge was "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
That's it. That's the extent of Trump's reasoning. He is unambiguously pushing the idea that because of the judge's ethnicity, he cannot be objective about Trump (due to Trump advocating for the construction of the border wall). I'm not going to fight you on your worst-possible-interpretation of what he said. You keep believing what fits your narrative to support he is Hitler 2.0. Go ahead and cite this interpretation as evidence to support it. I'll chalk it up to cognitive bias. Trump's by no means a perfect candidate but I genuinely do not believe he is a dangerous xenophobic racist who hates all mexicans and muslims. I think that's absurd. At no point in my post did I present anything else but facts about what Trump said. That you're trying to present what I just wrote as an "interpretation" says all that needs to be said about your position. You're incapable of dealing with what Trump actually said his own reasoning was. You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. You are inventing that the judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. This is you creating your own alternate reality. You know nothing about that judge, you discovered his existence with Trump's comments, and you have zero clue whatsoever of how he feels about the case. Trump laid out as explicitly as possible why he thinks the judge is being biased against him. Let's quote him again: 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." This is not about "values". It's about the judge's ethnicity, and the fact that Trump says the judge's heritage is making him biased against Trump because of Trump's position on the wall. There is no other factor at play. On June 08 2016 10:15 biology]major wrote:
You're first point is that the judge is mexican and that implies racism by trump no doubt. However you fail to recognize his initial point is actually that he feels wronged by the judge, regardless of race or gender. He offers the judge's race as an explanation for why he feels wronged. This makes trump a sore loser at worst like templar said.
edit:
oops responding to kwiz argument I don't "fail to recognize" that at all, in fact if you read my posts you would see that from the beginning I have explicitly said I was describing Trump's reasoning behind his accusing the judge of bias. That doesn't change the facts I've described, and that you've acknowledged yourself (he feels the judge's "race" explains why the judge is biased). I disagree with you that this makes him "a sore loser at worst". I've heard the medias side of the story. That is Trump's side of the story. Please look at my other response to this quote because you're literally rehashing the same conversation I just had with someone else.
I've presented you with Trump's side of the story. Trump's side of the story is:
1. The judge is "Mexican"
2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico
3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him
That is what he admitted himself to Tapper:
4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job."
5:07 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..."
5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it."
Stop trying to spin this. Those are Trump's own words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
