Why are family members of victims not allowed to sit on juries of the perpetrator? Trump is the perpetrator and the judge is in the family of the victims, The family is all Mexicans. Now, Mexicans are a much broader group than immediate and even non-immediate famiily to where this conflict of interest is largely mitigated, but the personal connection exist and could influence a Mexican judge.
True or false?
False.
1. Mexicans are not all family with one another - I think even Mexicans would find that statement absurd.
2. The judge is an American. Calling him a "Mexican judge" only proves that Trump is the one who is biased.
3. The "victims" in the case are not the Mexicans that Trump has insulted. The victims in the case are the the students of Trump university, of which the judge has no relationship with. The entire allegation of conflict of interest rests on the judge being part of a racial/nationality that Trump has insulted and threatened. Could there be a potential for bias? Yes, like 5%, but that doesn't even come close to the level of bias necessary for a conflict of interest to arise.
Trump is grasping at straws in an attempt to shift the conversation from "Did Trump commit fraud?" to "Is the judge biased?" Pretending that Trump's allegations actually have merit is an insult to the intelligence of the average voter.
This coming from the person who is arguing that he should be allowed to dismiss anyone as a "SJW" without ever having to examine their arguments, because he can automatically declare them wrong with a label without ever having to examine whether their claims are true or false. Yay hypocrisy!
I'm done tolerating this idiotic rhetorical bull*****. This isn't even a straw man; a new word would have to be invented to adequately describe how far away from any position I've actually expressed this is. Show me where I said this, or else retract it immediately.
I'm done tolerating this idiotic rhetorical bull*****. This isn't even a straw man; a new word would have to be invented to adequately describe how far away from any position I've actually expressed this is. Show me where I said this, or else retract it immediately.
I'm done tolerating this idiotic rhetorical bull*****. This isn't even a straw man; a new word would have to be invented to adequately describe how far away from any position I've actually expressed this is. Show me where I said this, or else retract it immediately.
Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
Masterfully done.
Anyway, let's talk numbers: what is Trump's path to 270? Does he even have one?
I assume it's this:
1. Turn out the white working class vote
2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls
Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
1. Turn out the white working class vote
2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls
Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
Actually, what I meant was how is Trump going to get 270 votes in terms of states. Like, which states are supposed to get him there?
Why are family members of victims not allowed to sit on juries of the perpetrator? Trump is the perpetrator and the judge is in the family of the victims, The family is all Mexicans. Now, Mexicans are a much broader group than immediate and even non-immediate famiily to where this conflict of interest is largely mitigated, but the personal connection exist and could influence a Mexican judge.
True or false?
Should Mexicans be allowed to sit on juries of trials in which the victims are also Mexican? If your answer is yes, this is an irrelevant analogy.
Trump never said Mexicans should not preside over his case. You are perpetrating a straw man.
Really? That's your play here? No link to the actual post you got that from, no direct quotes of what I said, no explanation of how your ravings follow logically from anything I actually wrote?
But then again, I'm not sure what else we could have expected, since you were lying anyway.
It's certainly never been my belief that the claims of SJWs and other people with whom I disagree shouldn't be examined. It's not only been my consistent position, but also my lifelong practice, to allow everyone to have their say and to deliberately seek out opposition to my positions and give them as fair a hearing as I can. Why else would I even be on a debate forum? In fact, my opposition to SJWism is a result of examining SJW claims and finding them to be both false and consistently arising from a particular broken thought pattern.
You will not find any contrary position from me. Not in that thread or, indeed, anywhere else. You are a liar. As an example of how consistent I am in my practice of examining disparate positions, I read most of what you write here, even though to do so is tantamount to torture to any rational mind. Almost all of the things you present as if they were arguments are in truth complete nonsense. I offer this interaction as a case in point.
If you want to claim otherwise, point out that the judge was giving him unfair rulings, and then point out that this was purely because the judge is Mexican.
