House Speaker Paul Ryan ripped Donald Trump’s recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
The link includes a video, so you can see and hear what the Speaker of the House had to say.
Was it a valid concern when cases brought by black men against the Klu Klux Klan in the pre-integration south were tried by white judges? I think it was, and those cases would have been better tried by Hispanic judges (were they available). Judges make awful ruling all the time, and often base those rulings on emotion rather than the law.
I don’t know if that was the case here. But in general, I think people should have the right to object to judges that have any kind of stake in the case, even if that stake is group membership or ancestory. If I was (falsely) accused of a hate crime against Hispanics I certainly wouldn’t want a Hispanic judge to try my case. I would want a ruling based on evidence, not a need for revenge against “the other”. Judges are mortal humans too, and no race is immune to bias.
If it was a trial about one of my boring businesses, I wouldn’t care if the judge was Hispanic, Black, or whatever. But I think judges should err on the side of recusing themselves, unless there is a strong reason not to. Otherwise, there will always be a doubt as to whether the verdict was honest or not.
Well, I don’t want the following to be fighting words, because I understand what you are saying, and I don’t think you are being evil in the way that, say, the Klan is evil, and I understand that you want an excess of caution in a judicial matter, but… ….I think you’re making a textbook racist comment too. I think you should worry about the judge’s views, rather than the judge’s race. I this National Review article by Dennis Prager himself explains what I want to say very well:
Dennis Prager’s article is titled “How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist” and it is subtitled “Ask him if he’d prefer the company of a white leftist or a black conservative.”
I think you’re saying that when it comes to judges in a case about racial bias, you’d rather have a [insert racial group here] leftist over a [insert other racial group here] conservative, whereas I think you should simply prefer the conservative and not worry about race.
In fairness, I know you don’t want a leftist at all. You’re really saying you’d rather have a [insert-racial-group-here] conservative over a [insert-other-racial-group] conservative. I understand why you’d say that, but I think you’re wrong to think that way, and I think Clarence Thomas could do a great job of explaining why you are wrong to think that way. I’m no Clarence Thomas, but I’d explain it like this: a person’s race might inform their world view, but there is no good reason to think that they’ll be biased because of their race, particularly when they are known to be ideologically opposed to that kind of bias.
Hey, Bob?
Fuck you. Unlike Democrats and you and your ilk, we don’t give Fuck One about the race of conservatives.
You are the racists. You are the racists. You are the racists.
Just in case you didn’t get it, you’re fucking party has been the racist party since Day One. And continues to be.
Just in case you didn’t get it.
Show me where “Mexican” is a “race.”
MfK, Is “Irish” a race? There used to be signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” and “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” — were those signs racist toward the Irsih?
If you look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment
you’ll see how the Irish have used the word “racist” to describe anti-Irish sentiment. For example:
A 2004 report by the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs stated that Irish soldiers in World War I were treated more harshly in courts-martial because British officers had “a racist bias against Irish soldiers”.[29]
If anti-Irish sentiment can be racist, then surely anti-Mexican sentiment can be as well.
Here’s an excerpt of what Trump said: “Look, he’s proud of his heritage, OK? I’m building a wall.
Now, I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics because they are going to get jobs right now. They are going to get jobs. I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics.
We are building a wall. He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.”
When Trump said, of a US-born federal judge who is obviously an American citizen, “He’s a Mexican”, amidst comments about Hispanics, are you surprised that Paul Ryan decided that Trump meant that the judge is Hispanic, OR that Ryan decided Trump was using “Mexican” in a racist way, akin to how “Irish” can be used in a racist way.
MfK, Is “Irish” a race? There used to be signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” and “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” — were those signs racist toward the Irsih?
Ignoring the typos, just what kind of moron are you? Of course they were racist. Do you have a point?
Well, Sir Richard Burton, who was the first non-Muslim to enter Mecca, urged the British government to fund an expedition into central Africa to find the homeland of the Irish people, arguing that the Irish were obviously much more closely related to central Africans than Europeans.
Burton did a lot of drugs.
Is Trump a racist? By current standards, yes, because he has a pulse. Is he a white supremacist? Of course, and so is Nancy Pelosi and probably all Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and most blacks, because the left has redefined “white supremacist” to mean “not me.”
