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.
Half joking. Whether or not a party is a disgusting person should have no bearing on whether or not a judge can remain impartial. But it's odd to me that a defendant can make disparaging remarks about a group of people, and then uses those remark to comment about whether a judge is impartial or not. The judge himself hasn't commented on the wall or Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" statements.
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.
Agreed, except for your conclusion.
I agree, but it also does not mean the request or comment he made is racist, and that is what we are discussing.
What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
If Trump said no Mexican could render a fair verdict against him, absent any other factor, that would be racist. He was talking about a specific Mexican, not all Mexicans. He talked about his perception of unfair rulings and his immigration policy that targets people from Mexico. There are outside factors at play that brings into question the judges heritage. A persons heritage can impact their feelings/ partiality on a subject. There is nothing illogical or untrue about what I'm saying.
What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
If Trump said no Mexican could render a fair verdict against him, absent any other factor, that would be racist. There are outside factors at play that brings into question the judges heritage. A persons heritage can impact their feelings a subject.
Fair enough. But I think it was possible for Trump to bring up those factors without bringing up that the judge is of Mexican descent.
And those outside factors work both ways. Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage might be a potential bias against Trump, but Curiel's background as a former drug prosecutor against Mexican drug cartels also means that the judge could be in favor of some of Trump's policies. Not likely, but possible.
What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
If Trump said no Mexican could render a fair verdict against him, absent any other factor, that would be racist. There are outside factors at play that brings into question the judges heritage. A persons heritage can impact their feelings a subject.
Fair enough. But I think it was possible for Trump to bring up those factors without bringing up that the judge is of Mexican descent.
And those outside factors work both ways. Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage might be a potential bias against Trump, but Curiel's background as a former drug prosecutor against Mexican drug cartels also means that the judge could be in favor of some of Trump's policies. Not likely, but possible.
I'm not making the argument that Trump is not xenophobic racist, or is not an idiot, but rather this specific thing is not racist.
I'm not making the argument that Trump is not xenophobic racist, or is not an idiot, but rather this specific thing is not racist.
Well, let's simplify then: has Trump said anything racist? And/or is he a racist?
How about you respond to my argument.
Why? I find it to be hair-splitting pedantry and you have gone round-and-round with the others. Nothing new to be gained in joining in. You and the others have it covered.
I am an outside individual asking a new question. Is there anything racist attached to Trump? If you see nothing, I think it unlikely that there can be any understanding between you and them, and, maybe after several pages of tit-for-tat, it is time to move on.
I'm not making the argument that Trump is not xenophobic racist, or is not an idiot, but rather this specific thing is not racist.
Well, let's simplify then: has Trump said anything racist? And/or is he a racist?
How about you respond to my argument.
Why? I find it to be hair-splitting pedantry and you have gone round-and-round with the others. Nothing new to be gained in joining in. You and the others have it covered.
I am an outside individual asking a new question. Is there anything racist attached to Trump? If you see nothing, I think it unlikely that there can be any understanding between you and them, and, maybe after several pages of tit-for-tat, it is time to move on.
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.
Lol, nope. Blaming the act on the judge's heritage is being racist. For Trump to be copying the second defendant like you want, he'd have to be saying, "The judge ruled against me because I'm white". He isn't.
Trump is claiming the guy is being unfair *because he is mexican*. This is racist.
Let's swap things around for the amusement of the crowd.
Person 1: This guy is lazy. It's because he's Mexican.
Person 2: Wow. That's a racist thing to say.
Person 1: No it isn't, because I wouldn't have said that if he wasn't lazy!
Person 2: Yes. If he wasn't being lazy, you wouldn't blame his laziness on him being Mexican. That blaming is racism.
You're just digging yourself in deeper. Ironically, you're doing so good a job you probably won't need to hire extra help.
Prove that it is group-think. It is maddening that someone that posts in debate sees no need to defend blanket statements that fly in the face of fact. Numerous racist examples have been brought up in this thread. Do you think Trump has made racists statements and/or is racist? If you don't think that he has that fundamentally changes the discussion. You opened the door when you pointed out that you were carefully only discussing this singular instance dealing with the judge. Even if your answer is "no" I will take you seriously. What I won't take seriously is all your dancing around topics and posturing. "DUCY?"
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.
It has everything to do with heritage. He's saying that the judge is being unfair in his rulings because of his Mexican heritage.
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.
It has everything to do with heritage. He's saying that the judge is biased against him due to the judge being Mexican and Trump having certain policies toward Mexico.