Goal post shift and Shifting the burden of proof and basically making a claim with out supporting it (it's a straw man too, as Trump never indicated it was purely because the judge is Mexican (the wall/immigration policy says hi)). I do not know why you have manipulate the truth. The issue is whether or not using ones nationality to determine potential bias is racist. You say yes, I say no. It's not racist to say a Mexican will generally care more about Mexican issues than non-Mexicans. Their nationality can influence any number of behaviors, things such as voting, racism, activism, day to day decision making, etc. Trump never said all Mexicans are biased against him, He said this Mexican was perhaps treating him unfairly becasue of his immigration policy, which many, many Mexicans have taken as a personal affront.
You seem to think it's impossible for a Mexican judge to take personally Trumps comments on immigration and Mexicans, at least in part due to his heritage/nationality. Further, you think a Mexican judge does not value his nationality to the point where he would not take it personal if someone insulted his nationality. I know when someone insults the US, I take it a little personal, probably more personal than someone from Sudan would. I would also be prone to various biases towards the person who insulted the US.
Say you were on trial for your life. Say you've made derogatory comments about a particular ethnic group, outside of this case. Say the judge is of that ethnicity. Say the judge ruled against you on several motions. Say you perceive the judge is being hostile towards you. Say you had the perception of injustice, or unfairness in regards to your trial. Would you not sit there and think about why you are being treated unfairly? Would you sit there and not consider whether or not the judge is biased due to your unrelated comments about his ethnicity? Would you think it impossible the judge is ruling against you on all those motions and being hostile to you, at least in part due to the fact he is of the ethnicity that you previously disparaged? I do not think any of you arguing against me would think it is impossible, and you would probably think its even likely. All of you would be racist despite making a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion, however accurate it actually is. You will attempt to explain the unfairness you think you are experiencing. And the potential does exist for that judge to take offense at you insulting his ethnicity and make improper judicial decisions becasue of it.
Say you were on trial for your life. Say you've made derogatory comments about a particular ethnic group, outside of this case. Say the judge is of that ethnicity. Say the judge ruled against you on several motions. Say you perceive the judge is being hostile towards you. Say you had the perception of injustice, or unfairness in regards to your trial. Would you not sit there and think about why you are being treated unfairly? Would you sit there and not consider whether or not the judge is biased due to your unrelated comments about his ethnicity? Would you think it impossible the judge is ruling against you on all those motions and being hostile to you, at least in part due to the fact he is of the ethnicity that you previously disparaged? I do not think any of you arguing against me would think it is impossible, and you would probably think its even likely. All of you would be racist despite making a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion, however accurate it actually is. You will attempt to explain the unfairness you are experiencing. And the potential does exist for that judge to take offense at you insulting his ethnicity and make improper judicial decisions becasue of it.
Well, most of us probably wouldn't make those derogatory comments in the first place, so it's hard to feel sympathy for a man who dug his own pit. Based on your own post, the only people who would turn to racism as a justification for conflict of interest are the people who were racist to begin with. So I fail to see how this conclusion would be reasonable or logical to begin with. Parties lose motions and trials all the time; its fully possible that the judge is ruling against me because the law is legitimately not on my side. (By the way, this is not the trial of Trump's life. The trial is after the election, so the trial has no impact on whether or not Trump wins or loses this November.)
And why would I assume a judge is unfair to me because of a few motions that didn't go my way? If there is an independent objective justification for those rulings aside from race, that's more than sufficient to defeat an allegation of bias based solely on nationality. Also, the most important motion, that the trial be postponed until after the election, was decided in Trump's favor. And there's more than enough evidence to suggest that there might have been fraud (employees testifying they thought the school was a scam; training material full of shady instructions), so no objective person would dismiss the case on summary judgment.
You're still trying to assert that a judge could be bias against a party because the party made derogatory statements about the judge's nationality. But while the probability is there, asking a judge to recurse himself based merely on that probability does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.
1. Turn out the white working class vote
2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls
Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
Actually, what I meant was how is Trump going to get 270 votes in terms of states. Like, which states are supposed to get him there?
Really? That's your play here? No link to the actual post you got that from, no direct quotes of what I said, no explanation of how your ravings follow logically from anything I actually wrote?
I mean, really, it's bad enough to be intellectually lazy, but to exhibit intellectual laziness to the point of not even bothering to put in any effort to defend yourself against someone calling out your intellectual laziness? Meta-laziness! Astounding!
