Printable View
I think comments like that are worrying aside from the racism, because essentially you have one of the major political figures (a possible future president no less) questioning the legitimacy of one of the branches of government just because he might not like the outcome. That's even worse than the racist part of it, I think.
http://latest.com/2016/06/fun-fact-a...superior-court
You can take on the Cartel, but as long as your parents are Mexican, you can't be trusted. How any sane person can spin that as anything other than racism is beyond me.
I'm sure Trump basically doesn't like judges, so I wouldn't be too certain that you can use his jab at one particular one as proof that he is a racist. I'm also sure you can come up with better examples than this one where he's on the knife's edge between accusing a judge of bias (where we can all do this nice weather thing like we're color blind because we're supposed to be, but you know what? We're not really assuming immediately that a judge has to recluse himself on the basis of his ancestry, so it's actually not that crazy to play with the idea) and outright racism. I think people may have convincing arguments as to why they don't consider this racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Except he attacked this judge on racial grounds, which is, you know, racism. One could make racist statements without being a racist. Though with Trump, who knows.
It's a bit more hairy than that; we can talk about the prejudice any judge has on the basis of his ethnicity, religion etc but once you allow it as a consideration as to if it should mean a judge is unfit to rule in a case on the basis of it you'll soon have to conclude that no judge is fit to judge. For that reason 'we' have to throw that kind of consideration out as soon as it is brought up. Only a judge who's not unbiased on the basis of considerations that pertain to him individually only is considered a judge who should recluse himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
A judge with Mexican parents would only be unfit to judge Trumps business if he first would come out and say that he's personally offended by Trump's remarks about Mexicans in a way that makes it impossible for him to be unbiased. If a judge doesn't do that, you'll have to assume Trump's racist remarks are irrelevant to the judge.
Intent does matter in determining something to be racist though. We don't typically consider the jokes comedians tell racist even when they say terrible, terrible things about various races, because we know there is not (in most cases) any sort of racist intent there, they're just for getting a laugh. If the judge had roots in the country dating back to the 1600s Trump would have just said that they should have recused themselves for bias from being Catholic, or growing up poor, or for shadowy connections to the Freemasons. It doesn't excuse Trump at all though because he's running for President now, not appearing on The ApprenticeQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Policy made to discriminate on the basis of race or a self serving idiotic comment that has no policy weight.... gee I wonder which one I'm more concerned about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It only has no policy weight because Trump isn't yet in a position to implement policy. According to your logic, Nazis aren't dangerous as long as they're not in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
He could have said those other things, but he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Even if he was elected president, the president saying something doesn't mean it is policy. Though with the trend in ridiculous executive orders and the absurd way the media thinks it is the president's job to pass a budget/policy... who knows what that will be like in the future.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/...curiels-group/
This stuff does amuse me a bit. Again Trump's statement (like many of them) was stupid but there may actually be smoke here. It is likely by association (not by race) that this guy may not think highly of deporting illegal immigrants. Which it turn may create a legitimate concern about potential bias.
Right, so a judge who is a member of an association whose founder had views on that, makes this judge biased in a case that isn't related to illegals or Mexicans at all... Are we recusing any judge who is or has ever been a member of a political party too?
You're ignoring that what preceded is the fact that Trump had previously advocated aggressive anti-mexican policies. Which in themselves probably were quite racist, but they make it a lot harder to assume that his assertion that probably a 'Mexican' doesn't like him after all that is actually racist. Also I'm a little bit tired of the sanctimonious 'but he's American' trope supposedly proving that Trump is entirely wrong. Minorities all over the world appear to be totally happy to identify with the country of the origin of their ancestors. In several cases actually celebrating the national holidays of countries that supposedly are not their country. Cinco de Mayo comes to mind. What reasons does an American citizen have to celebrate that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not far enough. We'd also have to recuse anyone who supported another member of the GOP for President. I really don't think you're understanding Trump's position here. This is not about a general proposition, this is about what affects Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
The problem is Trump has been nasty to just about every minority group, which means what affects Trump the most is minorities having any kind of power over him.
Possibly, however, we'll keep assuming that minority judges are better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Ignoring the part where Trump is basically encouraging his supporters to ignore the rulings of minority judges.
The optimist in me tells me that they would do that at their own risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Unless a Trump or someone who decided to follow in his footsteps is in charge the executive branch, particularly at the local level.
I said Twitter is primarily a tool of the media elite. It's user base is small (maybe 8% of Americans have an account, and a smaller percentage actually use the accounts) and stuck at small.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Here's a recent bit of a New York Magazine reporter talking about this in more detail-
Quote:
http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/03/w...ten-years.html
Media organizations are constantly talking about Twitter. An alien unfamiliar in the ways of Earth social media, given only blog posts and television news reports, would come to the conclusion that Twitter is by far the largest and most popular social network. The alien would be wrong — but how would it know?
The obvious reason for Twitter’s omnipresence — oft unspoken because it makes us look lazy — is that Twitter makes reporting easy. The closest old-media equivalent is the local-news, man-on-the-street interview, in which reporters literally just walk up to strangers and ask for a ten-second sound bite. Twitter is pretty much that, amplified by a magnitude of half a billion: an enormous database of average-Joe reactions that don’t even require the legwork of asking a question.
[...]
News organizations place a large emphasis on Twitter conversation because, despite its faults, it contains a myriad of opinions on any number of different topics. It might not be where most of the action is happening — Facebook and Instagram are both larger — but it is the most accessible from a technical standpoint. One can log on, query a couple of words, and receive dozens of opinions instantly. It’s all anecdotal evidence, but that’s generally what short, local news stories are — vertical slices, not longitudinal studies.
I'm not sure what your angle is here :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
****
On the Trump-Mexican-judge thing, I find his comments abhorrent. But also a logical extension of the race-politicization creeping into the judiciary, primarily from the left. The last few Supreme Court picks have featured attention on a nominee (Sotomayor) who implied pre-nomination that her age and ethnicity made her a superior jurist. And Obama has had to tamp-down whining from his base that his recent nominee Merrick Garland is a "white guy".
None of this excuses asshatery from Trump, New York's #1 masturbator.
Well it can be hard to prove a negative... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do you really believe that's what's going on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There is a reason for the smiley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I like it, it's a good strategy. Moderate Muslims should respond to expressions of extremism with approving jokes and smilies :o
I think it's becoming clearer and clearer the problem is less Trump than it is the voters. :bored:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770 Brits, have you considered not exporting your terrorists? :o
They're anticipating a sharp drop in exports to the EU, have to look for other partners pronto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But the "problem" isn't contained to the US, or its voters. Just look at Brexit.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Seems to me there's a new, broad, and common mistrust of "the establishment" (aka as the status quo) that's disrupting things everywhere. I don't know how to put the pieces together from an academic level, but it's safe to say that most people (voters) don't trust where the academics/elites have led us so far.
What's the solution, Professor Loki?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Anti-establishment, even to the point of supporting vicious racists, is on the rise all over the West. I could suggest lots of half-measures that could make a dent on the problem, but I have no idea how we got to this point.