In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 08 2016 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:
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
I'm not a Trump apologist I firmly disagree with his stance on abortion and there's no way around it I'm pro-choice and I think he's wrong on that issue.
You fanatic nevertrumper's are just impossible to talk to you've made up your mind and won't see it any other way.
You refuse to put yourselves in this man's shoes as if he's just a normal person and try to see it from his perspective because you want to believe in the narrative you've been babyfed and questioning it would be too straining of you. I understand some people just don't' do cognitive dissonance well.
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:
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.
How can you be so dense? No one is contesting the words he said.
The disagreement is with regards to the interpretation of the meaning and motivation behind his words.
templar, you seem to be accpeting the narrative you've been spoonfed. and you're the one with cognitive dissonance, or at least you seem to be showing more signs of it. You've also ignored several of the salient counterpoints; thoug you have argued pretty well.
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:
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.
How can you be so dense? No one is contesting the words he said.
The disagreement is with regards to the interpretation of the meaning and motivation behind his words.
Would you disagree with the interpretation of Trump: "I think the reason he is making the bad rulings against me is because he is a Mexican and as a Mexican he disagrees with my policy of building a wall".
On June 08 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote: templar, you seem to be accpeting the narrative you've been spoonfed. and you're the one with cognitive dissonance, or at least you seem to be showing more signs of it. You've also ignored several of the salient counterpoints; thoug you have argued pretty well.
I mean this has just turned into an argument about the man's character and it's my interpretation of his words versus your sides interpretation. The only difference is youre all refusing to acknowledge that your interpretation is an interpretation.
On June 08 2016 10:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote:... You refuse to put yourselves in this man's shoes as if he's just a normal person and try to see it from his perspective because you want to believe in the narrative you've been babyfed and questioning it would be too straining of you. I understand some people just don't' do cognitive dissonance well.
It would be difficult-to-impossible to put myself in the shoes of Trump; given how often he contradicts himself, I have no idea what he actually thinks...
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:
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
I'm not a Trump apologist I firmly disagree with his stance on abortion and there's no way around it I'm pro-choice and I think he's wrong on that issue.
You fanatic nevertrumper's are just impossible to talk to you've made up your mind and won't see it any other way.
You refuse to put yourselves in this man's shoes as if he's just a normal person and try to see it from his perspective because you want to believe in the narrative you've been babyfed and questioning it would be too straining of you. I understand some people just don't' do cognitive dissonance well.
The "lol your psychology" argument is especially rich. I'm just glad you are apparently not a US citizen and won't be able to vote for Trump.
It's interesting that the most prominent Trump apologists in this thread do not appear to be from the US. It seems to me a lot of people who will be voting for Trump in the US don't want to say it out loud...even via their online usernames (and it's not just this site).
On June 08 2016 10:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Renee Ellmers just lost her seat in Congress. Signs to come?
Possibly not good signs
"I would love for [those bills] to be more conservative, but I'm also a common-sense person," Ellmers said. "I'm a pragmatist. I want to get things done. I'm not going to go to Washington and vote no on everything because some outside special interest group says that's the way that I should vote."
She was a Tea Party candidate who went to Washington on a surge of "don't do anything" and made the mistake of trying to govern the nation.
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:
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.
How can you be so dense? No one is contesting the words he said.
The disagreement is with regards to the interpretation of the meaning and motivation behind his words.
Trump provided the explanation. There is no need to interpret it. He explained his reasoning very clearly. You are trying to push the "competing interpretations" narrative while there is no need for any interpretation. He said that the judge was biased against him because 1. the judge is "Mexican" and 2. Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. That's it. Stop inventing reasons to distort what he said.
On June 08 2016 10:39 zlefin wrote: templar, you seem to be accpeting the narrative you've been spoonfed. and you're the one with cognitive dissonance, or at least you seem to be showing more signs of it. You've also ignored several of the salient counterpoints; thoug you have argued pretty well.
I mean this has just turned into an argument about the man's character and it's my interpretation of his words versus your sides interpretation. The only difference is youre all refusing to acknowledge that your interpretation is an interpretation.
a) i've never said what my own side IS. so you're wrong there; you also seem to be assuming a 2-sided system, rather than a many sided system, also an unfounded belief.
b) just because there are varying interpretations doesn't mean one cannot consider certain ones to be better supported by the evidence than others. Not all interpretations are created equal; this is not to pass judgment on the proper interpretation in this case, just to note as a general principle.
On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote] 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:
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.
How can you be so dense? No one is contesting the words he said.
The disagreement is with regards to the interpretation of the meaning and motivation behind his words.
Trump provided the explanation. There is no need to interpret it. He explained his reasoning very clearly. You are trying to push the "competing interpretations" narrative while there is no need for any interpretation. He said that the judge was biased against him because 1. the judge is "Mexican" and 2. Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico. That's it. Stop inventing reasons to distort what he said.
It is also worth noting that Trump was making some "Duh" gestures as he explained it. Like "Dude, do I need to spell it out for you? I'm building a wall."
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:
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
The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does.
On June 08 2016 10:27 Doodsmack wrote: “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.”
I don't know if there was supposed to be a point to you quoting this but the actual story is more interesting, apparently someone was wearing a KKK outfit and got slugged:
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.
uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here.
and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind.
this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive.
Recent polls show only 25% of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. This coming in the midst of Sanders imploring people to donate because he will * DEFINITELY * win. That's pretty amazing.
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:
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
The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does.
oBlade, did you somehow not read or understand my numerous posts in which I start by saying that Trump thinks the judge is biased against him (your point 1.) and then present his reasoning? What exactly is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts?
On June 08 2016 10:59 Mohdoo wrote: Recent polls show only 25% of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. This coming in the midst of Sanders imploring people to donate because he will * DEFINITELY * win. That's pretty amazing.
25% is rather high and would be very troublesome if it is persistent.
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:
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
The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does.
It doesn't make a difference if he's coming to the "Mexican bias" logic before or after the rulings that have gone against him.
If the judge was white, I'm sure Trump would have plenty of other excuses why he's losing the case. But the judge isn't, and Trump is saying he's losing because the judge is Mexican.
On June 08 2016 10:59 Mohdoo wrote: Recent polls show only 25% of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. This coming in the midst of Sanders imploring people to donate because he will * DEFINITELY * win. That's pretty amazing.
I think the social media side of the Sander's movement is just over-represented and very radical. Clinton is also much more clearly winning against Sanders than Obama was against Clinton, while Trump is much more unpopular than any candidate before. I really don't see how this is supposed to be a tough race.
On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: [quote] 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:
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
The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does.
It doesn't make a difference if he's coming to the "Mexican bias" logic before or after the rulings that have gone against him.
If the judge was white, I'm sure Trump would have plenty of other excuses why he's losing the case. But the judge isn't, and Trump is saying he's losing because the judge is Mexican.
it makes a huge difference! "oh shit my judge is mexican, he's got a vested interest against me, and is going to rule against me" vs "oh shit this ruling sucks, well it might have to do with the fact that he's got a vested interest against me/and is mexican"
EPT
