This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
I keep hearing that attacks on Trump for being a racist are being ignored because the Left made the same attacks on McCain and Romney. I wasn't paying much attention in 2008, but I paid quite a bit of attention in 2012, and don't remember anyone calling Romney a racist.
Yes, I know people online who will say he's Republican, therefore he's a racist. At the same level, I can pull up any number of crude racist attacks on Obama. Did serious respected sources really call Romney a racist, really make a big deal about Romney being a racist, or is this merely an tactic to blame the Left?
Yes, I know people online who will say he's Republican, therefore he's a racist. At the same level, I can pull up any number of crude racist attacks on Obama. Did serious respected sources really call Romney a racist, really make a big deal about Romney being a racist, or is this merely an tactic to blame the Left?
3prosfilaes
To repeat myself, at the same level, I can pull up any number of crude racist attacks on Obama. I see nothing that that indicates that it's more than an excuse to blame the Left. If Clinton had won, would we be justified in saying their claims that she was corrupt were ignored because they've said that about every Democratic candidate ever?
4timspalding
I can pull up any number of crude racist attacks on Obama.
No one is disputing that.
I see nothing that that indicates that it's more than an excuse to blame the Left.
I see you see that. I can't change your opinion, but I can speak to the wrong factual basis of your original post. Democrats DID call Romney, McCain and many others racists quite a bit. You "don't remember anyone calling Romney a racist," but, well, they did.
With others, I think this cheapened the term. Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly. It made it harder for Democrats to get attention when, indeed, this time the candidate really was a racist.
No one is disputing that.
I see nothing that that indicates that it's more than an excuse to blame the Left.
I see you see that. I can't change your opinion, but I can speak to the wrong factual basis of your original post. Democrats DID call Romney, McCain and many others racists quite a bit. You "don't remember anyone calling Romney a racist," but, well, they did.
With others, I think this cheapened the term. Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly. It made it harder for Democrats to get attention when, indeed, this time the candidate really was a racist.
5proximity1
>4 timspalding:
And then there are even some of the political Left --I'm among them-- who'd argue that Trump gets a bad rap when he is denounced as racist, sexist, a xenophobe, anti-Semitic or the absurd "homophobic."
The point, obviously, is that, like everyone else, including members of all the just-mentioned groups, Trump has had occasion to criticize certain individuals who, as it happens, belong to one or more of these groups. But in every instance there are clearly grounds--as he sees it--to criticize these people and these have nothing to do with their being members of groups which are supposed victims of invidious discrimination
To call him a bigot on that account is disgraceful and hypocritical political axe-grinding.
And then there are even some of the political Left --I'm among them-- who'd argue that Trump gets a bad rap when he is denounced as racist, sexist, a xenophobe, anti-Semitic or the absurd "homophobic."
The point, obviously, is that, like everyone else, including members of all the just-mentioned groups, Trump has had occasion to criticize certain individuals who, as it happens, belong to one or more of these groups. But in every instance there are clearly grounds--as he sees it--to criticize these people and these have nothing to do with their being members of groups which are supposed victims of invidious discrimination
To call him a bigot on that account is disgraceful and hypocritical political axe-grinding.
6RickHarsch
Right. Trump's a cool cat.
7jjwilson61
>5 proximity1: So Trump was justified when he said a judge was biased against him because he was a Mexican? (I know the judge was born in the US but that's not relevant to whether the remark was racist or not). Even a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism.
8davidgn
>5 proximity1: I often find myself agreeing with much of what you post. However, when I find myself in disagreement, it tends to be in the nature of wondering whether I'm reading something from another planet. This is a good example.
9prosfilaes
>4 timspalding: No one is disputing that.
Then that proves the Right is racist, right?
Democrats DID call Romney, McCain and many others racists quite a bit.
You haven't established that. Basically, it looks like once Romney said that the NAACP wanted free stuff, and was called a racist for it.
Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly.
So basically minorities should shut the fuck up. You get to whine and whine about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites, but if minorities say that a Republican candidate might not treat them like they like, that's unfair.
Edit: If Clinton had even implied that West Virginia coal miners wanted "free stuff", there would have wrath and rage. Maybe racism is a way of saying you're not being fair to the black community in a way that might be taken seriously, given that black people have about the least political power of any group of their size in the US. The odds a bill will be passed is literally inversely proportional to the support it has in the black community. So saying that something is "racist" is a way of saying it's not fair to the blacks, and reminding the white community they agreed that that was a bad thing. Whining about the use of racist even when something is racist, is complaining that the black community keeps expecting fair treatment. (Note: black wages are down to where they were in the 1950s, and states that have banned questions about prison terms on employment applications have discovered that employers just assume that blacks have been in prison in that case.) You want the black community to stop expecting to get fair treatment from the Republican nominee? That's a little {strikeout}racist{/strikeout} bigoted against a disadvantaged minority community, isn't it?
Then that proves the Right is racist, right?
Democrats DID call Romney, McCain and many others racists quite a bit.
You haven't established that. Basically, it looks like once Romney said that the NAACP wanted free stuff, and was called a racist for it.
Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly.
So basically minorities should shut the fuck up. You get to whine and whine about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites, but if minorities say that a Republican candidate might not treat them like they like, that's unfair.
Edit: If Clinton had even implied that West Virginia coal miners wanted "free stuff", there would have wrath and rage. Maybe racism is a way of saying you're not being fair to the black community in a way that might be taken seriously, given that black people have about the least political power of any group of their size in the US. The odds a bill will be passed is literally inversely proportional to the support it has in the black community. So saying that something is "racist" is a way of saying it's not fair to the blacks, and reminding the white community they agreed that that was a bad thing. Whining about the use of racist even when something is racist, is complaining that the black community keeps expecting fair treatment. (Note: black wages are down to where they were in the 1950s, and states that have banned questions about prison terms on employment applications have discovered that employers just assume that blacks have been in prison in that case.) You want the black community to stop expecting to get fair treatment from the Republican nominee? That's a little {strikeout}racist{/strikeout} bigoted against a disadvantaged minority community, isn't it?
