Donald Trump's 2016 General Election Campaign

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Starving_Artist

Nope, not at all. Lemme see if I can analogize things so as to make my point clear. Let’s say a woman has been aggrieved because she’s been raped and she is then called to jury duty in a rape case. The likelihood is that she’s not going to make for an unbiased juror, and so she’s dismissed from performing jury duty in this case. Does that mean the people who dismissed her are sexist? Does it mean they have it in for all women? Or that they’re saying women can’t do their jobs as jurors?

The answer is, of course not. What it means is that in this particular case, this particular juror is likely to hold a pre-existing bias that will prevent her from arriving at an unbiased conclusion as to the guilt of the accused.

That case would make some sense, I agree. But that’s not a correct analogy, because there’s no evidence that this judge would be biased other than his “heritage”. So to fix your analogy, this is more like striking all women from the jury of a rape case, because they’re going to be biased in favor of the prosecution, because all women are the same and have had the same experiences. Which I think we can all agree would be fairly absurd and sexist.

Seriously, what reason does Trump have to believe that this Judge won’t give him a fair shake? Oh right - the judge is “Mexican”. You can’t just shrug this off by pretending that Trump’s absurd prejudices are accurate, because they aren’t. The Judge is a US citizen, born and raised in Indiana. There’s no more reason to believe that they’d be biased against Trump simply because of their hispanic heritage than to believe that a white judge would be biased towards Trump because they’re white. No, really, imagine if someone tried to play this exact same game in the other direction, claiming that the judge had a bias in favor of Trump because they were white, and Trump is basically running as the leader of “white America”. Would you accept that logic? Or would you consider it to be both crazy and kinda racist?

The Donald is a tricky one and you should always look for ulterior motives as to why he does anything, because as I said he’s rarely trying to do what he appears to be trying to do on the surface.

Translation: “He’s only pretending to be a racist douchebag and supporting racist thought for his own benefit.”

That… doesn’t actually make it better, you know…

[adaher]

As opposed to pretending to be bigoted against gays to satisfy the rubes long enough to get elected?

But you’re absolutely right, pretending to be a hater when you know better is much, much worse than actually being a hater.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

As opposed to pretending to be bigoted against gays to satisfy the rubes long enough to get elected?

Wait, who are we talking about here? The guy who constantly favored gay rights but preferred civil unions, and then changed his position, being the first president ever to outright support gay marriage? Okay, even assuming that your statement is accurate, there’s still not a great comparison, because I doubt Trump is going to turn around after the election and say, “Wow, great job guys, now let’s open those borders and be more loving and tolerant of our neighbors!”

[Starving_Artist]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

That case would make some sense, I agree. But that’s not a correct analogy, because there’s no evidence that this judge would be biased other than his “heritage”.

Almost every Hispanic person in the country feels aggrieved because of the things Trump has said about illegal immigrants, and there’s certainly no evidence that this man, the son of Mexican immigrants himself, is completely free of the same resentment and disgust that virtually every other Hispanic in the country feels. Perhaps he isn’t, or perhaps he can rise above it and function in a completely unbiased way, but the suspicion that he may well be biased is not unreasonable. I’m sure that in the case of the hypothetical rape victims in my previous analogy there are those who would be capable of walling off their anger, resentment and fear well enough to deliver an unbiased verdict, but the odds are so great against it that no reasonable person would want to gamble on it.

But again I don’t think Trump really expects Judge Curiel either to recuse himself or to be removed from hearing the lawsuit. What I do think is that Trump is trying to handcuff the judge so as to receive better treatment than he would ordinarily get, and probably also to set up grounds for an appeal. And of course his accusations give him credible deniability with the electorate because he can claim the judge made all sorts of rulings that either favored the prosecution or denied him the ability to introduce exculpatory evidence.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Starving_Artist

Almost every Hispanic person in the country feels aggrieved because of the things Trump has said

Every person with a spine and a brain ought to feel “aggrieved” because of the things Trump has said and done. I fail to see how wide, sweeping accusations of bias on behalf of the entire group of “hispanics” helps your case.

I mean, let’s unpack the logic here for a moment. Trump has said some incredibly stupid and offensive things about hispanics, and has drawn ire from a large part of the populace because of this. Therefore, any hispanic judge should be recused from his case? What if he said, “I think those stupid niggers need to go back to the plantation, they’re all really dumb.” If he had said that, would you then say that all African-American judges then recuse themselves from his case, because they’re likely to feel “aggrieved” because of the things he’s said? Should we just assume that if he insults and belittles a group, no member of that group is capable of objectively and fairly judging a trial he’s involved in? If that were the case, there’d be a whole lot of people who could never get a judge in the first place. The whole job of a judge is to be above shit like that and judge a trial impartially and rationally. The idea that this judge couldn’t do it because, and I quote, “He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico,” is absurd. It’s racist, it’s baseless, and your defense of it says a whole lot about you.

about illegal immigrants, and there’s certainly no evidence that this man, the son of Mexican immigrants himself, is completely free of the same resentment and disgust that virtually every other Hispanic in the country feels.