And I figure if Trump was standing next to Muhammed Ali and Rosa Parks to get an Ellis Island Award, and he’s a white supremacist, Rosa Parks was too, and so was MLK. That kind of thing happens in moral panics and purity spirals.
And this means, Bob, that unless you have a photo of yourself passionately kissing Rosa Parks, with some tongue action, you too are a white supremacist. It’s a really big tent these days.
So, Bob, in conclusion you believe that cases brought by black men against the Klu Klux Klan in the pre-integration south being tried by white judges was not suspect, because judges can not possibly have racial bias while evil republicans will obviously have racial bias every time.
And you believe I am a racist because I disagree, and therefore should be run down and shot when convenient.
Looks like we have an impasse. Hopefully it does lead to war, but it really looks that way to me.
You have not convinced me to vote Democratic.
David, you said “If I was (falsely) accused of a hate crime against Hispanics I certainly wouldn’t want a Hispanic judge to try my case. ”
That’s what I was responding to. You can put words in my mouth and say I want you to be run down and shot and whatever you else you posted, but you are wrong about that.
My heroes are the the ACLU lawyers who defended the Nazi’s right to free speech in the 1970s. Those lawyers were Jewish. You can get a fair shake from anyone, if they are ideologically opposed to being biased against you. Rejecting a judge because he is Hispanic instead of looking at the content of his character is racist.
a person’s race might inform their world view, but there is no good reason to think that they’ll be biased because of their race
Not sure if the fetid swamp that is Bobs brain would survive an investigation into “Palestinian” as a “race”, but a valid question would be if Rashida Tlaib (Thomas M. Cooley Law School, JD) were to be appointed to the federal bench by President Kamala Harris, would he have any issues with his appearing before her to be judged on hate speech grounds for his verbal support of an anti-BDS organization?
particularly when they are known to be ideologically opposed to that kind of bias.
That one is a real whopper Bob. Which American political party comes to your mind when the words “identity politics” appear? Which political party can be best described as having an ideology that is driven by identity?
Not to pile on here but I hope Bob-1 can see this contradiction. A person’s race impacts how they think but that isn’t a racist view unless you are Trump, in which case thinking someone’s ethnicity impacts how they think is racist.
In the case of Trump and the judge, the judge was active in ethnic advocacy. So, it wasn’t the judges ethnicity that was the conflict of interest, but the judge’s activities.
It shouldn’t matter what someone’s race or ethnicity is. We should be working for that society to be realized but Democrat think that atomizing everyone into different racial and ethnic groups will get us there while Republicans think lumping everyone into one group, American, and working toward a meritocracy will get us there. Both groups want the same thing, assuming good faith, but have different ways to get there. Which is the best way?
Do Democrats even know what Republicans themselves think on race or do they only know what Democrats say about Republicans?
A lot of Republicans fall for the DNC Media’s game and fail to stand up against the lies, distortions, and deceits. A lot of Republicans, being nice honest people and wanting to be thought of as such, are easily bullied by the Democrat’s propaganda wing but nothing they do can impact what Democrats say about them.
Being a good person will never stop the Democrats from using rude, crude, and dehumanizing attacks because the entire point of the attacks is to dehumanize people and to use in/out group power dynamics to manipulate people and maintain control.
Republicans would be better off staying true to their philosophy and vigorously defending it, even if it means some DNC hack on the news attacks them for it because there is no scenario where Republicans don’t get attacked. When there isn’t some issue they can distort, they just make stuff up.
If you feel the Left is accusing you of racism it’s because they are.
A good tell that a media outlet is lying to you is that they don’t provide a link to whatever they are reporting on so that the audience can read the source material for themselves.
We are all used to the old techniques of one or two words in quotes “like this” separating other quotes with characterizations before dropping in another microquote “of just a few more words.” before rounding it all off with more telling the audience what they should think. These days, they will often leave out any quotes and just go with sensational characterization and without any link to the source material.
Regardless of whether you ultimately agree with the Prager U. video, I think I can say factually that it also uses microquotes. It also doesn’t provide a link to the source material, and (here we may differ in our opinons), I think it is also guilty of distorting what President Trump actually said.
Why not rewatch the actual Charlottesville press conference or read the transcript? You can do that here:
Ironically, the PragerU video criticizes NPR, but NPR provides links to the raw source material, and the PragerU video does not.
