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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 is insulting. DUCY?
How about you respond to my argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.