Then if Trump truly believes his own bullshit, he should formally ask for the judge to recuse himself and fight to get a different, non-hispanic, non-muslim, non-liberal, non-female judge on the case. Otherwise, he should just shut up and stop being such a racist fuckbag.

But again I don’t think Trump really expects Judge Curiel either to recuse himself or to be removed from hearing the lawsuit. What I do think is that Trump is trying to handcuff the judge so as to receive better treatment than he would ordinarily get, and probably also to set up grounds for an appeal. And of course his accusations give him credible deniability with the electorate because he can claim the judge made all sorts of rulings that either favored the prosecution or denied him the ability to introduce exculpatory evidence.

Again: doesn’t make it better.

Also, on a side note, let me do you a favor: pick one.

1. Trump is merely pretending to be a racist jerk in order to gain favor in the trial
2. His statements about the judge being biased are totally justified

You’re defending both positions, but that doesn’t actually work. Either Trump’s actions are not really that racist and justified, or Trump is just pretending to be a racist to gain an advantage. This will save you a lot of time and energy, and also make you look more intellectually honest. Of course, you could save a lot of time, energy, and face if you just stopped defending this guy and realized what a fucking terrible candidate and person he is, but that may be asking too much.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Oh yeah, another thing:

As a legal matter this is well established, notably in a 1998 case (MacDraw v. CIT ) in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A litigant challenged the fairness of Judge Denny Chin due to his ethnicity. Judge Chin responded by slapping down the complaint and sanctioning the lawyers, and he was backed by the appellate judges. “Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” wrote Judge Ralph Winter, a highly regarded conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan.

• http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-mexican-judge-1465167405

So this isn’t a new thing, and there’s a reason he’s just talking big, rather than making any actual attempt to get a different judge.

[adaher]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Wait, who are we talking about here? The guy who constantly favored gay rights but preferred civil unions, and then changed his position, being the first president ever to outright support gay marriage? Okay, even assuming that your statement is accurate, there’s still not a great comparison, because I doubt Trump is going to turn around after the election and say, “Wow, great job guys, now let’s open those borders and be more loving and tolerant of our neighbors!”

So he does mean it, whereas Democrats who were against gay marriage didn’t.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

So he does mean it, whereas Democrats who were against gay marriage didn’t.

I’m not sure. I think Trump is as racist and boorish as he makes himself out to be, but if SA is right, then yeah, it’s worse. I can’t speak for every democrat who was against gay marriage, but when it comes to Obama? Either he changed his mind, or the lie was made explicitly to further the goals of that group. There’s a big difference between pretending to be a racist for no reason and pretending to be a racist to, say, infiltrate the Nazi headquarters.

[adaher]

You’re referring to the White House you know.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

You’re referring to the White House you know.

Still not the worst analogy on this page.

The fact is that pretending to ascribe to a form of bigotry in order to fight that bigotry is very different from pretending to ascribe to a form of bigotry in order to gain some personal benefit as Trump is doing.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

Nope, not at all. Lemme see if I can analogize things so as to make my point clear. Let’s say a woman has been aggrieved because she’s been raped and she is then called to jury duty in a rape case. The likelihood is that she’s not going to make for an unbiased juror, and so she’s dismissed from performing jury duty in this case. Does that mean the people who dismissed her are sexist? Does it mean they have it in for all women? Or that they’re saying women can’t do their jobs as jurors?

The answer is, of course not. What it means is that in this particular case, this particular juror is likely to hold a pre-existing bias that will prevent her from arriving at an unbiased conclusion as to the guilt of the accused.

But that’s not what he fucking said, and being a victim of rape is entirely different than having an ethnicity. He said that Judge Curiel couldn’t do his job because of his ethnicity. He didn’t use nuanced language about possible pre-existing bias (which is also bullshit, but in a different way – it’s entirely unreasonable, and racist, to demand that only certain ethnicities can be good judges… why wouldn’t a white judge have the same possibility of some sort of bias?) – he said outright that this judge had an “absolute conflict” (not a possible conflict) because of his ethnic heritage.

Again, it is both entirely unreasonable and entirely racist to suggest that only judges of a certain ethnicity can be impartial.

Now, having said all that, allow me to remind you all of something I’ve said about Trump all along, which is that he’s rarely doing what he appears to be doing. There’s almost always another level involved (if not several) that is intended to pay off for him in some way that isn’t obvious. So think for a minute about what is likely to occur as a result of Trump’s having put this judge and this trial under such a microscope. I’ll wager it’s going to be the most by-the-book trial ever to take place, with the judge taking great pains taken to make sure everything is done above board and he may well find himself bending over backward not to show bias toward Trump, which of course stands to benefit Trump as he’ll likely get a significant degree of preferential treatment that he likely wouldn’t have gotten in a less publicized trial.