10proximity1
>7 jjwilson61: & >8 davidgn:
david, it's jj's attempt at reasoning here which strikes me as extraterrestrial.
jj,
You really don't see the fallacies in this, do you ?
Did you even think about this before you wrote it? : "So Trump was justified when he said a judge was biased against him because he was a Mexican? (I know the judge was born in the US but that's not relevant to whether the remark was racist or not). Even a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism."
In a way, this is classic in its portrayal of the weird incapacity to think clearly seen so often in people who apparently live life on a PC hair-trigger.
First, though one's place of birth* is not his own choice, still, "race," a debunked concept which blinkered bigots do more to keep alive than anyone else, does not describe nationalities. The Mexicans are no more a "race" than are U.S. nationals. But we know, don't we?, that jj uses "(race) racism" as a catch-all term to signify any kind of bigotry, any invidious prejudice except those which have distinct names of their own. So those prejudiced against Mexico or its people qualify in jj's loose parlance as "racists."
Second, why is it "either / or"? ; Either Trump is seen a racist or, if not, one must believe that Trump's criticism is justified. Why? Why couldn't one agree that Trump's criticism is unjust while not regarding it as motivated by bigotry? Hmm? Is that really too complicated?
Finally, the clincher is that "even" a Republican congressman has agreed that the comment "was pretty much the definition of racism." Well, then, in that case, it must be true.
Extraterrestrial.
_____________
(*Here, Trump's "racism" --as jj points out-- springs from his ancestors being of the "Mexican" "race," as he sees it. )
david, it's jj's attempt at reasoning here which strikes me as extraterrestrial.
jj,
You really don't see the fallacies in this, do you ?
Did you even think about this before you wrote it? : "So Trump was justified when he said a judge was biased against him because he was a Mexican? (I know the judge was born in the US but that's not relevant to whether the remark was racist or not). Even a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism."
In a way, this is classic in its portrayal of the weird incapacity to think clearly seen so often in people who apparently live life on a PC hair-trigger.
First, though one's place of birth* is not his own choice, still, "race," a debunked concept which blinkered bigots do more to keep alive than anyone else, does not describe nationalities. The Mexicans are no more a "race" than are U.S. nationals. But we know, don't we?, that jj uses "(
Second, why is it "either / or"? ; Either Trump is seen a racist or, if not, one must believe that Trump's criticism is justified. Why? Why couldn't one agree that Trump's criticism is unjust while not regarding it as motivated by bigotry? Hmm? Is that really too complicated?
Finally, the clincher is that "even" a Republican congressman has agreed that the comment "was pretty much the definition of racism." Well, then, in that case, it must be true.
Extraterrestrial.
_____________
(*Here, Trump's "racism" --as jj points out-- springs from his ancestors being of the "Mexican" "race," as he sees it. )
11timspalding
Then that proves the Right is racist, right?
Birtherism certainly demonstrated a lot of racism. So did the recent election. While "racist" is a spectrum, and can be overused, I think this election demonstrated that racism is indeed endemic on the right. For starters, we elected one.
It's no consolation that racism is hardly absent from the other side of the aisle. But, there's no question it finds a more friendly reception on the right today.
Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly.
So basically minorities should shut the fuck up.
Your powers of deduction are without parallel.
You get to whine and whine about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites, but if minorities say that a Republican candidate might not treat them like they like, that's unfair.
I've never "whined about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites." What a gross, stupid accusation.
Sheesh, QED.
Birtherism certainly demonstrated a lot of racism. So did the recent election. While "racist" is a spectrum, and can be overused, I think this election demonstrated that racism is indeed endemic on the right. For starters, we elected one.
It's no consolation that racism is hardly absent from the other side of the aisle. But, there's no question it finds a more friendly reception on the right today.
Americans are used to the charge of racism being flung at Republican candidates unfairly.
So basically minorities should shut the fuck up.
Your powers of deduction are without parallel.
You get to whine and whine about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites, but if minorities say that a Republican candidate might not treat them like they like, that's unfair.
I've never "whined about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites." What a gross, stupid accusation.
Sheesh, QED.
12prosfilaes
>11 timspalding: Birtherism certainly demonstrated a lot of racism.
I notice you refuse to say "Yes" to the question "is the Right racist?". If the Right is racist, then that makes the Left using the word racist too much an excuse. If you insist on the nuances of the matter, then you're going to need way more than a simple Google search to prove anything about "the Left".
When minorities say that "that was unfair to us", they get ignored. When they say "that was racist", which is the same thing--being unfair to a racial minority is basically the definition of racism--people get outraged, and then use that as a way to ignore them in the future. Sounds like people are looking for an excuse to ignore minorities.
Why isn't telling a group of black people "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If Clinton had told the coal miners "don't expect free stuff from me, and don't expect me to take a bunch of money and give you free stuff in a way that makes you feel like you're doing something productive", all hell would have broken loose. Telling mostly white coal miners that the government wasn't going to give them what they wanted even in the minor way she did ("coal mining jobs aren't coming back") was considered a mistake.
One last time: why was Romney telling the NAACP "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If it was racist, why shouldn't it be called such? It wasn't like people were constantly ragging on Romney being racist; they objected to a very specific statement.
I've never "whined about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites."
That was a generic you, not meant personally. Certainly I've heard enough about how Clinton didn't offer enough shit to the poor whites and that was why she lost.
QED.
Exactly. You're making your case non-disprovable. Of course there's people on discussion boards arguing all sorts of shit, so you could use that as an excuse for anything. Even just the newspapers, you can pile them up and find any argument you want.
I notice you refuse to say "Yes" to the question "is the Right racist?". If the Right is racist, then that makes the Left using the word racist too much an excuse. If you insist on the nuances of the matter, then you're going to need way more than a simple Google search to prove anything about "the Left".
When minorities say that "that was unfair to us", they get ignored. When they say "that was racist", which is the same thing--being unfair to a racial minority is basically the definition of racism--people get outraged, and then use that as a way to ignore them in the future. Sounds like people are looking for an excuse to ignore minorities.