Looks in PragerU study guide, finds link; remembers bob is just a troll.
The link in the study guide is to a rightwing biased Washington Examiner newspaper. The Washington Examiner article, in turn, has the microquotes which Wodun rightly criticizes. Unlike NPR, the Washington Examiner article has no link to the transcript, and has no link to the full video of post-Charlottesville press conference.
A microquote is one or two words, not full on sentences that provide the proper context to Democrat’s lies. But hey, Democrats don’t even need quotes, they just make stuff up.
Did Trump call Mexicans rapists? No.
Did Trump try to ban all Muslims? No.
Did Trump tell Putin to hack Hillary? No.
Is there any issue where Democrats accurately quote or portray anything Trump has said or done? Nope.
You said it had no links. Now you have a qualifier that shows your own selfish bias, because you can’t admit you are wrong. Which is to say you behave just like a troll.
Leland, I said “a link to the source material”, in response to Wodun’s call for links to the source material.
I agree they should have put a link in the description to the transcript. They didn’t use a microquote though. They used put the quote Democrats lie about in the context of the relevant part of the speech the quote came from.
What I was referring to was news media in the form of the written word, where it is far easier to include a link than from inside of a video.
The video you linked says its the job of the individual to check up on what the media says. This is true but also impossible to fact check everything we read due to the volume of media we consume. We always have to trust the media at some basic level. But what we are seeing is journalism of the worst form, that doesn’t simply get something wrong but intentionally crafts a deceit to turn reality on its head.
So much of what Democrats believe about Trump and Republicans isn’t based on objective reality but on the crazy conspiracy theories, bigoted stereotypes, and carefully crafted deceits inculcated in them by the Democrat party and their propaganda wing of NBC, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, PBS, and many other media outfits in conjunction with the censorious marxist Technocrats that run social media companies, financial services, and other corporations.
I thought that by “microquote” you meant one or two sentences that failed to provide the full context for the quote. But whether it is a few words or a few sentences, I bet we can agree that it is all too easy to quote out of context.
Sure. Misquoting is easy and it isn’t just done by Democrats.
I suggest we not trust the media at all. For example, NPR has been systematically telling listeners that the current naval phony war with Iran was begun by the US and UK.
I’m also pretty sure no conservatives are involved at any level in that video. It’s just blue-on-blue goodness that should convince quite a few progressives that Trump is right when he rails about fake news and fake journalism.
They muted her mic at the first debate so she couldn’t jump in on questions that weren’t directly asked to her didn’t they? Or was that just Yang and Hippy Dippy?
It amazes me that Democrats know their party rigs primaries and still supports their leadership and then tells Republicans voter fraud is impossible.
Am I the only person that whenever the left accuses Trump of racism or whatever, feels that the attack could just as easily be sent at me?
There is no defense from this kind of thing, except to never let them back in power.
When the right accuses Trump of racism, do you also feel the attack could just as easily be sent you at you?
Haven’t really seen that. I suppose so, if the source material says pretty much the opposite of what they say. But I haven’t seen that myself.
There are many many examples. You and I can both find them by using this link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+calling+trump+racist
Here are two examples from the above link:
This story was posted 13 hours ago according to google:
https://www.apnews.com/1bc421a2eab84869b974ef47cbf75d2e
This story was posted July 25:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/bill-weld-donald-trump-raging-racist-naacp/index.html
But the most classic example was (to be continued)
Here is the classic example:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-racist-comment/index.html
House Speaker Paul Ryan ripped Donald Trump’s recent remarks saying a judge presiding over a lawsuit involving his business was biased because of his Mexican heritage as “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
The link includes a video, so you can see and hear what the Speaker of the House had to say.
Was it a valid concern when cases brought by black men against the Klu Klux Klan in the pre-integration south were tried by white judges? I think it was, and those cases would have been better tried by Hispanic judges (were they available). Judges make awful ruling all the time, and often base those rulings on emotion rather than the law.
I don’t know if that was the case here. But in general, I think people should have the right to object to judges that have any kind of stake in the case, even if that stake is group membership or ancestory. If I was (falsely) accused of a hate crime against Hispanics I certainly wouldn’t want a Hispanic judge to try my case. I would want a ruling based on evidence, not a need for revenge against “the other”. Judges are mortal humans too, and no race is immune to bias.