The Donald is a tricky one and you should always look for ulterior motives as to why he does anything, because as I said he’s rarely trying to do what he appears to be trying to do on the surface.

I don’t care about ulterior motives. Saying racist things – which this is, just as much as if he said that a black judge can’t do their job because they’re black – is racist, regardless of motives.

You don’t have to defend this asshole who says racist things for no discernible reason. You’re just choosing to.

[adaher]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Still not the worst analogy on this page.

The fact is that pretending to ascribe to a form of bigotry in order to fight that bigotry is very different from pretending to ascribe to a form of bigotry in order to gain some personal benefit as Trump is doing.

That’s not exactly what’s happened though. And this goes back to the race issue too. Politiicans don’t lie because they intend to start fighting for the opposite once they are in office. Anyone would see through a politician that said something exactly the opposite of what they believed in that fervently. Obama didn’t get elected so that gays could get married, in fact he only flip flopped when public opinion reached a critical mass. Obama threw gays under the bus so that he could do health care and climate change and raise taxes on the rich.

Likewise, when Hillary Clinton used inflammatory language in support of the crime bill, I doubt she actually meant any of that stuff. It’s just that the Clinton strategy was to neutralize issues that traditionally went against Democrats(crime, welfare, etc.), and if some black folks had to be thrown under the bus, so be it. If you want universal health care, you have to make a few omelettes or something.

And then back to Obama, he stepped up deportations to build support for immigration reform. These examples are where I wonder about liberals and their basic morality. It seems they are fine with some intentional small-scale suffering if they get to achieve larger goals.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

That’s not exactly what’s happened though. And this goes back to the race issue too. Politiicans don’t lie because they intend to start fighting for the opposite once they are in office. Anyone would see through a politician that said something exactly the opposite of what they believed in that fervently. Obama didn’t get elected so that gays could get married, in fact he only flip flopped when public opinion reached a critical mass. Obama threw gays under the bus so that he could do health care and climate change and raise taxes on the rich.

I don’t follow here. Obama’s position against gay marriage was largely consistent from 2000 to 2012, where he changed his mind. If you’re going to claim that he simply lied about his support all along… Well, okay, not sure what basis you have for that claim, but even assuming that, I don’t think this compares well to Trump’s actions in this case.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Obama’s position against gay marriage was largely consistent from 2000 to 2012, where he changed his mind.

In 1996, his position was “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

[adaher]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

I don’t follow here. Obama’s position against gay marriage was largely consistent from 2000 to 2012, where he changed his mind. If you’re going to claim that he simply lied about his support all along… Well, okay, not sure what basis you have for that claim, but even assuming that, I don’t think this compares well to Trump’s actions in this case.

Plus he admitted that his personal position and his formal position were at odds.

I agree that Trump’s actions are worse, I just had my ears perk up a little at the idea that it’s worse to pretend. Pretending to be a neanderthal on bigotry issues is how one gets elected. That wouldn’t make Trump unique. What would make Trump unique is if he was actually a bigot, since almost all politicians pretend to be more bigoted than they are.

[magellan01]

Haven’t read the whole thread, but a question. I recall hearing or reading in the past week or so that the judge in question was a member of La Raza. Is that true? If so, I think it gives Trump an argument. If not, it does seem like a racist statement.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@magellan01

Haven’t read the whole thread, but a question. I recall hearing or reading in the past week or so that the judge in question was a member of La Raza. Is that true? If so, I think it gives Trump an argument. If not, it does seem like a racist statement.

Appears it’s a different La Raza.

[magellan01]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Appears it’s a different La Raza.

Thanks.

On second thought, how is an organization called “La Raza” (The Race) not flagrantly racist?

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

Haven’t read the whole thread, but a question. I recall hearing or reading in the past week or so that the judge in question was a member of La Raza. Is that true? If so, I think it gives Trump an argument. If not, it does seem like a racist statement.

If Trump said “he’s biased because he’s a member of this organization”, then that would be different, but Trump said he’s biased because of his ethnicity. He also mentioned some group, but he doubled down (and tripled and quadrupled) on the ethnicity angle in subsequent interviews. That seems pretty clearly racist (and utterly stupid as well) to me.

[Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur]

@iiandyiiii

If Trump said “he’s biased because he’s a member of this organization”, then that would be different, but Trump said he’s biased because of his ethnicity. He also mentioned some group, but he doubled down (and tripled and quadrupled) on the ethnicity angle in subsequent interviews. That seems pretty clearly racist (and utterly stupid as well) to me.

When the Supreme Court reverses the decision of an all White jury, that presumes every member of that jury is racist. Double standard. How is it stupid that a judge with a chip on his shoulder wouldn’t be biased? Have you looked at his record? How many times has this guy ruled in favor of Hispanics? If we look closer he might be biased.