Why isn't telling a group of black people "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If Clinton had told the coal miners "don't expect free stuff from me, and don't expect me to take a bunch of money and give you free stuff in a way that makes you feel like you're doing something productive", all hell would have broken loose. Telling mostly white coal miners that the government wasn't going to give them what they wanted even in the minor way she did ("coal mining jobs aren't coming back") was considered a mistake.
One last time: why was Romney telling the NAACP "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If it was racist, why shouldn't it be called such? It wasn't like people were constantly ragging on Romney being racist; they objected to a very specific statement.
I've never "whined about how the Democratic candidate might treat the whites."
That was a generic you, not meant personally. Certainly I've heard enough about how Clinton didn't offer enough shit to the poor whites and that was why she lost.
QED.
Exactly. You're making your case non-disprovable. Of course there's people on discussion boards arguing all sorts of shit, so you could use that as an excuse for anything. Even just the newspapers, you can pile them up and find any argument you want.
13timspalding
I notice you refuse to say "Yes" to the question "is the Right racist?".
I do not think the entire right is racist. For example, I do not think Romney or McCain are racist. But there are a lot of racists on the right. They are fewer on the left. The presence of racists does not make an entire group racist. If it did, then the left would be racist too.
If you insist on the nuances of the matter, then you're going to need way more than a simple Google search to prove anything about "the Left".
Okay, many people on the left accused Romney, McCain, Bush Dole and the rest of being "racists." This was a false accusation, and it made it much harder to persuade people that this time the accusation was true.
Certainly I don't apply it to all. You, apparently, didn't call them racist before--and were unaware others had done so before. So I do not accuse past-you of making false accusations. As you now make them, I include you in those making false accusations.
One last time: why was Romney telling the NAACP "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If it was racist, why shouldn't it be called such? It wasn't like people were constantly ragging on Romney being racist; they objected to a very specific statement.
Because the statement was not, separately or in context, racist. He said it and similar lines on many other occasions, before audiences of all sorts, referring to many policies. It was part of his standard speech. It coheres with his his—and conservatives—overall view of government. As he put it then and on many occasions, government can give you free stuff, but it isn't really free.
It goes to Romney's lack of finesse, perhaps, that he didn't realize some would take it as specially about black people—sometimes honestly, mostly not. Politicians should avoid misunderstandings like that, and opportunities for people to construct misunderstandings. Not anticipating that doesn't make Romney racist, though.
I do not think the entire right is racist. For example, I do not think Romney or McCain are racist. But there are a lot of racists on the right. They are fewer on the left. The presence of racists does not make an entire group racist. If it did, then the left would be racist too.
If you insist on the nuances of the matter, then you're going to need way more than a simple Google search to prove anything about "the Left".
Okay, many people on the left accused Romney, McCain, Bush Dole and the rest of being "racists." This was a false accusation, and it made it much harder to persuade people that this time the accusation was true.
Certainly I don't apply it to all. You, apparently, didn't call them racist before--and were unaware others had done so before. So I do not accuse past-you of making false accusations. As you now make them, I include you in those making false accusations.
One last time: why was Romney telling the NAACP "don't expect free stuff from me" not racist? If it was racist, why shouldn't it be called such? It wasn't like people were constantly ragging on Romney being racist; they objected to a very specific statement.
Because the statement was not, separately or in context, racist. He said it and similar lines on many other occasions, before audiences of all sorts, referring to many policies. It was part of his standard speech. It coheres with his his—and conservatives—overall view of government. As he put it then and on many occasions, government can give you free stuff, but it isn't really free.
It goes to Romney's lack of finesse, perhaps, that he didn't realize some would take it as specially about black people—sometimes honestly, mostly not. Politicians should avoid misunderstandings like that, and opportunities for people to construct misunderstandings. Not anticipating that doesn't make Romney racist, though.
14jjwilson61
>10 proximity1: When using the term Mexican I was just repeating what the donald said. I am quite aware that Mexican isn't a racial category and the whole idea of racial categories in the first place is problematic. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist though and donald was using "Mexican" in a racist way.
15proximity1
>14 jjwilson61:
RE: ..."That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist though and donald was using "Mexican" in a racist way."
Yeah, in fact, really in this particular instance, it does "mean" exactly that. If Trump himself doesn't regard "Mexicans" as a "race," then his critical comments of one of them(*) aren't rightly attributable to "racism." That's what language and logic inform us.
Actually, instead of your claim that you were "just repeating what the donald said," you're up to much more than that:
you cited The Donald's words expressly as evidence of his racism-- that is, your argument in this case, expressly or implied, is that *we know Trump is a racist at least in part because his statements reveal that about him*--expressly citing his comments about Mexicans. However, Trump himself has never claimed that Mexicans are a "race" nor that his criticisms of them are based on such a belief. Thus, just as I wrote, it is you who allege about Trump "racism" and you pretend to support that charge with his statements including, especially, this one.
If you had not supposed right along with so many others that, by criticizing "Mexicans," Trump was revealing himself as a "racist," you wouldn't have chosen that example. But you chose it, obviously, because, for you, it's revelatory of "racism."
That's your charge and claim. You can't duck and dodge it by saying that you're "just repeating what the donald said."
"No sale."
________
ETA : If there's any doubt left, take your "clincher" comment, here :
"Even a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism."
You'd alluded to (without citation), as supporting evidence of the claim that this particular comment is revelatory evidence of "racism," that "a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism." So, please, come off it!
__________
(*) by ancestry.
"When using the term Mexican I was just repeating what the donald said. I am quite aware that Mexican isn't a racial category and the whole idea of racial categories in the first place is problematic. That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist though and donald was using "Mexican" in a racist way."
RE: ..."That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist though and donald was using "Mexican" in a racist way."
Yeah, in fact, really in this particular instance, it does "mean" exactly that. If Trump himself doesn't regard "Mexicans" as a "race," then his critical comments of one of them(*) aren't rightly attributable to "racism." That's what language and logic inform us.
Actually, instead of your claim that you were "just repeating what the donald said," you're up to much more than that:
you cited The Donald's words expressly as evidence of his racism-- that is, your argument in this case, expressly or implied, is that *we know Trump is a racist at least in part because his statements reveal that about him*--expressly citing his comments about Mexicans. However, Trump himself has never claimed that Mexicans are a "race" nor that his criticisms of them are based on such a belief. Thus, just as I wrote, it is you who allege about Trump "racism" and you pretend to support that charge with his statements including, especially, this one.