If it was a trial about one of my boring businesses, I wouldn’t care if the judge was Hispanic, Black, or whatever. But I think judges should err on the side of recusing themselves, unless there is a strong reason not to. Otherwise, there will always be a doubt as to whether the verdict was honest or not.
Well, I don’t want the following to be fighting words, because I understand what you are saying, and I don’t think you are being evil in the way that, say, the Klan is evil, and I understand that you want an excess of caution in a judicial matter, but… ….I think you’re making a textbook racist comment too. I think you should worry about the judge’s views, rather than the judge’s race. I this National Review article by Dennis Prager himself explains what I want to say very well:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/trump-supporters-white-conservatives-racism-charge/
Dennis Prager’s article is titled “How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist” and it is subtitled “Ask him if he’d prefer the company of a white leftist or a black conservative.”
I think you’re saying that when it comes to judges in a case about racial bias, you’d rather have a [insert racial group here] leftist over a [insert other racial group here] conservative, whereas I think you should simply prefer the conservative and not worry about race.
In fairness, I know you don’t want a leftist at all. You’re really saying you’d rather have a [insert-racial-group-here] conservative over a [insert-other-racial-group] conservative. I understand why you’d say that, but I think you’re wrong to think that way, and I think Clarence Thomas could do a great job of explaining why you are wrong to think that way. I’m no Clarence Thomas, but I’d explain it like this: a person’s race might inform their world view, but there is no good reason to think that they’ll be biased because of their race, particularly when they are known to be ideologically opposed to that kind of bias.
Hey, Bob?
Fuck you. Unlike Democrats and you and your ilk, we don’t give Fuck One about the race of conservatives.
You are the racists. You are the racists. You are the racists.
Just in case you didn’t get it, you’re fucking party has been the racist party since Day One. And continues to be.
Just in case you didn’t get it.
Show me where “Mexican” is a “race.”
MfK, Is “Irish” a race? There used to be signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” and “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” — were those signs racist toward the Irsih?
If you look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment
you’ll see how the Irish have used the word “racist” to describe anti-Irish sentiment. For example:
A 2004 report by the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs stated that Irish soldiers in World War I were treated more harshly in courts-martial because British officers had “a racist bias against Irish soldiers”.[29]
If anti-Irish sentiment can be racist, then surely anti-Mexican sentiment can be as well.
Here’s an excerpt of what Trump said: “Look, he’s proud of his heritage, OK? I’m building a wall.
Now, I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics because they are going to get jobs right now. They are going to get jobs. I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics.
We are building a wall. He’s a Mexican. We’re building a wall between here and Mexico.”
When Trump said, of a US-born federal judge who is obviously an American citizen, “He’s a Mexican”, amidst comments about Hispanics, are you surprised that Paul Ryan decided that Trump meant that the judge is Hispanic, OR that Ryan decided Trump was using “Mexican” in a racist way, akin to how “Irish” can be used in a racist way.
MfK, Is “Irish” a race? There used to be signs that said “No Irish Need Apply” and “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” — were those signs racist toward the Irsih?
Ignoring the typos, just what kind of moron are you? Of course they were racist. Do you have a point?
Well, Sir Richard Burton, who was the first non-Muslim to enter Mecca, urged the British government to fund an expedition into central Africa to find the homeland of the Irish people, arguing that the Irish were obviously much more closely related to central Africans than Europeans.
Burton did a lot of drugs.
Is Trump a racist? By current standards, yes, because he has a pulse. Is he a white supremacist? Of course, and so is Nancy Pelosi and probably all Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and most blacks, because the left has redefined “white supremacist” to mean “not me.”
And I figure if Trump was standing next to Muhammed Ali and Rosa Parks to get an Ellis Island Award, and he’s a white supremacist, Rosa Parks was too, and so was MLK. That kind of thing happens in moral panics and purity spirals.
And this means, Bob, that unless you have a photo of yourself passionately kissing Rosa Parks, with some tongue action, you too are a white supremacist. It’s a really big tent these days.
So, Bob, in conclusion you believe that cases brought by black men against the Klu Klux Klan in the pre-integration south being tried by white judges was not suspect, because judges can not possibly have racial bias while evil republicans will obviously have racial bias every time.
And you believe I am a racist because I disagree, and therefore should be run down and shot when convenient.
