|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. And for the record his statement about the families, while I find disturbing, isn't even racist. Just so we're clear. Which is what this was actually about. Good night.
Dude, it took you 6 posts to admit a factual statement with the direct video quote linked was something he actually said.
|
On June 11 2016 08:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts." + Show Spoiler +
Agree!! If Ben Carson, his wife and Chris Christie say so, it has to be true (lololol).
Let see what the other Republicans have to say about this:
• Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism."
• Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: "Donald Trump's comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT]: "I think people are disturbed that you would want to try to dismiss a judge based on his ethnicity. You can have qualms with how he's ruling in the case, you can have qualms about his political affiliation, I think that's fair game. But why doesn't he say, look it's up to the attorneys, it's in the court, and leave it at that?"
• Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]: "That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation."
• Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.”
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."
• Brian Walsh, former communications director for Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I don't care if [Trump’s] the nominee— Republicans should loudly condemn this racist, nonsensical rhetoric by Trump.”
• Sen. Rob Portman [R-OH]: "The fact that the judge has a Mexican American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He’s as American as I am."
• Rep. Jackie Walorski [R-IN]: “Questioning a judge’s impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society."
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY]: "I couldn't disagree more." [with Trump's remarks]
• Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]: "I don’t condone the comments."
• Sen. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]: “His statements this week on the judge—that’s a new level... Because it’s not just… ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he’s president, you know, after November, that… perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That’s a whole new level. So that’s—it’s very disturbing.”
• Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush: "I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. ... The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.”
• Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]: "I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American ... After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world."
• Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]: "Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, told CNN Trump's criticisms are "racially toxic.""
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: "He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my choice in Wisconsin. There are issues, not the least of which lately with his statements about the judge he commented on, which I just fundamentally disagree with him on."
• Sen. John Thune [R-SD]: ""It's not a good place to be" for Republicans to have to repeatedly explain their presumptive nominee's statements. ... He's going to have to adapt. This is not working for him. They were inappropriate comments.""
• Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush: "Fmr. Bush official on Trump doubling down on judge attack: "It's not a time to be silent."
• Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov.”
|
On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. It's a fact that mass rape is a huge problem in human trafficking for illegal immigration from mexico. This is the policy at issue. Crime rates among illegal immigrants are disproportionately higher. There is no racist in stating these facts. Illegal immigration is not good for this country.
I see.
I'd note that most people; even when being sleazy politicians, have the sense to not openly call for the commission of unambiguous war crimes.
I do'nt think anyone has summarize his foreign policy as you described; they noted that it was an aspect he stated, and an extremely troubling one. They also dissected and showed the problems with many of his foreign policy stances.
|
On June 11 2016 08:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time. World must be an interesting place with such logic.
Even if you take his comment about targeting terrorist families at the very worst interpretation it's still not racist.
|
On June 11 2016 08:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. And for the record his statement about the families, while I find disturbing, isn't even racist. Just so we're clear. Which is what this was actually about. Good night. Dude, it took you 6 posts to admit a factual statement with the direct video quote linked was something he actually said.
I had to deal with a lot of filler content that distracted me from the issues.
|
On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred.
On June 11 2016 08:45 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument. I can tell you that Trump's concern is because the Judge won't do what he wants and dismiss the case and Trump blames it on bias because the judge is Hispanic. He just assumes that because the Judge is of Mexican heritage, his rulings were biased.
Which is racism.
This doesn't really address my analogy.
|
On June 11 2016 09:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time. World must be an interesting place with such logic. Even if you take his comment about targeting terrorist families at the very worst interpretation it's still not racist.
Just openly advocating a war crimes as a solution to terrorism.
On June 11 2016 09:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:45 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument. I can tell you that Trump's concern is because the Judge won't do what he wants and dismiss the case and Trump blames it on bias because the judge is Hispanic. He just assumes that because the Judge is of Mexican heritage, his rulings were biased.
