5 ms·

Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people

Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible? > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country. He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. That's very different from saying that the judge can't treat him fairly because of his heritage. How could someone with Sam's command of language and attention to detail not see the difference? And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases? > He has accused Obama of somehow being responsible for the recent shooting in Orlando. The WP originally ran this headline and changed it because it was such a wild inference from what he actually said.

potatoman2 10y ago
Given that many believe Trump to be literally Hitler, bending the facts is a small price to pay to stop him.
- maxsavin 10y ago
  That's not how you stop someone like that. That's how you become them.
- ebbv 10y ago
  Probably nobody who is against Trump is bending any facts to try to stop him. The only one who has no respect for reality is Trump himself.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > Probably nobody who is against [a presidential candidate] is bending any facts to try to stop [him/her] Given the reality of 21st century electoral politics in the United States, I find it unsurprising, yet deeply disappointing all the same, that anyone actually believes this.
    - ebbv 10y ago
      If Trump were any less of a lunatic I would say that people are definitely bending the truth around him. But he supplies so much fuel for his opponents there's really no need.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Given that people like this (that is, willing to bend facts, lie, etc) exist, I think it's dangerous to assume they exist only in groups other than those that you ascribe yourself a member of. I believe people do horrible things for what they believe the greater good all the time, and that's just the people acting (or believe they are acting) altruistically, not the ones acting in that manner for selfish reasons. In fact, it's hard for me to get too mad at those that think they are working for the cause of good, because even if I believe they are misguided (and would not use such tactics myself), as at least they are doing what they think is the best thing to help. Intent matters (but is, of course, not the only thing, nor even the most important thing).
- mkane848 10y ago
  Damn, I've been guilty of confirmation bias and looking for the answer I want without realizing it, but to be doing it willfully is mildly shocking to see.
vox_mollis 10y ago
I'm curious why this comment has been so aggressively down-voted. Do we now eschew fact-checking on HN?
- ethanhunt_ 10y ago
  I think it's the cognitive dissonance. People have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler incarnate, that they are unable to read anything positive about him. Sam would be crucified for this "Trump is right post" if he hadn't followed that up with 10 paragraphs of negative (some false) things. I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.
- ebbv 10y ago
  It's not fact checking, it's repeating Trump's spin on what he's said, and it's just not true.
  - ethanhunt_ 10y ago
    If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says: - he is being unfair, so now I say "why" Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage". Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
    - ebbv 10y ago
      You're nitpicking man. It's not about the exact wording Trump used. Candidates are constantly paraphrased, that's part of the way it goes. Trump agreed with the reporter's assertion, and the basis of what he says is the same; that the guy's heritage implies his ability to do his job. Which is absurd, AND one of the main reasons that it has gotten so much attention is it highlights that Trump is aware that he has angered latinos with his overt racism. Anyway, whatever, man. Keep nitpicking if you want. It's really sad that you feel a need to do that to make even a weak attempt to defend that horrible piece of human garbage.
ricardobeat 10y ago
"can't do his job because of his heritage": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY
- ethanhunt_ 10y ago
  You just quoted the reporter, not Trump! This was the same tactic used to claim that Trump said we should have all Muslims wear a mark in the U.S. A reported said that, then people said that Trump said it.
  - mej10 10y ago
    Trump: Jake, if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings. Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ... Trump: I think that's why he's doing it.
    - hubert123 10y ago
      Race can be a motivator, you know that right? Human beings are not machines with 0 bias just because they are in a position where they are supposed to have 0 bias.
      - mej10 10y ago
        Yes, it can be. And if it is a major factor in this case, then there are methods of legal recourse. But instead he says that the judge treated him unfairly due to his race. Literally racist.
        hubert123 10y ago
        If you would look at everything he said then you would know how he meant it. He mentioned LaRaza, he mentioned previous rulings from this judge and much more. Instead you pick one quote out and call it a day.
Aloha 10y ago
This is how trump talks. He says "BIG OUTRAGEOUS THING, with long list of qualifiers that follow" the media reports the first part and completely misses the second. Mostly it's a great way to game the system to get free media attention.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's a manifestation of dog whistle politics. He says this stuff and we understand the implication that Mexicans are coming here and screwing things up. But his supporters can deflect criticism because the literal words are sufficiently vague that you can accuse people of inferring too much.
- cmiles74 10y ago
  I believe that he gets to have it both ways: those of his supporters who are themselves isolationist or maybe even racist are excited to hear him say they same things they say. Those who are more moderate take this "he's just misunderstood and misquoted" tactic. It's pretty amazing how it works.
minimaximus 10y ago
Nice try, but you're defending the indefensible. You're arguing semantics when it's very clear what Trump means by his words, that he repeats in different sentences and occasions. What's the difference between what he actually said regarding the judge in his case and your 'clarification'? it's the same thing. You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ban about 1.2 billion people from entering the US because of their religion, and treat the Muslims already in the US as a fifth column similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews. How long before the frothing-in-the-mouth, 'patriotic', armed Trump goons commit a Kristallnacht against Muslims in the US? this is exactly where we're heading with a Trump presidency. Frankly, it's disappointing that anyone with a sliver of intelligence can be fooled by this dangerous, reckless, and divisive figure. A figure that has made racism and misogyny acceptable to the masses, and, in the ominous words of the future dictator: "racial profiling is not the worst thing to do".