Goal post shift and Shifting the burden of proof and basically making a claim with out supporting it (it's a straw man too, as Trump never indicated it was purely because the judge is Mexican (the wall/immigration policy says hi)). I do not know why you have manipulate the truth.
I am addressing Trump's statements. You are bending over backwards to try to figure out a way in which they are not racist. Exactly who is manipulating the truth here?
The issue is whether or not using ones nationality to determine potential bias is racist.
No, that's not the issue. The issue is Donald Trump accused a judge of being unfairly biased against him in a particular case because that judge is Mexican, and whether or not that is racist. That is the discussion. This is not some abstract philosophical exercise. This is concrete.
So instead of drawing the discussion away from what was actually said and derailing the thread for several pages, which is what has been happening, I am attempting to bring the discussion back to what Donald Trump actually said, which is the entire point of the thread.
Well, most of us probably wouldn't make those derogatory comments in the first place, so it's hard to feel sympathy for a man who dug his own pit.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt you that are not serious with this comment, becasue it's right down the middle and if I swung at it, I'd hit it to the moon.
Based on your own post, the only people who would turn to racism as a justification for conflict of interest are the people who were racist to begin with.
Well, they could, but it will not matter, unless the conflict is so serious a person can not be reasonably expected to render a fair decision. Trump obviously thinks this is the case, I'm reasonably sure it's not, based on my limiting understanding of the judges ruling. A conflict of interest is not inherently an indication of bias, but rather the potential for bias. Further, Trump, if he were to use that in an appeal, would have to prove that potential bias resulted in an unjust verdict. In other words, the judge could be biased but also render correct judicial decisions supported by relevant law and precedence. What Trump does not understand is, it really does not matter if the judge is biased, if the judges decisions are legal. Even if they were not legal, Trump could never prove the improper decision was a result of the judges potential biases, and it would not matter at all.
Lastly on this point, just becasue the judge may have potential bias, does not necessarily mean he should have to recuse himself. Maybe some people are making this argument, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that Trumps comments are not racist, not whether or not the judge can render a fair verdict. Just because Trump is likely incorrect in his determination, does not make the comments racist.
This same issue presents problems for black people in the legal system all the time. The appearance of potential bias, but no illegal or unjust verdicts, i.e. all white juries.
You're still trying to assert that a judge could be bias against a party because the party made derogatory statements about the judge's nationality. But while the probability is there, asking a judge to recurse himself based merely on that probability does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.
I agree, but it also does not mean the request or comment he made is racist, and that is what we are discussing.
So instead of drawing the discussion away from what was actually said and derailing the thread for several pages, which is what has been happening, I am attempting to bring the discussion back to what Donald Trump actually said, which is the entire point of the thread.
If you want to claim otherwise, point out that the judge was giving him unfair rulings, and then point out that this was purely because the judge is Mexican.
Do you stand by this statement? If so, I can only surmise Crashing is right about your integrity, and there is really no point in continuing with you, becasue this is clearly a false statement.
Hint: Immigration policy has been a consistent reason Trump has listed as one of his reasons for the judges bias, so it's not "purely becasue" of his heritage. That would be a manipulation or ignorance of the truth by Highroller, and at this point, it's willful if he continues to perpetuate it.
@Crash Stating higher rates of crime among a specific race isn't racist, because you aren't claiming their race is the reason for their crimes. That's just a correlation. While some people like to hid behind correlations to imply racism to a willing audience while dodging accusations, that isn't what you're doing here. If you said, "Black people are naturally less moral and more violent than white people" - that's a racist statement. Also a despicable one.
Though if someone is saying that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes when the data says they aren't, that might be an issue.
Oh hey, look what I found. [link] [link]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
He said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is inherently incapable of performing his job as a judge because "He's a Mexican." This is what Donald Trump has said.
Now, would you care to address what Donald Trump has said?