If you had not supposed right along with so many others that, by criticizing "Mexicans," Trump was revealing himself as a "racist," you wouldn't have chosen that example. But you chose it, obviously, because, for you, it's revelatory of "racism."
That's your charge and claim. You can't duck and dodge it by saying that you're "just repeating what the donald said."
"No sale."
________
ETA : If there's any doubt left, take your "clincher" comment, here :
"Even a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism."
You'd alluded to (without citation), as supporting evidence of the claim that this particular comment is revelatory evidence of "racism," that "a Republican congressman said the comment was pretty much the definition of racism." So, please, come off it!
__________
(*) by ancestry.
16timspalding
Weaseling around with "race," as above, reminds me of the Bobby Fischer interview where he was asked if he was antisemitic. He replied that, as he understood it, Arabs were also Semites. And had nothing against Arabs. So he wasn't antisemitic at all!
17proximity1
>16 timspalding:
Trump's "Mexican" "racism" apparently rests upon his comments criticizing a U.S.-born magistrate of Mexican ancestry and some undetermined number of Mexicans who were specifically described as being both in the U.S. illegally and while in the U.S., had committed serious felonies.
I think the "weasel words" are from others here.
ETA : As I already wrote in >10 proximity1:
••• "But we know, don't we?, that jj uses (race) →"racism" as a catch-all term to signify any kind of bigotry, any invidious prejudice except those which have distinct names of their own. So those prejudiced against Mexico or its people qualify in jj's loose parlance as 'racists.' "
But, instead of accepting that and admitting that he's really *only* claiming Trump harbors a negatively prejudiced view of Mexicans in general for no other reason than that they are Mexican, jj doubles down on the insistence on the term "racist." Maybe that's because it's so much heavier in condemnation and so much more inflammatory as a charge--and also perhaps because people would laugh off the claim that Trump simply bears an animus toward all Mexicans since he obviously doesn't.
______________
ETA :
Here's your big "racist" boogeyman, Trump :
( from WikipediA's ® article on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel :
Trump University lawsuits.
Main article: Trump University
'In February 2014, Curiel certified Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University as a class action case that alleged Trump University was "a basically fraudulent endeavor",17 and he accepted residents of three states as members of that class.18 In October 2014, Curiel certified Cohen v. Trump as another national class action against entrepreneur (now President-elect) Donald Trump.1920 In March 2016, Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw her name from the first lawsuit, and the case was retitled Low v. Trump University.1721
'In May 2016, Curiel granted a request by the Washington Post for public release of certain Trump University documents and depositions that had been filed in the case.1722 Curiel scheduled a trial to begin in the Low case on November 28, 2016, in San Diego.23 He had planned to start the trial in the summer of 2016, but postponed it until after the 2016 Presidential election because of concerns that jurors would be affected by a "media frenzy" if the trial took place before the election.23
'In November 2016, after Trump had been elected president, his attorneys asked that the case be delayed until after Trump's inauguration, set for January 20, 2017. Curiel denied the request but urged the parties to pursue a settlement, and recruited District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller to facilitate settlement talks.24
' On November 18, a settlement of all three pending cases (Curiel's two class-action suits plus a suit filed by the Attorney General of New York) was announced and was certified by Curiel.25
'During the campaign Trump repeatedly criticized Curiel in campaign speeches and interviews, calling him a "hater of Donald Trump", saying his rulings have been unfair, and that Curiel "happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine",26 while suggesting that the judge's ethnicity posed a conflict of interest in light of Trump's proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.117232728
'Curiel wrote in court papers that Trump has "placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue",11722 but is forbidden from responding publicly to Trump's claims in view of rules against public commentary by judges on active cases.17
'Legal experts were critical of Trump's original attacks on Curiel, viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.293031323334
'On June 7, 2016 Trump issued a lengthy statement saying that his criticism of the judge had been "misconstrued" and that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based upon ethnicity alone, but also upon rulings in the case.3536
'In reply, Cato Institute fellow Nat Hentoff wrote that thus far in the case, Curiel had ruled in Trump's favor far more often than not, including granting his motion to delay the trial until after the 2016 presidential election, and concluded that "Donald Trump has an odd way of showing his appreciation for a trial judge who, as his attorney said, is just 'doing his job'."37 '
Trump's "Mexican" "racism" apparently rests upon his comments criticizing a U.S.-born magistrate of Mexican ancestry and some undetermined number of Mexicans who were specifically described as being both in the U.S. illegally and while in the U.S., had committed serious felonies.
I think the "weasel words" are from others here.
ETA : As I already wrote in >10 proximity1:
••• "But we know, don't we?, that jj uses (
But, instead of accepting that and admitting that he's really *only* claiming Trump harbors a negatively prejudiced view of Mexicans in general for no other reason than that they are Mexican, jj doubles down on the insistence on the term "racist." Maybe that's because it's so much heavier in condemnation and so much more inflammatory as a charge--and also perhaps because people would laugh off the claim that Trump simply bears an animus toward all Mexicans since he obviously doesn't.
______________
ETA :
Here's your big "racist" boogeyman, Trump :
( from WikipediA's ® article on Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel :
Trump University lawsuits.