- ethanhunt_ 10y ago
  > You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ... I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic. Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords. If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?
  - akbar501 10y ago
    Flip this around. Would you be okay with a presidential candidate saying that a white judge was unable to do his job b/c of his color? What if a ban of additional white immigrants was being proposed? Would you be okay with a female candidate stating that women are clearly superior to the inferior male? I hope you would stand up and speak out against such actions, because I know I would.
    - lovich 10y ago
OhHeyItsE 10y ago
Ah I see. While you're at it, could I trouble to explain the differences between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?
leepowers 10y ago
> He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. The judge is an _American_ of Mexican ethnicity. Trump said that the judge gave unfair rulings because of the judge's ethnicity. Trump is advocating that ethnicity "trumps" citizenship, judicial duty, or any other personal and professional virtues. As Paul Ryan correctly noted this kind of essentialism is textbook racism. Or put another way. Were the rulings so egregious that a white judge, or a black judge, or an asian judge would rule differently? Aside from the judge's ethnicity what has he said or done in the past to imply any bias against Trump? If Trump truly believes the judge has a strong bias why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to for a motion of recusal, or a change of venue, or any other legal remedy? > And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases? It was wrong for the Justice Dept to do this. But the Obama admin being wrong doesn't make Trump more right. Both can be wrong. BTW, the Obama DOJ recognized its error, reversed course, and settled with the Iranian-American judge: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/government-settles-lawsuit-filed-by-iranian-american-judge http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/...
- hubert123 10y ago
  When a judge joins a group called LaRaza "the race", a violent mexican affiliated group that burns american flags and wants to return California to Mexico then maybe, just maybe race does have something to do with the ideas that this judge espouses and hence why that judge's race SEEMINGLY influences his decisions. Surely not even you think that Trump is an actual racist, as in: he thinks mexicans are worth less as human beings purely for being mexican. No, you just want to point out how he said things the "wrong" way. Well that incidentally is political correctness which is the very thing people are fed up with.
  - sobellian 10y ago
    You are mixing up the National Council of La Raza (a political group) with the La Raza Lawyer's Association (a professional association).
  - 10y ago
pbreit 10y ago
I think you're wrong. He called it "an inherent conflict of interest" which Sam's description seems more accurate than yours. The WP headline is still there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/trump-blames-obama-for-orlando-shooting-blasts-clinton-on-immigration/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...
jack-r-abbit 10y ago
I find it kind of sad that we can fall all over ourselves declaring how some white judges are totally biased against minorities (or biased in favor of other rich white people... like the judge in the recent Stanford rape case) and that is just fine. But flip the script and suggest that a hispanic judge could possibly be biased against a person that has been quoted (and/or misquoted) as saying unkind things against certain other hispanics and that is racist. I guess that only makes sense if you buy into the "only white people can be racist" philosophy. I believe anyone can be racist. I believe anyone can be prejudiced. I believe it is entirely possible that the judge in the Trump University case could be biased (he is a human after all). I don't believe suggesting it as a theory is racist.
- H0n3sty 10y ago
  I guess you just haven't watched enough MTV to understand the real definition of racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0YmFqedhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0YmFqedhY
- unprepare 10y ago
  If the judge is acting in a manner unfit of a US judge, why dont trumps lawyers file for a recusal of the judge, or any other various legal methods of assigning a different judge to the case? Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
  - jack-r-abbit 10y ago
    Maybe they did or will do that. I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of this case. If you are then maybe you could share those details. I simple said it is possible he is biased and suggesting so is not racist.
    - unprepare 10y ago
      No, saying he is incapable of being an impartial judge because he is of mexican descent is racist. full stop. So either he is fit to be a judge and is capable of being impartial or he isnt. by the way Trumps attorney has said publicly that they will not seek to have the judge removed from the case. Actions speak louder than words.
giaour 10y ago
I've yet to see anyone demonstrate actual bias in the Trump University trial. Trump exploited his position as the presumptive Republican nominee to pick a fight with the judge presiding over a civil dispute to which Trump-the-businessman (and not Trump-the-politician) was a party. He then decided of his own volition to bring up the judge's ethnicity at a political rally and on national TV. This, mind you, was before he made what Paul Ryan called "the textbook definition of a racist comment": "I'm building a wall; it's an inherent conflict of interest." Even if you manage to convince yourself that Trump did not say anything overtly racist (which can be done with a tremendous amount of motivated reasoning), he still shat the bed twice by prioritizing his business interests over his political campaign and making the conversation about the judge's race.
- jasonlaramburu 10y ago
  I've yet to see anyone (Trump supporter or otherwise) defend Trump University as a legitimate institution. Even Trump himself doesn't comment on it. He merely tries to discredit the judge presiding over the case and the plaintiffs.

