It seems that you, Like Donald Trump, have some preconceived notions about a group of people based solely on their point of origin.
Maybe instead of painting with such a broad brush, you should do your best to judge people based on their individual accomplishments and actions.
I have a hard time really calling this particular Trumpism racist. He’s not saying Mexicans are inherently given to biases so much as admitting they have a good reason to be biased against him. Still bad form and all.
In any case by Trump’s standards, anyone from any demographic he has ever antagonized is ipso facto suspect of bias. That is utterly odious BUT in the world of this campaign, is something his followers eat up. It’s all about putting the other person on the defensive and they admire that.
Dude, the entire republican establishment has given up on this one. You can stop. Honest. There’s nothing left. There’s no prize for being the last guy to defend an incredibly backwards and racist idea. Trump claimed that this judge was incapable of doing his job because he’s a mexican, and that his loyalty to other mexicans would make him want to screw Trump over in court because he’s mad about the wall. You seriously don’t see how insanely racist this is? Are you seriously going to pull that absurd move where the people who recognize racists are the only real racists? Please, for everyone’s sake, just stop.
:rolleyes:
Back at you, Leon H. Wolf is not Erickson and does he hate him because they are racist?
A bit more from Wolf:
Sure, keep relying on your past sources like the racist VDARE, you are only attempting to keep using the “La Raza” term as defined by the one hating the groups that want more social justice rather than what the people in those organizations see it NOW.
Like it was said, it remains so by people that are like the ones that see a term like “titmouse” and despair. And you ignored that I do accept that there were Hispanic people that did attempt to make it a discriminatory term, they failed, and many Hispanics are taking it back or see it as having the more universal meaning (as in there is one human race as many do understand in Central America and other Hispanics nations why we have a “Dia de la Raza” instead of Columbus day and that has been so since I was a kid in the old country) It is more natural for Hispanics because besides mestizos a Hispanic can also be black or white and that really makes the attempts at shoehorning a racist meaning silly. (And yeah. I call also the ones in Aztlan that also try to use it divisively also silly)
As silly as Malakin complaining still even after McCain and Obama both saw that the definition that the ones that fall for prejudice as out of fashion and so they both talked to groups with that name.
Maybe this discussion is now more than a sidebar and deserves its own thread…?
Then you must think it is unfair to be suspicious of Judge Curiel, since he does not, as far as we know, belong to an organization “entitled The Race”. Right?
Where did you read or hear this? The whole point of the thread is that Trump isn’t backing down and he isn’t shutting up about this.
No, it’s not that he referred to Curiel as Mexican that is racist, it’s that he insisted that because Curiel has Mexican descent, he must be inherently biased. It’s tying ethnic background, which individuals have no control over, to some negative characteristic, in this case the ability to be a judge without bias.
Trump said that being Mexican means that someone can’t be unbiased, and that’s racist.
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham endorses Hillary Clinton.
Well, maybe not a full-on mouth kiss, but he’s urging Republicans to un-endorse Trump, and said on Morning Joe that “there’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
I do declare, I’d say that’s as close to a Hillary Clinton endorsement as you’ll ever see from Lindsey Graham.
Really? So does this sound racist to you?
“I’m not going to hire African American police officers because they are biased against law enforcement. I’m not saying they are inherently given to biases so much as they have good reason to be biased against LE. Just saying.”
The logic is so tortuous I can’t believe you typed that.
That Trump said this about a judge who is presiding over a fraud case–not anything remotely having to do with immigration–says all I need to know about how he’d approach justice appointments. :shudder:
My logic was less tortuous than your analogy.
I gotta say, my favorite part is when he gets caught in a lie about whether or not he supported intervening in Libya, and his response is to boast about how much money he made working with Gadhafi.
have you forgotten this already?
In an effort to table this discussion on whether La Raza is racist or double-reverse-racist or whatever, I’m willing to stipulate that in this instance, Trump is not being racist. He is, however, being reprehensible and an idiot.
The Trump thinks a judge’s ethnic background is relevant at all to his ability to do his job impartially is racist, yall. Stop trying to come up with another word for it. Even members of his own party–experts in dog whistle politics–have called that shit racist.
If I thought coming up with another term for it would make any real difference, I’d be OK with it. Cisbiased?
As I recall, he boasted that instead of simply refuse to deal with Gadhafi, he made a deal and the ripped Gadhafi off.
As far as I can tell, Trump was trying to refer to this incident;
So he can’t even take credit for making a deal with Gadhafi - his attempt at puffery consists of bragging about how he accidentally took money from a murderous dictator.
And yet started no wars as President, and won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War.
Did you overlook his response to me?
See? It’s the politically correct that overuse the term ‘racism.’ Unlike them, magellan01 would only use the term when it’s obviously justified. Except …
:eek:
:smack: 