Which is racism. This doesn't really address my analogy.
I did, you ignored it because it proved it was a shitty analogy. Which is standard for you really.
|
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families.
|
On June 11 2016 09:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time. World must be an interesting place with such logic. Even if you take his comment about targeting terrorist families at the very worst interpretation it's still not racist.
I was rather referring on calling Mexican rapists.
|
On June 11 2016 09:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time. World must be an interesting place with such logic. Even if you take his comment about targeting terrorist families at the very worst interpretation it's still not racist. Just openly advocating a war crimes as a solution to terrorism. Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. On June 11 2016 08:45 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument. I can tell you that Trump's concern is because the Judge won't do what he wants and dismiss the case and Trump blames it on bias because the judge is Hispanic. He just assumes that because the Judge is of Mexican heritage, his rulings were biased.
Which is racism. This doesn't really address my analogy. I did, you ignored it because it proved it was a shitty analogy. Which is standard for you really.
If we view them both at their worst we've got one candidate saying he will do these things but hasn't ever done them.
And another who would never say they've done them but who has actually done them and led to the deaths of who knows how many people.
I don't really care to get sidetracked by this point though.
He hasn't acted in a racist way this election cycle.
Hillary Clinton's associations are in fact racist KKK associations.
And let's not forget when she referred to black kids as 'thugs' in Carolina.
But that doesn't sell the narrative you're trying to sell that Trump is a racist.
|
On June 11 2016 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families.
I am 100% sure that adopting this policy will have the exact opposite effect and simply assist in the radicalization of more people. It could be the dumbest plan I have never heard in my life. Even dumber than the wall. It shows a basic misunderstanding of how terrorism works.
|
On June 11 2016 09:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset. It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time. World must be an interesting place with such logic. Even if you take his comment about targeting terrorist families at the very worst interpretation it's still not racist. Just openly advocating a war crimes as a solution to terrorism. Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. On June 11 2016 08:45 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument. I can tell you that Trump's concern is because the Judge won't do what he wants and dismiss the case and Trump blames it on bias because the judge is Hispanic. He just assumes that because the Judge is of Mexican heritage, his rulings were biased.
Which is racism. This doesn't really address my analogy. I did, you ignored it because it proved it was a shitty analogy. Which is standard for you really.
See you're trying to drag me back down to your level of shitposting and insulting but I'm just not interested.
You didn't respond to my analogy at all. You just repeated the same analysis that has been rehashed again and again and ignored how I compared it to a hypothetical argument that would logically lead to the conclusion of sexism in car insurance prices.
You disagree it leads to that conclusion because 'it's different'.
|
On June 11 2016 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families.
The families shelter, and harbor them. ISIS sympathizers are not "innocent" civilians.
Trump speaks off the cuff 99% of the time too, so his transgressions in speech should have a different threshold to Hillary. Who knows what the f would come out of her mouth if she didn't plan and just spoke from the heart?
|
On June 11 2016 09:15 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families. The families shelter, and harbor them. ISIS sympathizers are not "innocent" civilians. Trump speaks off the cuff 99% of the time too, so his transgressions in speech should have a different threshold to Hillary. Who knows what the f would come out of her mouth if she didn't plan and just spoke from the heart?
That's Trump's fault.
|
On June 11 2016 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families.
Totally obvious. Being as evil as terrorists to fight terrorism is a great idea. If killing people because and only because they are related to someone is a good enough reason, you are not any better than the guys you want to bring down.
And you are also probably denouncing a hundred years of international conventions, because this is just a war crime. But I guess not targeting innocent people is for weakling. Fuck Geneva Conventions!
And of course, we are not at all gonna make new generation of terrorists and promote further the idea that America is evil by actually, being totally evil.
"Stating the obvious." Seriousfuckingly...
|
On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:49 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts." + Show Spoiler + Agree!! If Ben Carson, his wife and Chris Christie say so, it has to be true (lololol).