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.
... Ok, so let me try to understand this: you tried to take two statements Trump gave in an interview outside of the context they were actually in, tried to pass them off as being outside of the context of race (they weren't), and then claim that I'M the one who's ignoring what Trump is saying?
Some one does not understand what "ascribe" means. Some one says you have to state Trump is a racist in order for your arguments to be considered. Whether or not i think or state if Trump is racist is irrelveant to the validity of my arguements.
Some one does not understand what "ascribe" means. Some one says you have to state Trump is a racist in order for your arguments to be considered. Whether or not i think or state if Trump is racist is irrelveant to the validity of my arguements.
Someone doesn't know that "someone" is one word not two...cut the pedantry and stop stonewalling.
Further, I didn't say you had to say he was racist. Don't strawman me.
Finally, again, since you made the statement, prove that it is group-think and that you can be dismissive of it.
Basically, as has happened many times to you from many individuals, I am simply asking you to take a stand and back it up. Stop with the slippery wordplay and semantic arguments.
Some one does not understand what "ascribe" means. Some one says you have to state Trump is a racist in order for your arguments to be considered. Whether or not i think or state if Trump is racist is irrelveant to the validity of my arguements.
Someone doesn't know that "someone" is one word not two...cut the pedantry and stop stonewalling.
Further, I didn't say you had to say he was racist. Don't strawman me.
Finally, again, since you made the statement, prove that it is group-think and that you can be dismissive of it.
Basically, as has happened many times to you from many individuals, I am simply asking you to take a stand and back it up. Stop with the slippery wordplay and semantic arguments.
You are asking me to prove an opinion of the group that believes Trump is racist, after you demanded that I take a stance on this opinion to "simplify things". Whether or not I think Trump has said racist things, or is a racist has nothing to do with the veracity of my arguements. If you want to start a new debate on whether or not Trump is racist, fine by me, but I'm under no obligation to take part in that debate.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
He's saying that the judge is being unfair in his rulings because of his Mexican heritage.
I honestly have no idea how you cant understand the perceived unfair rulings caused Trump to consider whether or not the judges heritage was playing a role in his handling of the case, in light of Trumps immigration policy and previous inflammatory comments he's made about Mexican immigrants. He obviously thinks it is. The Mexican heritage is not what caused Trump to think he was being treated unfairly, the perceived unfair rulings did. He literally says that if he felt he was getting fair rulings, he would not call in question the judges ethnicity. He implicitly acknowledges he could accept a Mexicans judges rulings, if he felt they were fair. Nothing I'm saying is incorrect or false or a manipulation. Almost everything you've argued is.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
People are not denying that upbringing can shape world views but to cite someones race or cultural heritage as reason why they cannot perform their duties is bigotry plain and simple (it also implies that all people from a specific heritage think the same way which is additionally ignorant.) I am surprised how far some people are willing to bend over backwards to defend Trump on this.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Simply saying its racist does not work anymore. You can blame SJWism for that.
Yes or no, a persons nationality impacts thier decision making and attachment to issues?
Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.
We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
Tiax is talking about experiences. You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican. The argument you are making is, and always will be a straw man since Trump has listed other reasons a Mexican may hold a grudge. You are ignoring that Mexicans heritage can play a role in how Mexicans respond to Trump due to his immigration stance.
If a persons Mexican heritage can play a role in what a Mexican thinks of Trump, then it cant be racist for Trump to bring up the judges heritage when discussing his partiality, in light of perceived unfavorable rulings and Trumps comments on Mexican immigration.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
People are not denying that upbringing can shape world views but to cite someones race or cultural heritage as reason why they cannot perform their duties is bigotry plain and simple (it also implies that all people from a specific heritage think the same way which is additionally ignorant.) I am surprised how far some people are willing to bend over backwards to defend Trump on this.
Trump is ONLY talking about the judge. All of the people who who think he is talking about all Mexicans are erroneously conflating the judge with all Mexicans. That is the primary logical contortion that is occurring. No one has denied or refuted the truth in what I say. I do not have to bend over backwards with the truth.
Half joking. Whether or not a party is a disgusting person should have no bearing on whether or not a judge can remain impartial. But it's odd to me that a defendant can make disparaging remarks about a group of people, and then uses those remark to comment about whether a judge is impartial or not. The judge himself hasn't commented on the wall or Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" statements.
Agreed, except for your conclusion.