Main article: Trump University
'In February 2014, Curiel certified Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University as a class action case that alleged Trump University was "a basically fraudulent endeavor",17 and he accepted residents of three states as members of that class.18 In October 2014, Curiel certified Cohen v. Trump as another national class action against entrepreneur (now President-elect) Donald Trump.1920 In March 2016, Curiel allowed Makaeff to withdraw her name from the first lawsuit, and the case was retitled Low v. Trump University.1721
'In May 2016, Curiel granted a request by the Washington Post for public release of certain Trump University documents and depositions that had been filed in the case.1722 Curiel scheduled a trial to begin in the Low case on November 28, 2016, in San Diego.23 He had planned to start the trial in the summer of 2016, but postponed it until after the 2016 Presidential election because of concerns that jurors would be affected by a "media frenzy" if the trial took place before the election.23
'In November 2016, after Trump had been elected president, his attorneys asked that the case be delayed until after Trump's inauguration, set for January 20, 2017. Curiel denied the request but urged the parties to pursue a settlement, and recruited District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller to facilitate settlement talks.24
' On November 18, a settlement of all three pending cases (Curiel's two class-action suits plus a suit filed by the Attorney General of New York) was announced and was certified by Curiel.25
'During the campaign Trump repeatedly criticized Curiel in campaign speeches and interviews, calling him a "hater of Donald Trump", saying his rulings have been unfair, and that Curiel "happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine",26 while suggesting that the judge's ethnicity posed a conflict of interest in light of Trump's proposal to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.117232728
'Curiel wrote in court papers that Trump has "placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue",11722 but is forbidden from responding publicly to Trump's claims in view of rules against public commentary by judges on active cases.17
'Legal experts were critical of Trump's original attacks on Curiel, viewing them as racially charged, unfounded, and an affront to the concept of an independent judiciary.293031323334
'On June 7, 2016 Trump issued a lengthy statement saying that his criticism of the judge had been "misconstrued" and that his concerns about Curiel's impartiality were not based upon ethnicity alone, but also upon rulings in the case.3536
'In reply, Cato Institute fellow Nat Hentoff wrote that thus far in the case, Curiel had ruled in Trump's favor far more often than not, including granting his motion to delay the trial until after the 2016 presidential election, and concluded that "Donald Trump has an odd way of showing his appreciation for a trial judge who, as his attorney said, is just 'doing his job'."37 '
18timspalding
criticizing a U.S.-born magistrate of Mexican ancestry
Right. Claiming that an American judge can't be fair to him, because they're ethnically Mexican, is gross and bigoted. Swap in "female" and you get sexist. Swap in "Jewish" and you get antisemitic. And so forth. Clear cut, gross and indefensible.
Right. Claiming that an American judge can't be fair to him, because they're ethnically Mexican, is gross and bigoted. Swap in "female" and you get sexist. Swap in "Jewish" and you get antisemitic. And so forth. Clear cut, gross and indefensible.
19proximity1
>18 timspalding:
→ "Right. Claiming that an American judge can't be fair to him, because they're ethnically Mexican, is gross and bigoted."
If you pay attention to Trump's words, you find him alleging a bias supposedly due to what Trump claimed is a conflict of interest on Judge Curiel's part alone. It's not necessary to agree with Trump on this point to find the charge of "racism" / an abiding prejudice against all Mexicans/ absurd.
Trump alleged that this particular judge--of Mexican parents-- was biased, not that every such judge would also necessarily be the same.
→ "Right. Claiming that an American judge can't be fair to him, because they're ethnically Mexican, is gross and bigoted."
If you pay attention to Trump's words, you find him alleging a bias supposedly due to what Trump claimed is a conflict of interest on Judge Curiel's part alone. It's not necessary to agree with Trump on this point to find the charge of "racism" / an abiding prejudice against all Mexicans/ absurd.
Trump alleged that this particular judge--of Mexican parents-- was biased, not that every such judge would also necessarily be the same.
20jjwilson61
>19 proximity1: Trump alleged that this particular judge--of Mexican parents-- was biased, not that every such judge would also necessarily be the same.
Bullshit. He had no reason to believe the judge was biased against him except his background as someone descended from Mexican immigrants.
And I don't see any difference between denigrating someone because they're Mexican or they're Latino, or Polish or Irish for that matter. So I guess you're right that I see racism as a broader term that encompasses more than just "race" but I think that's a pretty common belief.
Bullshit. He had no reason to believe the judge was biased against him except his background as someone descended from Mexican immigrants.
And I don't see any difference between denigrating someone because they're Mexican or they're Latino, or Polish or Irish for that matter. So I guess you're right that I see racism as a broader term that encompasses more than just "race" but I think that's a pretty common belief.
21timspalding
>19 proximity1:-20
This isn't some mystery topic where we'll never know why Trump doesn't like the judge. Trump said why he didn't think he could be impartial, and in doing so he specifically mentioned his heritage, repeatedly. See the transcript at http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-com...
Again, change the scenario. Change every occurrence of "Mexico/an" to "black" or "Jewish." It would be reprehensible. It is reprehensible.
This isn't some mystery topic where we'll never know why Trump doesn't like the judge. Trump said why he didn't think he could be impartial, and in doing so he specifically mentioned his heritage, repeatedly. See the transcript at http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-com...
Again, change the scenario. Change every occurrence of "Mexico/an" to "black" or "Jewish." It would be reprehensible. It is reprehensible.
22prosfilaes
Is there any way you could get the web browser to warn when closing a message box with text in it, like it does for normal text boxes? Or make the system save drafts? This is really annoying when you lose a whole box of text.
Okay, many people on the left accused Romney, McCain, Bush Dole and the rest of being "racists." This was a false accusation,
You believe that it is a false accusation. Certainly blacks feel they get disparately poor treatment from Republican presidents.
it made it much harder to persuade people that this time the accusation was true.
Did it? Or were people looking for an excuse to ignore the minority concerns?
You, apparently, didn't call them racist before
Them? We've only talked about Romney. You've provided absolutely no evidence that anyone called McCain racist.
It was part of his standard speech. ... It goes to Romney's lack of finesse, perhaps,
"lack of finesse"? It was as if he walked into a Catholic meeting and explained his concerns with Americans with loyalties to foreign potentates, or went a Chinese-American rally in a park and said it was a good thing dogs were allowed, because he brought his dog along. It showed absolutely no interest in the concerns and history of the group he was talking to; call it what you will, but I think it goes beyond lack of finesse.
Okay, many people on the left accused Romney, McCain, Bush Dole and the rest of being "racists." This was a false accusation,
You believe that it is a false accusation. Certainly blacks feel they get disparately poor treatment from Republican presidents.
it made it much harder to persuade people that this time the accusation was true.
Did it? Or were people looking for an excuse to ignore the minority concerns?
You, apparently, didn't call them racist before
Them? We've only talked about Romney. You've provided absolutely no evidence that anyone called McCain racist.