There is a disproportionate number of black people in the prison system. There is probably multiple reasons why this is the case, with a significant one being black people are disproportionately poor, but that probably does not explain it fully. There is probably a significant percentage of black people who are convicted due, in part, to an unseen bias. The problem is, you can not really see bias bias, unless it's overt. I mean, everyone knows people who wear white sheets are racist, but did anyone really think Paula Deen was? There has been demands by several people here that a judges purported bias needs to be proven, and if it's not, it's racist to consider whether or not a judges nationality can impact their impartiality in reference to a known bigot of that nationality. This is the problem with calling Trumps comments racist and demanding proof the judge is biased. It implies there is not a unseen bias in the CJS, because in all those cases where a black defendant was found guilty due, at least in part,to a bias, impossible, simply becasue you can not prove the bias existed. Further, it would be immoral to suggest otherwise, as indicated by some here. It's immoral or racist to think white people are biased against black people when they are on trial, unless you can prove it. I find that disturbing.
He said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is inherently incapable of performing his job as a judge because "He's a Mexican." This is what Donald Trump has said.
Now, would you care to address what Donald Trump has said?
Okay, at this point you are willful
Quote from Trump »
If he was giving me a fair ruling, I wouldn't say that
A perception of unfairness in his rulings. Nothing to do with heritage in this statement.
Quote from Trump »
I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine
Immigration policy. Nothing to do with heritage in this statement.
That is two additional reasons he's given, which directly contradicts your straw man talking about his reasoning being purely due to the judges heritage.
Do you still stand by your false belief that Trump thinks the judge is being unfair purely becasue of his heritage, knowing Trump said these things? You seem to be ignoring what he says.
Being poor is the single largest correlation with criminal behavior, to the degree that poverty overwhelms race as a predictor of crime.
It's immoral or racist to think white people are biased against black people when they are on trial, unless you can prove it.
Black and Hispanic people get longer sentences on average than White people for the same or lesser crimes. That strongly suggests that the criminal justice system is racially biased.
We've also got the whole "cops racially profiling black people" thing going that leads to higher base rates of arrest and general molestation by police, and the fact that (as previously mentioned) Black people are disproportionately poor, limiting their ability to afford good legal council and to fight bogus charges.
Add to that the fact that America isn't very forgiving of Ex-Convicts...
Pretty sure i linked sources for both of these like two pages ago?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Black and Hispanic people get longer sentences on average than White people for the same or lesser crimes. That strongly suggests that the criminal justice system is racially biased.
Prove it. Which people are bias, which are not? Unless you can do that, you are racist or immoral, according to some people in this thread. The entire problem is, it's hidden and difficult to see. So asserting bias exist it in the face of of no evidence is somehow incorrect, or racist. Disproportional results does not prove bias exist. Neither do perceived unfair rulings. Again, this is the fundamental problem with calling Trumps comments racist, becasue every racist jerk will use that same argument against black defendants claiming bias.
Do you still stand by your false belief that Trump thinks
I honestly don't believe I can say anything about what Trump actually thinks, considering how frequently he changes his story on a variety of issues. I can only comment on the words that have flowed from his mouth or his keyboard.
@bravesbaseball - Your problem is that you're confusing a person making racist comments with a person accusing someone ELSE of racism.
If a black defendant claims that an asian judge is biased against them because the judge is asian, that is a racist statement. Just like Trumpy.
If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist. The defendant is not making a judgment of the judge based on the judge's race. The defendant is saying that the judge's sentences demonstrate the *judge's* racial bias.
This ain't complicated. Racists like to try and paint the act of complaining about racism into the real crime. Good luck with that.
If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist.
Quote from Trump »
If he was giving me a fair ruling, I wouldn't say that
You just made the same argument Trump has made. This ain't complicated. You continue to ignore the other factors, unfortunately you are arguing against reality.
False.
1. Mexicans are not all family with one another - I think even Mexicans would find that statement absurd.
2. The judge is an American. Calling him a "Mexican judge" only proves that Trump is the one who is biased.
3. The "victims" in the case are not the Mexicans that Trump has insulted. The victims in the case are the the students of Trump university, of which the judge has no relationship with. The entire allegation of conflict of interest rests on the judge being part of a racial/nationality that Trump has insulted and threatened. Could there be a potential for bias? Yes, like 5%, but that doesn't even come close to the level of bias necessary for a conflict of interest to arise.
Trump is grasping at straws in an attempt to shift the conversation from "Did Trump commit fraud?" to "Is the judge biased?" Pretending that Trump's allegations actually have merit is an insult to the intelligence of the average voter.
