As much as I despise Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I must say that Trump’s remarks about the judge in his “Trump U” trial, leaves me to say that the anti-Trumpsters, both the Democrats and Republicans who are calling those remarks racist, should consider explaining how simply mentioning somebody’s ethnic heritage equates to racism.
Racism is the belief that one race of people are superior to other races of people or one or some races are inferior to other/an other races/race of people.
Nothing Trump said in his rant about the judge indicated that he considered Mexicans inferior to anybody. He simply was pointing out that because he, (Trump), because he says he will build a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out of America, the judge being of Mexican heritage was handing down biased negative rulings against Trump in the trial.
Where’s the “racism?”
You are correct. There is no such thing as racism. Thank goodness we Americans no longer have to worry about that one.
That's not what the OP said at all. Can you explain your hyperbole?
Don't have to. The Donald stated a judge could not judge his case simply because of his ethnicity. Trump's a racist or is pretending to be to fire up his base. The only way the base can pretend he is not (and thus neither are they) a racist is to fall back on the defining away the term.
As much as I despise Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I must say that Trump’s remarks about the judge in his “Trump U” trial, leaves me to say that the anti-Trumpsters, both the Democrats and Republicans who are calling those remarks racist, should consider explaining how simply mentioning somebody’s ethnic heritage equates to racism.
Racism is the belief that one race of people are superior to other races of people or one or some races are inferior to other/an other races/race of people.
Nothing Trump said in his rant about the judge indicated that he considered Mexicans inferior to anybody. He simply was pointing out that because he, (Trump), because he says he will build a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out of America, the judge being of Mexican heritage was handing down biased negative rulings against Trump in the trial.
Where’s the “racism?”
As much as I despise Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I must say that Trump’s remarks about the judge in his “Trump U” trial, leaves me to say that the anti-Trumpsters, both the Democrats and Republicans who are calling those remarks racist, should consider explaining how simply mentioning somebody’s ethnic heritage equates to racism.
Racism is the belief that one race of people are superior to other races of people or one or some races are inferior to other/an other races/race of people.
Nothing Trump said in his rant about the judge indicated that he considered Mexicans inferior to anybody. He simply was pointing out that because he, (Trump), because he says he will build a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out of America, the judge being of Mexican heritage was handing down biased negative rulings against Trump in the trial.
Where’s the “racism?”
As much as I despise Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I must say that Trump’s remarks about the judge in his “Trump U” trial, leaves me to say that the anti-Trumpsters, both the Democrats and Republicans who are calling those remarks racist, should consider explaining how simply mentioning somebody’s ethnic heritage equates to racism.
Racism is the belief that one race of people are superior to other races of people or one or some races are inferior to other/an other races/race of people.
Nothing Trump said in his rant about the judge indicated that he considered Mexicans inferior to anybody. He simply was pointing out that because he, (Trump), because he says he will build a wall to keep illegal Mexicans out of America, the judge being of Mexican heritage was handing down biased negative rulings against Trump in the trial.
Where’s the “racism?”
Declaring that someone's ethnicity makes them incapable of adequately discharging a government office is as racist as declaring that someone's ethnicity makes them uniquely or more capable to it.
So yes. It's racist.
Well then, does that make you a homophobe? If I remember correctly you were one to come out first and suggest that Judge Walker could not rule on Prop 8 because he was a gay man. I supported that position in principle, just like I support Trump's position in principle. It doesn't mean I or Trump or you are correct, but there is that stink in the air regardless. Look, Anyone that thinks Trumps remarks were anything other than stating the obvious potential for conflict of interest hasn't been really paying close attention to what Trump, the man, actually is. Trump doesn't like losing, nor being attacked, nor does he like feeling like he's being treated unfairly. If he senses any of those things, he goes on the attack. He's an equal opportunity attacker, which, gives his enemies fodder to suggest instability. In this regard, I have been on the fence about whether I think he should dial anything back, but I'm still leaning for Trump to remain being Trump, and not give in to the party pressure to soften his approach. If elected this "hint" of instability and penchant for going on the offensive will actually benefit us geo-politically. But short-sighted pundits can't see past Trump's media makeover long enough to recognize brilliance in his approach.
