Nanker Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 It's also ironic that the people who are attacking Trump for attacking his judge aren't able to attack the judge in this case.
Azalin Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 You don't think Trump's remarks about the judge are racist? His remarks strike me as being more nationalist than racist. He's not criticizing the judge for being Latino, he's questioning his bias based on his Mexican heritage. I don't think that's particularly smart, but I also don't consider it racist.
birdog1960 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) His remarks strike me as being more nationalist than racist. He's not criticizing the judge for being Latino, he's questioning his bias based on his Mexican heritage. I don't think that's particularly smart, but I also don't consider it racist. interestingly, the supreme court ruled on ethnicity in juries and judged that excluding anyone because of this was unconstitutional. it would logically follow for judges. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/opinions/supreme-court-black-jurors-bright/index.html it was certainly racist in the case the supremes looked at. also lost in the shuffle is the implied threat to this particular judge by trump should he win in November. the analyst that I heard said that this was unprecedented in a party nominee. Edited June 7, 2016 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 His remarks strike me as being more nationalist than racist. He's not criticizing the judge for being Latino, he's questioning his bias based on his Mexican heritage. I don't think that's particularly smart, but I also don't consider it racist. Americans are complete idiots when it comes to race. We can't tell the difference between "race," "ethnicity," "culture," and "nation."
GG Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 also lost in the shuffle is the implied threat to this particular judge by trump should he win in November. the analyst that I heard said that this was unprecedented in a party nominee. I know. He may go as far as call out a Justice in a State of the Union address.
birdog1960 Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Americans are complete idiots when it comes to race. We can't tell the difference between "race," "ethnicity," "culture," and "nation." no. the problem is more that so many fail to see that racism is institutionalized in many states or they do see it and fail to condemn it: In fact, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys presented a statewide training course in 1995 that included a handout called "Batson justifications: Articulating Juror Negatives," listing 10 kinds of "justifications" that can be offered as a race-neutral explanation for a juror strike. <img alt="When courts pretend it&#39;s not about race" class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120525034351-ifill-racial-dignity-story-top.jpg"> The Texas District and County Attorneys Association distributed a similar list, called "Batson Basics" at its Prosecutor Trial Skills Course in 2004. Of course, a prosecutor is supposed to give the actual reason for striking the potential juror, not one prepared by someone else long before trial. The lists provide a rare public glimpse of a common practice: Strike the black potential jurors because of race and later assert a plausible, race-neutral reason for the strikes. Some prosecutors give a "laundry list" of reasons in the hope that one of an unusually large number of reasons for the strike will be found to be a valid reason for striking the juror euphemisms and nuanced words are minor problems compared with the very real problem of pervasive racism.. trump's success is a testament to that fact. Edited June 7, 2016 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 no. the problem is more that so many fail to see that racism is institutionalized in many states or they do see it and fail to condemn it: In fact, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys presented a statewide training course in 1995 that included a handout called "Batson justifications: Articulating Juror Negatives," listing 10 kinds of "justifications" that can be offered as a race-neutral explanation for a juror strike. <img alt="When courts pretend it&#39;s not about race" class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120525034351-ifill-racial-dignity-story-top.jpg"> The Texas District and County Attorneys Association distributed a similar list, called "Batson Basics" at its Prosecutor Trial Skills Course in 2004. Of course, a prosecutor is supposed to give the actual reason for striking the potential juror, not one prepared by someone else long before trial. The lists provide a rare public glimpse of a common practice: Strike the black potential jurors because of race and later assert a plausible, race-neutral reason for the strikes. Some prosecutors give a "laundry list" of reasons in the hope that one of an unusually large number of reasons for the strike will be found to be a valid reason for striking the juror No, the problem is that Americans continually confuse "race," "ethnicity," "culture," and "nation." What you posted has ****-all to do with that.
keepthefaith Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) interestingly, the supreme court ruled on ethnicity in juries and judged that excluding anyone because of this was unconstitutional. it would logically follow for judges. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/opinions/supreme-court-black-jurors-bright/index.html it was certainly racist in the case the supremes looked at. also lost in the shuffle is the implied threat to this particular judge by trump should he win in November. the analyst that I heard said that this was unprecedented in a party nominee. I won't defend Trump's comments but this is just a non-issue in comparison to national debt/budgets, national security, border security/illegal immigration, economic growth and national security. Let's get this campaign focused on the big issues, can we folks? Edited June 7, 2016 by keepthefaith
Azalin Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 Americans are complete idiots when it comes to race. We can't tell the difference between "race," "ethnicity," "culture," and "nation." And why let the inability to make such distinctions get in the way of throwing around accusations of racism? Trump is running as a Republican, after all. I know. He may go as far as call out a Justice in a State of the Union address.