potatoman2 10y ago

Given that many believe Trump to be literally Hitler, bending the facts is a small price to pay to stop him.

maxsavin 10y ago
That's not how you stop someone like that. That's how you become them.
ebbv 10y ago
Probably nobody who is against Trump is bending any facts to try to stop him. The only one who has no respect for reality is Trump himself.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > Probably nobody who is against [a presidential candidate] is bending any facts to try to stop [him/her] Given the reality of 21st century electoral politics in the United States, I find it unsurprising, yet deeply disappointing all the same, that anyone actually believes this.
  - ebbv 10y ago
    If Trump were any less of a lunatic I would say that people are definitely bending the truth around him. But he supplies so much fuel for his opponents there's really no need.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Given that people like this (that is, willing to bend facts, lie, etc) exist, I think it's dangerous to assume they exist only in groups other than those that you ascribe yourself a member of. I believe people do horrible things for what they believe the greater good all the time, and that's just the people acting (or believe they are acting) altruistically, not the ones acting in that manner for selfish reasons. In fact, it's hard for me to get too mad at those that think they are working for the cause of good, because even if I believe they are misguided (and would not use such tactics myself), as at least they are doing what they think is the best thing to help. Intent matters (but is, of course, not the only thing, nor even the most important thing).
mkane848 10y ago
Damn, I've been guilty of confirmation bias and looking for the answer I want without realizing it, but to be doing it willfully is mildly shocking to see.

vox_mollis 10y ago

I'm curious why this comment has been so aggressively down-voted. Do we now eschew fact-checking on HN?