It was part of his standard speech. ... It goes to Romney's lack of finesse, perhaps,
"lack of finesse"? It was as if he walked into a Catholic meeting and explained his concerns with Americans with loyalties to foreign potentates, or went a Chinese-American rally in a park and said it was a good thing dogs were allowed, because he brought his dog along. It showed absolutely no interest in the concerns and history of the group he was talking to; call it what you will, but I think it goes beyond lack of finesse.
23proximity1
>21 timspalding:
"Trump said why he didn't think he could be impartial, and in doing so he specifically mentioned his heritage, ..."
Right. And a failure of impartiality in a presiding judge is a serious fault--which, if founded, should produce the judge's removal if he or she doesn't recuse himself or herself. Thus, it's a valid ground for objection even if we don't find ourselves siding with Trump's views of the merits of the claim of partiality.
______________
FYI and for what it's worth, I read the linked transcripts to which you referred me. What they add up to in my opinion is small-bore stuff, not at all the sort of thing I think of when I conjure the image of a bigoted person.
I think Trump's critics have a very strange idea of what makes a bigot. Here we have a bigot who apparently counts all kinds of people—people of all ethnicities, skin colors, religions, all sexual preferences—among those with whom he has, has had or could well have, amical relations. What kind of bigot is that?, I ask you.
Bigots gave us the famous phrase, “The only good (fill in the blank)_ is a dead (fill in again with the previous space's identity)_.”
IRL, bigots don't discriminate between the good, bad and in-between when it comes to the targets of their bigotry. They have a rationale—it may strike others as demented and fantastical, but it is rationale. And bigots are rather consistent. Thus, all “good Montecchi” loathe and despise all “good Capuleti.” That is why the prospects are bleak when a young Capulet and a young Montague fall in love. Neither of their clans' properly-bigoted members will understand or excuse their mutual affection. For them the “choices” aren't many. Banishment, estrangement from their families—nearly unheard of in their time—or renouncement of their future together. This is so bleak that it leaves them contemplating the only other avenue: exit this terrible world where their love is forbidden. When formerly feuding clans succeed, through an important marriage, in forming a going concern in a joint-partnership, the days of feuding and automatic bigoted animosity are either done for or destined for very hard times—unless the marriage fails or doesn't produce lasting progeny.
So we have a very weird idea of a bigot in Trump who can apparently get along with at least some individuals of practically any type or stripe.
"Trump said why he didn't think he could be impartial, and in doing so he specifically mentioned his heritage, ..."
Right. And a failure of impartiality in a presiding judge is a serious fault--which, if founded, should produce the judge's removal if he or she doesn't recuse himself or herself. Thus, it's a valid ground for objection even if we don't find ourselves siding with Trump's views of the merits of the claim of partiality.
______________
FYI and for what it's worth, I read the linked transcripts to which you referred me. What they add up to in my opinion is small-bore stuff, not at all the sort of thing I think of when I conjure the image of a bigoted person.
I think Trump's critics have a very strange idea of what makes a bigot. Here we have a bigot who apparently counts all kinds of people—people of all ethnicities, skin colors, religions, all sexual preferences—among those with whom he has, has had or could well have, amical relations. What kind of bigot is that?, I ask you.
Bigots gave us the famous phrase, “The only good (fill in the blank)_ is a dead (fill in again with the previous space's identity)_.”
IRL, bigots don't discriminate between the good, bad and in-between when it comes to the targets of their bigotry. They have a rationale—it may strike others as demented and fantastical, but it is rationale. And bigots are rather consistent. Thus, all “good Montecchi” loathe and despise all “good Capuleti.” That is why the prospects are bleak when a young Capulet and a young Montague fall in love. Neither of their clans' properly-bigoted members will understand or excuse their mutual affection. For them the “choices” aren't many. Banishment, estrangement from their families—nearly unheard of in their time—or renouncement of their future together. This is so bleak that it leaves them contemplating the only other avenue: exit this terrible world where their love is forbidden. When formerly feuding clans succeed, through an important marriage, in forming a going concern in a joint-partnership, the days of feuding and automatic bigoted animosity are either done for or destined for very hard times—unless the marriage fails or doesn't produce lasting progeny.
So we have a very weird idea of a bigot in Trump who can apparently get along with at least some individuals of practically any type or stripe.
24jjwilson61
>23 proximity1: Bigots gave us the famous phrase, “The only good (fill in the blank)_ is a dead (fill in again with the previous space's identity)_.”
Bigots also gave us the cliche "I'm not prejudiced, my best friend is an (ethnic slur)". There were many slave owners who firmly believed in their own superiority but got along quite well with their slaves, as long as they didn't get uppity. You, sir, have a very narrow definition of bigotry.
Bigots also gave us the cliche "I'm not prejudiced, my best friend is an (ethnic slur)". There were many slave owners who firmly believed in their own superiority but got along quite well with their slaves, as long as they didn't get uppity. You, sir, have a very narrow definition of bigotry.
25StormRaven
There were many slave owners who firmly believed in their own superiority but got along quite well with their slaves, as long as they didn't get uppity.
The historical records also show that there were many slave owners who were surprised when they found out their slaves weren't happy and content. For example, in 1865, a South Carolina planter wrote to the New York Tribune that:
The owner of a large plantation in South Carolina and Georgia wrote in 1862: "This war has taught us the perfect impossibility of placing the least confidence in the negro. In too numerous instances those we esteemed the most have been the first to desert us." That same year, a lieutenant in the Confederate army and once mayor of Savannah, Georgia, wrote: "I deeply regret to learn that the Negroes still continue to desert to the enemy."
Southern slave-owners were shocked that their black slaves didn't regard them with warm feeling. They regarded the fact that the people they had enslaved left in search of freedom as an example of terrible and unwarranted betrayal.
You, sir, have a very narrow definition of bigotry.
I have found that proximity1 has no opinions on any subject that are worth bothering with. He's demonstrated time and again that his positions are not actually hampered by reality or reason.