I'm done tolerating this idiotic rhetorical bull*****. This isn't even a straw man; a new word would have to be invented to adequately describe how far away from any position I've actually expressed this is. Show me where I said this, or else retract it immediately.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
------
Masterfully done.
Anyway, let's talk numbers: what is Trump's path to 270? Does he even have one?
I assume it's this:
1. Turn out the white working class vote
2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls
Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
Trump never said Mexicans should not preside over his case. You are perpetrating a straw man.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Really? That's your play here? No link to the actual post you got that from, no direct quotes of what I said, no explanation of how your ravings follow logically from anything I actually wrote?
But then again, I'm not sure what else we could have expected, since you were lying anyway.
It's certainly never been my belief that the claims of SJWs and other people with whom I disagree shouldn't be examined. It's not only been my consistent position, but also my lifelong practice, to allow everyone to have their say and to deliberately seek out opposition to my positions and give them as fair a hearing as I can. Why else would I even be on a debate forum? In fact, my opposition to SJWism is a result of examining SJW claims and finding them to be both false and consistently arising from a particular broken thought pattern.
You will not find any contrary position from me. Not in that thread or, indeed, anywhere else. You are a liar. As an example of how consistent I am in my practice of examining disparate positions, I read most of what you write here, even though to do so is tantamount to torture to any rational mind. Almost all of the things you present as if they were arguments are in truth complete nonsense. I offer this interaction as a case in point.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Goal post shift and Shifting the burden of proof and basically making a claim with out supporting it (it's a straw man too, as Trump never indicated it was purely because the judge is Mexican (the wall/immigration policy says hi)). I do not know why you have manipulate the truth. The issue is whether or not using ones nationality to determine potential bias is racist. You say yes, I say no. It's not racist to say a Mexican will generally care more about Mexican issues than non-Mexicans. Their nationality can influence any number of behaviors, things such as voting, racism, activism, day to day decision making, etc. Trump never said all Mexicans are biased against him, He said this Mexican was perhaps treating him unfairly becasue of his immigration policy, which many, many Mexicans have taken as a personal affront.
You seem to think it's impossible for a Mexican judge to take personally Trumps comments on immigration and Mexicans, at least in part due to his heritage/nationality. Further, you think a Mexican judge does not value his nationality to the point where he would not take it personal if someone insulted his nationality. I know when someone insults the US, I take it a little personal, probably more personal than someone from Sudan would. I would also be prone to various biases towards the person who insulted the US.
Well, most of us probably wouldn't make those derogatory comments in the first place, so it's hard to feel sympathy for a man who dug his own pit. Based on your own post, the only people who would turn to racism as a justification for conflict of interest are the people who were racist to begin with. So I fail to see how this conclusion would be reasonable or logical to begin with. Parties lose motions and trials all the time; its fully possible that the judge is ruling against me because the law is legitimately not on my side. (By the way, this is not the trial of Trump's life. The trial is after the election, so the trial has no impact on whether or not Trump wins or loses this November.)
And why would I assume a judge is unfair to me because of a few motions that didn't go my way? If there is an independent objective justification for those rulings aside from race, that's more than sufficient to defeat an allegation of bias based solely on nationality. Also, the most important motion, that the trial be postponed until after the election, was decided in Trump's favor. And there's more than enough evidence to suggest that there might have been fraud (employees testifying they thought the school was a scam; training material full of shady instructions), so no objective person would dismiss the case on summary judgment.
You're still trying to assert that a judge could be bias against a party because the party made derogatory statements about the judge's nationality. But while the probability is there, asking a judge to recurse himself based merely on that probability does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.
http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/combinations.php?party=Republican&num_rem=79&st_remain=FL,PA,OH,NC,VA,WI,CO,IA,NV,NH&me=&ne=
It looks really hard for Trump to win without Florida. If I were Clinton, I'd focus most of my attention on the sunshine state.
I mean, really, it's bad enough to be intellectually lazy, but to exhibit intellectual laziness to the point of not even bothering to put in any effort to defend yourself against someone calling out your intellectual laziness? Meta-laziness! Astounding!
