5 ms·

Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the jud

by outlace 10y ago

Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

throwanem 10y ago
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.) Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots? (And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)
- kbenson 10y ago
  > I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum. If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset. I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well. Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.
- giaour 10y ago
  Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper. I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges, and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.
  - jameslee56 10y ago
    That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
    - justjico 10y ago
      Do you consider http://www.politifact.com http://www.politifact.com a credible source?
  - jameslee56 10y ago
    That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ap3 10y ago
How are Trump's remarks about the judge racist? He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water. All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case. American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man. Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth? Would that be racist too? Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors? Judges are people too, everyone has biases.
- graycat 10y ago
  > And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case. Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that. Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump. The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background. It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.
  - justjico 10y ago
    He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.
graycat 10y ago
I've read many times that what Trump said about the judge was racist. IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim. I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps: Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair. Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair. Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right? Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political. Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.
- mrj 10y ago
  "Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair." Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here. DICKERSON: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours? TRUMP: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/donald-trump-says-a-muslim-judge-might-be-biased-too/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...

by outlace 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.) Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient, and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only white people can be bigots? (And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might, though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually convince somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to shout him down.)

kbenson 10y ago
> I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum. If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset. I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well. Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.
giaour 10y ago
Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper. I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges, and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.
- jameslee56 10y ago
  That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
  - justjico 10y ago
    Do you consider http://www.politifact.com http://www.politifact.com a credible source?
- jameslee56 10y ago
  That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ap3 10y ago

How are Trump's remarks about the judge racist? He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water. All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case. American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man. Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth? Would that be racist too? Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors? Judges are people too, everyone has biases.

graycat 10y ago
> And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case. Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that. Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump. The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background. It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.
- justjico 10y ago
  He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.

graycat 10y ago

I've read many times that what Trump said about the judge was racist. IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim. I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps: Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair. Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair. Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right? Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political. Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.

mrj 10y ago
"Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair." Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here. DICKERSON: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours? TRUMP: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/donald-trump-says-a-muslim-judge-might-be-biased-too/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...