What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
If Trump said no Mexican could render a fair verdict against him, absent any other factor, that would be racist. He was talking about a specific Mexican, not all Mexicans. He talked about his perception of unfair rulings and his immigration policy that targets people from Mexico. There are outside factors at play that brings into question the judges heritage. A persons heritage can impact their feelings/ partiality on a subject. There is nothing illogical or untrue about what I'm saying.
Fair enough. But I think it was possible for Trump to bring up those factors without bringing up that the judge is of Mexican descent.
And those outside factors work both ways. Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage might be a potential bias against Trump, but Curiel's background as a former drug prosecutor against Mexican drug cartels also means that the judge could be in favor of some of Trump's policies. Not likely, but possible.
I'm not making the argument that Trump is not xenophobic racist, or is not an idiot, but rather this specific thing is not racist.
Well, let's simplify then: has Trump said anything racist? And/or is he a racist?
How about you respond to my argument.
Why? I find it to be hair-splitting pedantry and you have gone round-and-round with the others. Nothing new to be gained in joining in. You and the others have it covered.
I am an outside individual asking a new question. Is there anything racist attached to Trump? If you see nothing, I think it unlikely that there can be any understanding between you and them, and, maybe after several pages of tit-for-tat, it is time to move on.
That is insulting. DUCY?
Lol, nope. Blaming the act on the judge's heritage is being racist. For Trump to be copying the second defendant like you want, he'd have to be saying, "The judge ruled against me because I'm white". He isn't.
Trump is claiming the guy is being unfair *because he is mexican*. This is racist.
Let's swap things around for the amusement of the crowd.
Person 1: This guy is lazy. It's because he's Mexican.
Person 2: Wow. That's a racist thing to say.
Person 1: No it isn't, because I wouldn't have said that if he wasn't lazy!
Person 2: Yes. If he wasn't being lazy, you wouldn't blame his laziness on him being Mexican. That blaming is racism.
You're just digging yourself in deeper. Ironically, you're doing so good a job you probably won't need to hire extra help.
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
It has everything to do with heritage. He's saying that the judge is biased against him due to the judge being Mexican and Trump having certain policies toward Mexico.
... Ok, so let me try to understand this: you tried to take two statements Trump gave in an interview outside of the context they were actually in, tried to pass them off as being outside of the context of race (they weren't), and then claim that I'M the one who's ignoring what Trump is saying?
Someone doesn't know that "someone" is one word not two...cut the pedantry and stop stonewalling.
Further, I didn't say you had to say he was racist. Don't strawman me.
Finally, again, since you made the statement, prove that it is group-think and that you can be dismissive of it.
Basically, as has happened many times to you from many individuals, I am simply asking you to take a stand and back it up. Stop with the slippery wordplay and semantic arguments.
A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence thier thinking on a range of topics?
The answer is True.
You are asking me to prove an opinion of the group that believes Trump is racist, after you demanded that I take a stance on this opinion to "simplify things". Whether or not I think Trump has said racist things, or is a racist has nothing to do with the veracity of my arguements. If you want to start a new debate on whether or not Trump is racist, fine by me, but I'm under no obligation to take part in that debate.
That's true and that's the point I've been making throughout this conversation. I can't believe that anyone can disagree with that without doing so disingenuously.
I honestly have no idea how you cant understand the perceived unfair rulings caused Trump to consider whether or not the judges heritage was playing a role in his handling of the case, in light of Trumps immigration policy and previous inflammatory comments he's made about Mexican immigrants. He obviously thinks it is. The Mexican heritage is not what caused Trump to think he was being treated unfairly, the perceived unfair rulings did. He literally says that if he felt he was getting fair rulings, he would not call in question the judges ethnicity. He implicitly acknowledges he could accept a Mexicans judges rulings, if he felt they were fair. Nothing I'm saying is incorrect or false or a manipulation. Almost everything you've argued is.
It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.
Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.
Tiax is talking about experiences. You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican. The argument you are making is, and always will be a straw man since Trump has listed other reasons a Mexican may hold a grudge. You are ignoring that Mexicans heritage can play a role in how Mexicans respond to Trump due to his immigration stance.
This is a true statement. He is not talking about all Mexicans, he is talking about the judge. You people think he is saying all Mexicans are biased for no reason other than they are Mexican, and he has not said that.
Trump is ONLY talking about the judge. All of the people who who think he is talking about all Mexicans are erroneously conflating the judge with all Mexicans. That is the primary logical contortion that is occurring. No one has denied or refuted the truth in what I say. I do not have to bend over backwards with the truth.