I am addressing Trump's statements. You are bending over backwards to try to figure out a way in which they are not racist. Exactly who is manipulating the truth here?
No, that's not the issue. The issue is Donald Trump accused a judge of being unfairly biased against him in a particular case because that judge is Mexican, and whether or not that is racist. That is the discussion. This is not some abstract philosophical exercise. This is concrete.
So instead of drawing the discussion away from what was actually said and derailing the thread for several pages, which is what has been happening, I am attempting to bring the discussion back to what Donald Trump actually said, which is the entire point of the thread.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt you that are not serious with this comment, becasue it's right down the middle and if I swung at it, I'd hit it to the moon.
Well, they could, but it will not matter, unless the conflict is so serious a person can not be reasonably expected to render a fair decision. Trump obviously thinks this is the case, I'm reasonably sure it's not, based on my limiting understanding of the judges ruling. A conflict of interest is not inherently an indication of bias, but rather the potential for bias. Further, Trump, if he were to use that in an appeal, would have to prove that potential bias resulted in an unjust verdict. In other words, the judge could be biased but also render correct judicial decisions supported by relevant law and precedence. What Trump does not understand is, it really does not matter if the judge is biased, if the judges decisions are legal. Even if they were not legal, Trump could never prove the improper decision was a result of the judges potential biases, and it would not matter at all.
Lastly on this point, just becasue the judge may have potential bias, does not necessarily mean he should have to recuse himself. Maybe some people are making this argument, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that Trumps comments are not racist, not whether or not the judge can render a fair verdict. Just because Trump is likely incorrect in his determination, does not make the comments racist.
This same issue presents problems for black people in the legal system all the time. The appearance of potential bias, but no illegal or unjust verdicts, i.e. all white juries.
I agree, but it also does not mean the request or comment he made is racist, and that is what we are discussing.
Do you stand by this statement? If so, I can only surmise Crashing is right about your integrity, and there is really no point in continuing with you, becasue this is clearly a false statement.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Oh hey, look what I found. [link] [link]
Art is life itself.
He said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is inherently incapable of performing his job as a judge because "He's a Mexican." This is what Donald Trump has said.
Now, would you care to address what Donald Trump has said?
Okay, at this point you are willful
A perception of unfairness in his rulings. Nothing to do with heritage in this statement.
Immigration policy. Nothing to do with heritage in this statement.
That is two additional reasons he's given, which directly contradicts your straw man talking about his reasoning being purely due to the judges heritage.
Do you still stand by your false belief that Trump thinks the judge is being unfair purely becasue of his heritage, knowing Trump said these things? You seem to be ignoring what he says.
Black and Hispanic people get longer sentences on average than White people for the same or lesser crimes. That strongly suggests that the criminal justice system is racially biased.
We've also got the whole "cops racially profiling black people" thing going that leads to higher base rates of arrest and general molestation by police, and the fact that (as previously mentioned) Black people are disproportionately poor, limiting their ability to afford good legal council and to fight bogus charges.
Add to that the fact that America isn't very forgiving of Ex-Convicts...
Pretty sure i linked sources for both of these like two pages ago?
Art is life itself.
Prove it. Which people are bias, which are not? Unless you can do that, you are racist or immoral, according to some people in this thread. The entire problem is, it's hidden and difficult to see. So asserting bias exist it in the face of of no evidence is somehow incorrect, or racist. Disproportional results does not prove bias exist. Neither do perceived unfair rulings. Again, this is the fundamental problem with calling Trumps comments racist, becasue every racist jerk will use that same argument against black defendants claiming bias.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
If a black defendant claims that an asian judge is biased against them because the judge is asian, that is a racist statement. Just like Trumpy.
If a black defendant claims that a judge is racist because they are handing out disproportionate sentences to blacks than to other races, the defendant is not being racist. The defendant is not making a judgment of the judge based on the judge's race. The defendant is saying that the judge's sentences demonstrate the *judge's* racial bias.
This ain't complicated. Racists like to try and paint the act of complaining about racism into the real crime. Good luck with that.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
You just made the same argument Trump has made. This ain't complicated. You continue to ignore the other factors, unfortunately you are arguing against reality.