ethanhunt_ 10y ago
I think it's the cognitive dissonance. People have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler incarnate, that they are unable to read anything positive about him. Sam would be crucified for this "Trump is right post" if he hadn't followed that up with 10 paragraphs of negative (some false) things. I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.
ebbv 10y ago
It's not fact checking, it's repeating Trump's spin on what he's said, and it's just not true.
- ethanhunt_ 10y ago
  If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says: - he is being unfair, so now I say "why" Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage". Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?
  - ebbv 10y ago
    You're nitpicking man. It's not about the exact wording Trump used. Candidates are constantly paraphrased, that's part of the way it goes. Trump agreed with the reporter's assertion, and the basis of what he says is the same; that the guy's heritage implies his ability to do his job. Which is absurd, AND one of the main reasons that it has gotten so much attention is it highlights that Trump is aware that he has angered latinos with his overt racism. Anyway, whatever, man. Keep nitpicking if you want. It's really sad that you feel a need to do that to make even a weak attempt to defend that horrible piece of human garbage.

ricardobeat 10y ago

"can't do his job because of his heritage": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY

ethanhunt_ 10y ago
You just quoted the reporter, not Trump! This was the same tactic used to claim that Trump said we should have all Muslims wear a mark in the U.S. A reported said that, then people said that Trump said it.
- mej10 10y ago
  Trump: Jake, if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings. Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ... Trump: I think that's why he's doing it.
  - hubert123 10y ago
    Race can be a motivator, you know that right? Human beings are not machines with 0 bias just because they are in a position where they are supposed to have 0 bias.
    - mej10 10y ago
      Yes, it can be. And if it is a major factor in this case, then there are methods of legal recourse. But instead he says that the judge treated him unfairly due to his race. Literally racist.
      - hubert123 10y ago
        If you would look at everything he said then you would know how he meant it. He mentioned LaRaza, he mentioned previous rulings from this judge and much more. Instead you pick one quote out and call it a day.

Aloha 10y ago

This is how trump talks. He says "BIG OUTRAGEOUS THING, with long list of qualifiers that follow" the media reports the first part and completely misses the second. Mostly it's a great way to game the system to get free media attention.

mikeash 10y ago
It's a manifestation of dog whistle politics. He says this stuff and we understand the implication that Mexicans are coming here and screwing things up. But his supporters can deflect criticism because the literal words are sufficiently vague that you can accuse people of inferring too much.
cmiles74 10y ago
I believe that he gets to have it both ways: those of his supporters who are themselves isolationist or maybe even racist are excited to hear him say they same things they say. Those who are more moderate take this "he's just misunderstood and misquoted" tactic. It's pretty amazing how it works.

minimaximus 10y ago

Nice try, but you're defending the indefensible. You're arguing semantics when it's very clear what Trump means by his words, that he repeats in different sentences and occasions. What's the difference between what he actually said regarding the judge in his case and your 'clarification'? it's the same thing. You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ban about 1.2 billion people from entering the US because of their religion, and treat the Muslims already in the US as a fifth column similar to what the Nazis did with the Jews. How long before the frothing-in-the-mouth, 'patriotic', armed Trump goons commit a Kristallnacht against Muslims in the US? this is exactly where we're heading with a Trump presidency. Frankly, it's disappointing that anyone with a sliver of intelligence can be fooled by this dangerous, reckless, and divisive figure. A figure that has made racism and misogyny acceptable to the masses, and, in the ominous words of the future dictator: "racial profiling is not the worst thing to do".

ethanhunt_ 10y ago
> You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ... I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic. Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords. If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?
- akbar501 10y ago
  Flip this around. Would you be okay with a presidential candidate saying that a white judge was unable to do his job b/c of his color? What if a ban of additional white immigrants was being proposed? Would you be okay with a female candidate stating that women are clearly superior to the inferior male? I hope you would stand up and speak out against such actions, because I know I would.
  - lovich 10y ago

OhHeyItsE 10y ago

Ah I see. While you're at it, could I trouble to explain the differences between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"?