4merper4mer Posted June 7, 2016 Posted June 7, 2016 I won't defend Trump's comments but this is just a non-issue in comparison to national debt/budgets, national security, border security/illegal immigration, economic growth and national security. Let's get this campaign focused on the big issues, can we folks? You're only supposed to say that about dead soldiers with spit on their graves, illegally hidden correspondence, pay for play schemes and other things TBA at a later date.
Observer Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Watching people, including Republican leadership, defend/dodge Trump's comments is high theater. Keep up the good work.
Magox Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Watching people, including Republican leadership, defend/dodge Trump's comments is high theater. Keep up the good work. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
ALF Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Republican voters have spoken loud and clear this primary race.
TH3 Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 I won't defend Trump's comments but this is just a non-issue in comparison to national debt/budgets, national security, border security/illegal immigration, economic growth and national security. Let's get this campaign focused on the big issues, can we folks? So why isnt Trump talking about them?
4merper4mer Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Watching people, including Republican leadership, defend/dodge Trump's comments is high theater. Keep up the good work. Cognitive dissonance at its finest. You two morons tied at the hip again? I'll repeat the question: Let's take for granted that the Donald is a woman hating racist dictator who will attempt to kill all non-whites on January 20. What do you think would happen then? Would he be stopped? Impeached? Removed from office? Jailed? How about Hillary? If she is a self indulgent secret selling, favor doing President who sells out America to the highest bidder? Will she be stopped? Impeached? Removed from office? Jailed? We already know the answer to that. Nothing will happen to her. And you two dolts are in full support of that.
Magox Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 You two morons tied at the hip again? I'll repeat the question: Let's take for granted that the Donald is a woman hating racist dictator who will attempt to kill all non-whites on January 20. What do you think would happen then? Would he be stopped? Impeached? Removed from office? Jailed? How about Hillary? If she is a self indulgent secret selling, favor doing President who sells out America to the highest bidder? Will she be stopped? Impeached? Removed from office? Jailed? We already know the answer to that. Nothing will happen to her. And you two dolts are in full support of that. You're an idiot
4merper4mer Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 You're an idiot Thanks for the detail you provided in answering the questions. Enjoy the next few generations of America thanks to Hillary and others like her. And remember to believe everything you read.
Magox Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Thanks for the detail you provided in answering the questions. Enjoy the next few generations of America thanks to Hillary and others like her. And remember to believe everything you read. Get it through your thick skull, I'm not interested in comparing the two. I'm not interested in choosing teams. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two evils. I'm not interested in repeating the same damn thing over and over and over every !@#$ing day. I'm not interested in engaging in the mental gymnastics that the sheeple have to do in order to justify their support of their preferred candidate.
B-Man Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 "If you have been watching CNN, you know Anderson Cooper has been reporting about the discovery that a sitting judge is actually a robot." By Prof. Ann Althouse "His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is presiding over the Trump University case. Curiel looks human on the outside, and he has passed as human for decades. But Cooper made it clear in his interviews yesterday that while science understands that 100% of humans are biased about just about everything, this robot judge is not susceptible to being influenced by his life experiences. It sounds deeply implausible, but no one on CNN challenged Cooper’s implication that Judge Curiel is the only bias-free entity in the universe. Ergo, he must be a robot." Writes Scott Adams, saying in what might be the funniest and best observation about judges I've ever read (and being an long-time law professor, I've read a lot).
3rdnlng Posted June 8, 2016 Posted June 8, 2016 Get it through your thick skull, I'm not interested in comparing the two. I'm not interested in choosing teams. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two evils. I'm not interested in repeating the same damn thing over and over and over every !@#$ing day. I'm not interested in engaging in the mental gymnastics that the sheeple have to do in order to justify their support of their preferred candidate. Are you interested in confiding with us which candidate, in your opinion, would be best for this country? Why?
Recommended Posts