I don't think going "lololol" while suggesting a black neurosurgeon, black businesswoman, Hispanic journalist, and Jewish broadcaster can't spot a racist is so persuasive.
On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Let see what the other Republicans have to say about this: + Show Spoiler +• Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism."
• Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: "Donald Trump's comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT]: "I think people are disturbed that you would want to try to dismiss a judge based on his ethnicity. You can have qualms with how he's ruling in the case, you can have qualms about his political affiliation, I think that's fair game. But why doesn't he say, look it's up to the attorneys, it's in the court, and leave it at that?"
• Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]: "That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation."
• Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.”
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."
• Brian Walsh, former communications director for Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I don't care if [Trump’s] the nominee— Republicans should loudly condemn this racist, nonsensical rhetoric by Trump.”
• Sen. Rob Portman [R-OH]: "The fact that the judge has a Mexican American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He’s as American as I am."
• Rep. Jackie Walorski [R-IN]: “Questioning a judge’s impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society."
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY]: "I couldn't disagree more." [with Trump's remarks]
• Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]: "I don’t condone the comments."
• Sen. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]: “His statements this week on the judge—that’s a new level... Because it’s not just… ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he’s president, you know, after November, that… perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That’s a whole new level. So that’s—it’s very disturbing.”
• Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush: "I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. ... The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.”
• Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]: "I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American ... After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world."
• Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]: "Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, told CNN Trump's criticisms are "racially toxic.""
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: "He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my choice in Wisconsin. There are issues, not the least of which lately with his statements about the judge he commented on, which I just fundamentally disagree with him on."
• Sen. John Thune [R-SD]: ""It's not a good place to be" for Republicans to have to repeatedly explain their presumptive nominee's statements. ... He's going to have to adapt. This is not working for him. They were inappropriate comments.""
• Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush: "Fmr. Bush official on Trump doubling down on judge attack: "It's not a time to be silent."
• Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov.”
I'm not trying to have the dead-end judge argument again, I'm just assuring GGTeMpLaR that his interpretation of the candidate isn't uncommon.
|
On June 11 2016 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
As far as I am concerned, Trump was merely stating the obvious when talking about killing the families of terrorists. You have to eliminate the terrorists' bases of support to defeat them. Often times, the support comes from the families.
Another reminder of how "moderate" xDaunt is. No, deliberately targeting the families of terrorists is not an answer to terrorism. Even if you look at it from a purely practical point-of-view, without any consideration for moral imperatives, it is probably one of the most counter-productive ways to approach the issue, due to the impact it has on radicalization and revenge dynamics. And beyond the issue of terrorism itself, it's a dangerous and counter-productive path for any state interested in a stable international order in the middle and long terms, because it deals a direct blow to the Geneva conventions and other treaties framing the jus in bello. It's ineffective, counter-productive, dangerous and morally despicable.
|
On June 11 2016 09:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:49 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts." + Show Spoiler + Agree!! If Ben Carson, his wife and Chris Christie say so, it has to be true (lololol). I don't think going "lololol" while suggesting a black neurosurgeon, black businesswoman, Hispanic journalist, and Jewish broadcaster can't spot a racist is so persuasive. Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Let see what the other Republicans have to say about this: + Show Spoiler +• Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism."
• Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: "Donald Trump's comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT]: "I think people are disturbed that you would want to try to dismiss a judge based on his ethnicity. You can have qualms with how he's ruling in the case, you can have qualms about his political affiliation, I think that's fair game. But why doesn't he say, look it's up to the attorneys, it's in the court, and leave it at that?"
• Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]: "That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation."
• Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.”
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."
• Brian Walsh, former communications director for Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I don't care if [Trump’s] the nominee— Republicans should loudly condemn this racist, nonsensical rhetoric by Trump.”
• Sen. Rob Portman [R-OH]: "The fact that the judge has a Mexican American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He’s as American as I am."