leepowers 10y ago

> He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. The judge is an _American_ of Mexican ethnicity. Trump said that the judge gave unfair rulings because of the judge's ethnicity. Trump is advocating that ethnicity "trumps" citizenship, judicial duty, or any other personal and professional virtues. As Paul Ryan correctly noted this kind of essentialism is textbook racism. Or put another way. Were the rulings so egregious that a white judge, or a black judge, or an asian judge would rule differently? Aside from the judge's ethnicity what has he said or done in the past to imply any bias against Trump? If Trump truly believes the judge has a strong bias why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to for a motion of recusal, or a change of venue, or any other legal remedy? > And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases? It was wrong for the Justice Dept to do this. But the Obama admin being wrong doesn't make Trump more right. Both can be wrong. BTW, the Obama DOJ recognized its error, reversed course, and settled with the Iranian-American judge: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/government-settles-lawsuit-filed-by-iranian-american-judge http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/...

hubert123 10y ago
When a judge joins a group called LaRaza "the race", a violent mexican affiliated group that burns american flags and wants to return California to Mexico then maybe, just maybe race does have something to do with the ideas that this judge espouses and hence why that judge's race SEEMINGLY influences his decisions. Surely not even you think that Trump is an actual racist, as in: he thinks mexicans are worth less as human beings purely for being mexican. No, you just want to point out how he said things the "wrong" way. Well that incidentally is political correctness which is the very thing people are fed up with.
- sobellian 10y ago
  You are mixing up the National Council of La Raza (a political group) with the La Raza Lawyer's Association (a professional association).
- 10y ago

pbreit 10y ago

I think you're wrong. He called it "an inherent conflict of interest" which Sam's description seems more accurate than yours. The WP headline is still there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/trump-blames-obama-for-orlando-shooting-blasts-clinton-on-immigration/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...

jack-r-abbit 10y ago

I find it kind of sad that we can fall all over ourselves declaring how some white judges are totally biased against minorities (or biased in favor of other rich white people... like the judge in the recent Stanford rape case) and that is just fine. But flip the script and suggest that a hispanic judge could possibly be biased against a person that has been quoted (and/or misquoted) as saying unkind things against certain other hispanics and that is racist. I guess that only makes sense if you buy into the "only white people can be racist" philosophy. I believe anyone can be racist. I believe anyone can be prejudiced. I believe it is entirely possible that the judge in the Trump University case could be biased (he is a human after all). I don't believe suggesting it as a theory is racist.

H0n3sty 10y ago
I guess you just haven't watched enough MTV to understand the real definition of racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0YmFqedhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE0YmFqedhY
unprepare 10y ago
If the judge is acting in a manner unfit of a US judge, why dont trumps lawyers file for a recusal of the judge, or any other various legal methods of assigning a different judge to the case? Can you show any evidence that the judge has acted in a manner unfit of his judicial duty? Or that the case lead to outcomes that were harsher than the norm for such a decision?
- jack-r-abbit 10y ago
  Maybe they did or will do that. I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of this case. If you are then maybe you could share those details. I simple said it is possible he is biased and suggesting so is not racist.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    No, saying he is incapable of being an impartial judge because he is of mexican descent is racist. full stop. So either he is fit to be a judge and is capable of being impartial or he isnt. by the way Trumps attorney has said publicly that they will not seek to have the judge removed from the case. Actions speak louder than words.

giaour 10y ago

I've yet to see anyone demonstrate actual bias in the Trump University trial. Trump exploited his position as the presumptive Republican nominee to pick a fight with the judge presiding over a civil dispute to which Trump-the-businessman (and not Trump-the-politician) was a party. He then decided of his own volition to bring up the judge's ethnicity at a political rally and on national TV. This, mind you, was before he made what Paul Ryan called "the textbook definition of a racist comment": "I'm building a wall; it's an inherent conflict of interest." Even if you manage to convince yourself that Trump did not say anything overtly racist (which can be done with a tremendous amount of motivated reasoning), he still shat the bed twice by prioritizing his business interests over his political campaign and making the conversation about the judge's race.

jasonlaramburu 10y ago
I've yet to see anyone (Trump supporter or otherwise) defend Trump University as a legitimate institution. Even Trump himself doesn't comment on it. He merely tries to discredit the judge presiding over the case and the plaintiffs.