Trump, right or wrong to bring it up in the conversation was at least right about the potential for impartiality, and that, and that alone was all he was saying. It pains me to see sensible conservatives whom I admire and respect their opinions and viewpoints lose their minds over Trump. Sure he's no conservative by any social measure, but Republican's have been losing that battle for well over two decades, in fact, I'd say we've lost it. Instead of retreating and admitting total defeat, maybe it's "Time to advance in another direction."
Well then, does that make you a homophobe? If I remember correctly you were one to come out first and suggest that Judge Walker could not rule on Prop 8 because he was a gay man
If elected this "hint" of instability and penchant for going on the offensive will actually benefit us geo-politically. But short-sighted pundits can't see past Trump's media makeover long enough to recognize brilliance in his approach.
Hm. As I recall, my problem with him was that in his "findings" he basically took a lot of ideological positions (rather than factual ones), and that these aligned with his obvious personal interest in the case.
You know what, I'll have to go back and check.
Trump has no idea what he is doing in foreign policy. There is zero brilliance in his approach.
To the first bolded statement, what evidence do you have for that belief?
To the second bolded statement, Trump is not discussing the "potential for impartiality" by saying that the "judge is inherently biased because he is Mexican."
Sure. Let's try nuking ourselves. Change!Well, our foreign policy arguably over the last 16 years hasn't exactly yielded us net positive results, so I'm willing to go in another direction, if only for a 4 year trial.
Tim-
Sure. Let's try nuking ourselves. Change!
Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
No, you made an incorrect statement about what the OP said. The OP never said there is no such thing as racism.
Sure. Let's try nuking ourselves. Change!
Well then, does that make you a homophobe? If I remember correctly you were one to come out first and suggest that Judge Walker could not rule on Prop 8 because he was a gay man. I supported that position in principle, just like I support Trump's position in principle. It doesn't mean I or Trump or you are correct, but there is that stink in the air regardless. Look, Anyone that thinks Trumps remarks were anything other than stating the obvious potential for conflict of interest hasn't been really paying close attention to what Trump, the man, actually is. Trump doesn't like losing, nor being attacked, nor does he like feeling like he's being treated unfairly. If he senses any of those things, he goes on the attack. He's an equal opportunity attacker, which, gives his enemies fodder to suggest instability. In this regard, I have been on the fence about whether I think he should dial anything back, but I'm still leaning for Trump to remain being Trump, and not give in to the party pressure to soften his approach. If elected this "hint" of instability and penchant for going on the offensive will actually benefit us geo-politically. But short-sighted pundits can't see past Trump's media makeover long enough to recognize brilliance in his approach.
Trump, right or wrong to bring it up in the conversation was at least right about the potential for impartiality, and that, and that alone was all he was saying. It pains me to see sensible conservatives whom I admire and respect their opinions and viewpoints lose their minds over Trump. Sure he's no conservative by any social measure, but Republican's have been losing that battle for well over two decades, in fact, I'd say we've lost it. Instead of retreating and admitting total defeat, maybe it's "Time to advance in another direction."
Tim-
Eh. It's argumentum ad ridiculum. Arguing that we should try stupid foreign policy because "it's different" is.... dumb.That's hyperbole, too!
Eh. It's argumentum ad ridiculum. Arguing that we should try stupid foreign policy because "it's different" is.... dumb.
I believe the term you are looking for is argumentum ad absurdum or, as I call it, reductio ad absurdum
Saying 'let's try nuking ourselves' is simply hyperbole, absurd to be sure, but simply hyperbole.
You are correct. There is no such thing as racism. Thank goodness we Americans no longer have to worry about that one.
Yup. Mea Culpa
Hyperbole, perhaps, but also a demonstration of the foolishness of the claim that national security decisions can be as bad as they like, so long as they are different.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?