• Rep. Jackie Walorski [R-IN]: “Questioning a judge’s impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society."
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY]: "I couldn't disagree more." [with Trump's remarks]
• Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]: "I don’t condone the comments."
• Sen. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]: “His statements this week on the judge—that’s a new level... Because it’s not just… ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he’s president, you know, after November, that… perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That’s a whole new level. So that’s—it’s very disturbing.”
• Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush: "I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. ... The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.”
• Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]: "I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American ... After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world."
• Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]: "Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, told CNN Trump's criticisms are "racially toxic.""
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: "He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my choice in Wisconsin. There are issues, not the least of which lately with his statements about the judge he commented on, which I just fundamentally disagree with him on."
• Sen. John Thune [R-SD]: ""It's not a good place to be" for Republicans to have to repeatedly explain their presumptive nominee's statements. ... He's going to have to adapt. This is not working for him. They were inappropriate comments.""
• Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush: "Fmr. Bush official on Trump doubling down on judge attack: "It's not a time to be silent."
• Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov.” I'm not trying to have the dead-end judge argument again, I'm just assuring GGTeMpLaR that his interpretation of the candidate isn't uncommon.
Don't worry I'm sure democrats all just assume the black neurosurgeon is bought-out anyways.
|
So are the families of those who commit crimes guilt by association? Maybe we should put Dylann Roof's family in prison too.
On June 11 2016 09:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:28 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:49 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts." + Show Spoiler + Agree!! If Ben Carson, his wife and Chris Christie say so, it has to be true (lololol). I don't think going "lololol" while suggesting a black neurosurgeon, black businesswoman, Hispanic journalist, and Jewish broadcaster can't spot a racist is so persuasive. On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Let see what the other Republicans have to say about this: + Show Spoiler +• Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism."
• Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: "Donald Trump's comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT]: "I think people are disturbed that you would want to try to dismiss a judge based on his ethnicity. You can have qualms with how he's ruling in the case, you can have qualms about his political affiliation, I think that's fair game. But why doesn't he say, look it's up to the attorneys, it's in the court, and leave it at that?"
• Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]: "That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation."
• Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.”
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."
• Brian Walsh, former communications director for Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I don't care if [Trump’s] the nominee— Republicans should loudly condemn this racist, nonsensical rhetoric by Trump.”
• Sen. Rob Portman [R-OH]: "The fact that the judge has a Mexican American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He’s as American as I am."
• Rep. Jackie Walorski [R-IN]: “Questioning a judge’s impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society."
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY]: "I couldn't disagree more." [with Trump's remarks]
• Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]: "I don’t condone the comments."
• Sen. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]: “His statements this week on the judge—that’s a new level... Because it’s not just… ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he’s president, you know, after November, that… perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That’s a whole new level. So that’s—it’s very disturbing.”
• Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush: "I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. ... The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.”
• Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]: "I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American ... After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world."
• Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]: "Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, told CNN Trump's criticisms are "racially toxic.""
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: "He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my choice in Wisconsin. There are issues, not the least of which lately with his statements about the judge he commented on, which I just fundamentally disagree with him on."
• Sen. John Thune [R-SD]: ""It's not a good place to be" for Republicans to have to repeatedly explain their presumptive nominee's statements. ... He's going to have to adapt. This is not working for him. They were inappropriate comments.""
• Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush: "Fmr. Bush official on Trump doubling down on judge attack: "It's not a time to be silent."
• Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov.” I'm not trying to have the dead-end judge argument again, I'm just assuring GGTeMpLaR that his interpretation of the candidate isn't uncommon. Don't worry I'm sure democrats all just assume the black neurosurgeon is bought-out anyways.
Nah, Ben Carson is just an idiot.
|
On June 11 2016 09:34 ticklishmusic wrote:So are the families of those who commit crimes guilt by association? Maybe we should put Dylann Roof's family in prison too. Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 09:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 09:28 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:49 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man?