The historical records also show that there were many slave owners who were surprised when they found out their slaves weren't happy and content. For example, in 1865, a South Carolina planter wrote to the New York Tribune that:
the conduct of the Negro in the late crisis of our affairs has convinced me that we were all laboring under a delusion.... I believed that these people were content, happy, and attached to their masters. But events and reflection have caused me to change these positions.. .. If they were content, happy and attached to their masters, why did they desert him in the moment of his need and flock to an enemy, whom they did not know; and thus left their perhaps really good masters whom they did know from infancy?
The owner of a large plantation in South Carolina and Georgia wrote in 1862: "This war has taught us the perfect impossibility of placing the least confidence in the negro. In too numerous instances those we esteemed the most have been the first to desert us." That same year, a lieutenant in the Confederate army and once mayor of Savannah, Georgia, wrote: "I deeply regret to learn that the Negroes still continue to desert to the enemy."
Southern slave-owners were shocked that their black slaves didn't regard them with warm feeling. They regarded the fact that the people they had enslaved left in search of freedom as an example of terrible and unwarranted betrayal.
You, sir, have a very narrow definition of bigotry.
I have found that proximity1 has no opinions on any subject that are worth bothering with. He's demonstrated time and again that his positions are not actually hampered by reality or reason.
26proximity1
>24 jjwilson61:
"There were many slave owners who firmly believed in their own superiority but got along quite well with their slaves, as long as they didn't get uppity." (emphasis added)
Right. That's because, as bigots, they don't and can't tolerate anything that is or smacks of being a peer relationship with a member of the identified group(s) towards which they're bigoted. Thus, if, among Trumps friends, family and associates--people with whom he voluntarily associates and could, might, if he chose, break off relations (divorce, shun, exclude, fire, ignore, etc.)--there are some who aren't lap-dogs, or obsequious, brown-nosers, fawning hangers-on who either hope for or actually get something they seek in return for their compliance, who won't accept being treated as his interiors and yet he maintains relations with them, then his standing as a bigot is, again, put in a strange light. There are, no doubt, many of the servile, obsequious kind of people around Trump. It may even be a prominent feature of those who are non-family and have the longest and closest relationships with him outside of family. But all we need are a few examples of those with whom he maintains durable relations despite their failing to conform to what a fair observer would regard as unduly compliant or who are, on the other hand, postively "uppity", to use the slave-holder's phrase for the sort of slave he can't really well abide.
Really, which of us fails to be among the sort of people who get along rather well and easily with others, as long as others don't behave in a way which we'd describe as "uppity" but who, as soon as these others do exhibit some "uppity-ness", find themselves on our wrong side? Why wouldn't those all be actual or potential "bigots," then?, since they--like the antebellum slave-holders--get along well with others, their non-peers only as long as they don't get uppity."
You, sir, have a very wild and broad notion of bigotry.
"There were many slave owners who firmly believed in their own superiority but got along quite well with their slaves, as long as they didn't get uppity." (emphasis added)
Right. That's because, as bigots, they don't and can't tolerate anything that is or smacks of being a peer relationship with a member of the identified group(s) towards which they're bigoted. Thus, if, among Trumps friends, family and associates--people with whom he voluntarily associates and could, might, if he chose, break off relations (divorce, shun, exclude, fire, ignore, etc.)--there are some who aren't lap-dogs, or obsequious, brown-nosers, fawning hangers-on who either hope for or actually get something they seek in return for their compliance, who won't accept being treated as his interiors and yet he maintains relations with them, then his standing as a bigot is, again, put in a strange light. There are, no doubt, many of the servile, obsequious kind of people around Trump. It may even be a prominent feature of those who are non-family and have the longest and closest relationships with him outside of family. But all we need are a few examples of those with whom he maintains durable relations despite their failing to conform to what a fair observer would regard as unduly compliant or who are, on the other hand, postively "uppity", to use the slave-holder's phrase for the sort of slave he can't really well abide.
Really, which of us fails to be among the sort of people who get along rather well and easily with others, as long as others don't behave in a way which we'd describe as "uppity" but who, as soon as these others do exhibit some "uppity-ness", find themselves on our wrong side? Why wouldn't those all be actual or potential "bigots," then?, since they--like the antebellum slave-holders--get along well with others, their non-peers only as long as they don't get uppity."
You, sir, have a very wild and broad notion of bigotry.
27jjwilson61
>26 proximity1: But all we need are a few examples of those with whom he maintains durable relations despite their failing to conform to what a fair observer would regard as unduly compliant or, postively "uppity", to use the slave-holder's phrase for the sort of slave he can't really well abide.
Can you provide any such examples? And if you could how could I trust that you're giving a true and accurate representation of the relationship? All this is pointless speculation since we cannot know what someone is really thinking, all we can go on is a person's words and actions and Trump has uttered more than enough bigoted words to be able to label him without question a bigot. He may even think and believe that he isn't, but he's just fooling himself.
Can you provide any such examples? And if you could how could I trust that you're giving a true and accurate representation of the relationship? All this is pointless speculation since we cannot know what someone is really thinking, all we can go on is a person's words and actions and Trump has uttered more than enough bigoted words to be able to label him without question a bigot. He may even think and believe that he isn't, but he's just fooling himself.
28proximity1
"Can you provide any such examples? And if you could how could I trust that you're giving a true and accurate representation of the relationship? All this is pointless speculation since we cannot know what someone is really thinking, all we can go on is a person's words and actions and Trump has uttered more than enough bigoted words to be able to label him without question a bigot. He may even think and believe that he isn't, but he's just fooling himself."
Re: "All this is pointless speculation since we cannot know what someone is really thinking" •••
LOL! Re-read your posts in this very thread, jj, because you pretend to do just that.
You're amazing. You've leapt to the conclusion that most or all of Trump's non-family relationships either mostly or best resemble those of an antebellum slave-holding Trump with all the others (non-family, that is) in the role of slaves--that's the example you gave in answer to my wild supposition that Trump actually has and can have really sincere and uncoerced good relations with all sorts--including those toward whom you've claimed he's "racist."
ETA : In case you missed it, the upshot of >25 StormRaven: actually supports my view: it is that, in actual fact, there were really no sincere--free and unforced--good relations between slave-holder and slave except in the self-serving self-deluded minds of the slave-holders. Am I then to understand you to imply that this is a fair analogy to Trump's associations? Nowhere a sincere Black or other group member with whom Trump is on something both durable and more respectable than a master-to-slave relationship?