I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist.
This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred. There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts." + Show Spoiler + Agree!! If Ben Carson, his wife and Chris Christie say so, it has to be true (lololol). I don't think going "lololol" while suggesting a black neurosurgeon, black businesswoman, Hispanic journalist, and Jewish broadcaster can't spot a racist is so persuasive. On June 11 2016 08:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Let see what the other Republicans have to say about this: + Show Spoiler +• Sen. Ben Sasse [R-NE]: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of racism."
• Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]: "Donald Trump's comments on the ethnic heritage and religion of judges are absolutely unacceptable. His statement that Judge Curiel could not rule fairly because of his Mexican heritage does not represent our American values. Mr. Trump's comments demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers."
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT]: "I think people are disturbed that you would want to try to dismiss a judge based on his ethnicity. You can have qualms with how he's ruling in the case, you can have qualms about his political affiliation, I think that's fair game. But why doesn't he say, look it's up to the attorneys, it's in the court, and leave it at that?"
• Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]: "That man [Curiel] is an American, born in the U.S., a judge who has earned that position. I don’t think it reflects well in the Republican Party. I don’t think it reflects wells on us as a nation."
• Ohio Governor John Kasich: “Attacking judges based on their race and/or religion is another tactic that divides our country. More importantly, it is flat-out wrong.”
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "I don’t know what Trump’s reasoning was, and I don’t care. His description of the judge in terms of his parentage is completely unacceptable."
• Brian Walsh, former communications director for Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn: “I don't care if [Trump’s] the nominee— Republicans should loudly condemn this racist, nonsensical rhetoric by Trump.”
• Sen. Rob Portman [R-OH]: "The fact that the judge has a Mexican American heritage has nothing to do with how you should describe his judicial ability. The guy was born in Indiana. He’s as American as I am."
• Rep. Jackie Walorski [R-IN]: “Questioning a judge’s impartiality based on his ethnicity is not only inappropriate, it has no place in American society."
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-KY]: "I couldn't disagree more." [with Trump's remarks]
• Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN]: "I don’t condone the comments."
• Sen. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]: “His statements this week on the judge—that’s a new level... Because it’s not just… ill-informed or ignorant statements, but they suggest that when he’s president, you know, after November, that… perhaps he ought to go after that judge. That’s a whole new level. So that’s—it’s very disturbing.”
• Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General under President George W. Bush: "I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. ... The call for a recusal of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary, and I just think it was inappropriate the way that Donald Trump did it in this case.”
• Sen. Mark Kirk [R-IL]: "I find Donald Trump's belief that an American-born judge of Mexican descent is incapable of fairly presiding over his case is not only dead wrong, it is un-American ... After much consideration, I have concluded that Donald Trump has not demonstrated the temperament necessary to assume the greatest office in the world."
• Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]: "Scott, the only African-American Republican in the Senate, told CNN Trump's criticisms are "racially toxic.""
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: "He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my choice in Wisconsin. There are issues, not the least of which lately with his statements about the judge he commented on, which I just fundamentally disagree with him on."
• Sen. John Thune [R-SD]: ""It's not a good place to be" for Republicans to have to repeatedly explain their presumptive nominee's statements. ... He's going to have to adapt. This is not working for him. They were inappropriate comments.""
• Carlos Gutierrez, former Secretary of Commerce under President George W. Bush: "Fmr. Bush official on Trump doubling down on judge attack: "It's not a time to be silent."
• Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Judge Curiel is an American hero who stood up to the Mexican cartels. I was proud to appoint him when I was Gov.” I'm not trying to have the dead-end judge argument again, I'm just assuring GGTeMpLaR that his interpretation of the candidate isn't uncommon. Don't worry I'm sure democrats all just assume the black neurosurgeon is bought-out anyways. Nah, Ben Carson is just an idiot.
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