Where--except in your mind--is the evidence for that?
And you ask _me_ for proof in the form of examples that there are some in Trump's circle who aren't just his slaves--cleverly fooling Trump into believing they're sincerely on good terms!
Actually, where's your evidence that they're all Trump's dissembling slaves--forced to work under his yoke because, of course, he owns them?
Re: "All this is pointless speculation since we cannot know what someone is really thinking" •••
LOL! Re-read your posts in this very thread, jj, because you pretend to do just that.
You're amazing. You've leapt to the conclusion that most or all of Trump's non-family relationships either mostly or best resemble those of an antebellum slave-holding Trump with all the others (non-family, that is) in the role of slaves--that's the example you gave in answer to my wild supposition that Trump actually has and can have really sincere and uncoerced good relations with all sorts--including those toward whom you've claimed he's "racist."
ETA : In case you missed it, the upshot of >25 StormRaven: actually supports my view: it is that, in actual fact, there were really no sincere--free and unforced--good relations between slave-holder and slave except in the self-serving self-deluded minds of the slave-holders. Am I then to understand you to imply that this is a fair analogy to Trump's associations? Nowhere a sincere Black or other group member with whom Trump is on something both durable and more respectable than a master-to-slave relationship?
Where--except in your mind--is the evidence for that?
And you ask _me_ for proof in the form of examples that there are some in Trump's circle who aren't just his slaves--cleverly fooling Trump into believing they're sincerely on good terms!
Actually, where's your evidence that they're all Trump's dissembling slaves--forced to work under his yoke because, of course, he owns them?
29jjwilson61
>28 proximity1: I think you must be under the misapprehension that I think that a racist is about how someone feels. It isn't, it's about how they act. So if a person acts racist then he is racist; pretty simple isn't it?
30proximity1
>29 jjwilson61:
Yes! How weird is that!? It simply didn't occur to me that racists are blissfully ignorant of their racist beliefs --or the behavior which goes with them.
What a shame, then, that you still haven't defined for us your definition of "racism" or "racist."
Despite this, what you conceive as these terms nevertheless leaks out here and there in your posts. So that now we see that one can be both a racist and quite unaware of it.
I guess such people are "lucky" to have people like you--only too happy to notify them--despite their own opinions--that they're racist.
Excuse my pointing out to you the fact that it follows logically from your view
••• "a racist is (_not_) about how someone feels. ••• it's about how they act. So if a person acts racist then he is racist; pretty simple isn't it?"
that a person may be racist and also quite unaware that he is.
Thus, denial of racism would be futile. Is that right?
31southernbooklady
>30 proximity1: It simply didn't occur to me that racists are blissfully ignorant of their racist beliefs
As a rule people are usually ignorant that their beliefs are racist or founded on racist assumptions. Which is why the term "bigot" is rarely, if ever, self-applied.
As a rule people are usually ignorant that their beliefs are racist or founded on racist assumptions. Which is why the term "bigot" is rarely, if ever, self-applied.
32davidgn
Why do I keep thinking of this NYRB piece? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/01/14/uncovering-celine/
Ah, yes, that's it: disconnects.
Ah, yes, that's it: disconnects.
33proximity1
>31 southernbooklady:
"as a rule," huh? So, "as a rule," most racists, being unaware, are obliged by their ignorance to depend on the kindness of strangers--failing family or friends (as they, too, may be equally unaware)--to inform them that they're racists--and, I suppose that goes as well for sexist, homophobic, etc.
That's kind of a shame. For example, here at LT--just hypothetically supposing there was a racist among our members, you understand--such a person, if, as a rule, unaware of his racism --or other ism-- could not be informed of his condition since that would also constitute name-calling--which is forbidden here.
What's an unsuspecting racist to do?
35RickHarsch
>32 davidgn: good post, thanks
36proximity1
>34 southernbooklady:
Wow. Physician, heal thyself!
Psssst! Don't look now but you might bear certain resemblances to some in the basket of deplorables and, "as a rule," you wouldn't even be aware. Denying it would of course only indicate your lack of awareness.
37barney67
>1 prosfilaes: at the same level, I can pull up any number of crude racist attacks on Obama"
No, you can't. You can't find the identical or near-identical accusations of racism against Obama as there have been against Trump and other Republicans by MAINSTREAM MEDIA, if only BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICAN. Sure, you can find some whacky blogger who will bolster you arguments.
But obviously that's not the same as having a daily drumbeat from so many dominant sources saying that Trump is racist, a white supremacist, and so are you if you vote for him.
That kind of thing has to stop. If you want a reason for Democrats to lose voters, there's a big one.
I've heard this bs. for decades: white privilege, male privilege, rich privilege. That kind of thing has to stop, or no one will make any progress.
No, you can't. You can't find the identical or near-identical accusations of racism against Obama as there have been against Trump and other Republicans by MAINSTREAM MEDIA, if only BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICAN. Sure, you can find some whacky blogger who will bolster you arguments.
But obviously that's not the same as having a daily drumbeat from so many dominant sources saying that Trump is racist, a white supremacist, and so are you if you vote for him.
That kind of thing has to stop. If you want a reason for Democrats to lose voters, there's a big one.
I've heard this bs. for decades: white privilege, male privilege, rich privilege. That kind of thing has to stop, or no one will make any progress.
38theoria
>37 barney67: You're finally warming to Mr Trump.
39jjwilson61
>37 barney67: In other words <Jack Nicholson impression>You can't handle the truth!</Nicholson impression>
40StormRaven
But obviously that's not the same as having a daily drumbeat from so many dominant sources saying that Trump is racist, a white supremacist, and so are you if you vote for him.
That kind of thing has to stop.
It will stop when Trump stops espousing racist policies and surrounding himself with a collection of racist white supremacist advisors. If he doesn't like people pointing out his racism, the easy solution would to stop being a fucking racist.
That kind of thing has to stop.
It will stop when Trump stops espousing racist policies and surrounding himself with a collection of racist white supremacist advisors. If he doesn't like people pointing out his racism, the easy solution would to stop being a fucking racist.