Looks like we have an impasse. Hopefully it does lead to war, but it really looks that way to me.
You have not convinced me to vote Democratic.
David, you said “If I was (falsely) accused of a hate crime against Hispanics I certainly wouldn’t want a Hispanic judge to try my case. ”
That’s what I was responding to. You can put words in my mouth and say I want you to be run down and shot and whatever you else you posted, but you are wrong about that.
My heroes are the the ACLU lawyers who defended the Nazi’s right to free speech in the 1970s. Those lawyers were Jewish. You can get a fair shake from anyone, if they are ideologically opposed to being biased against you. Rejecting a judge because he is Hispanic instead of looking at the content of his character is racist.
a person’s race might inform their world view, but there is no good reason to think that they’ll be biased because of their race
Not sure if the fetid swamp that is Bobs brain would survive an investigation into “Palestinian” as a “race”, but a valid question would be if Rashida Tlaib (Thomas M. Cooley Law School, JD) were to be appointed to the federal bench by President Kamala Harris, would he have any issues with his appearing before her to be judged on hate speech grounds for his verbal support of an anti-BDS organization?
particularly when they are known to be ideologically opposed to that kind of bias.
That one is a real whopper Bob. Which American political party comes to your mind when the words “identity politics” appear? Which political party can be best described as having an ideology that is driven by identity?
Not to pile on here but I hope Bob-1 can see this contradiction. A person’s race impacts how they think but that isn’t a racist view unless you are Trump, in which case thinking someone’s ethnicity impacts how they think is racist.
In the case of Trump and the judge, the judge was active in ethnic advocacy. So, it wasn’t the judges ethnicity that was the conflict of interest, but the judge’s activities.
It shouldn’t matter what someone’s race or ethnicity is. We should be working for that society to be realized but Democrat think that atomizing everyone into different racial and ethnic groups will get us there while Republicans think lumping everyone into one group, American, and working toward a meritocracy will get us there. Both groups want the same thing, assuming good faith, but have different ways to get there. Which is the best way?
Do Democrats even know what Republicans themselves think on race or do they only know what Democrats say about Republicans?
A lot of Republicans fall for the DNC Media’s game and fail to stand up against the lies, distortions, and deceits. A lot of Republicans, being nice honest people and wanting to be thought of as such, are easily bullied by the Democrat’s propaganda wing but nothing they do can impact what Democrats say about them.
Being a good person will never stop the Democrats from using rude, crude, and dehumanizing attacks because the entire point of the attacks is to dehumanize people and to use in/out group power dynamics to manipulate people and maintain control.
Republicans would be better off staying true to their philosophy and vigorously defending it, even if it means some DNC hack on the news attacks them for it because there is no scenario where Republicans don’t get attacked. When there isn’t some issue they can distort, they just make stuff up.
If you feel the Left is accusing you of racism it’s because they are.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2019/49_of_democrats_think_trump_voters_are_racist
A good tell that a media outlet is lying to you is that they don’t provide a link to whatever they are reporting on so that the audience can read the source material for themselves.
We are all used to the old techniques of one or two words in quotes “like this” separating other quotes with characterizations before dropping in another microquote “of just a few more words.” before rounding it all off with more telling the audience what they should think. These days, they will often leave out any quotes and just go with sensational characterization and without any link to the source material.
I watched the PragerU video “The Charlottesville Lie”
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-charlottesville-lie/
Regardless of whether you ultimately agree with the Prager U. video, I think I can say factually that it also uses microquotes. It also doesn’t provide a link to the source material, and (here we may differ in our opinons), I think it is also guilty of distorting what President Trump actually said.
Why not rewatch the actual Charlottesville press conference or read the transcript? You can do that here:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543769884/transcript-trump-shifts-tone-again-on-white-nationalist-rally-in-charlottesville
Ironically, the PragerU video criticizes NPR, but NPR provides links to the raw source material, and the PragerU video does not.
Looks in PragerU study guide, finds link; remembers bob is just a troll.
The link in the study guide is to a rightwing biased Washington Examiner newspaper. The Washington Examiner article, in turn, has the microquotes which Wodun rightly criticizes. Unlike NPR, the Washington Examiner article has no link to the transcript, and has no link to the full video of post-Charlottesville press conference.
A microquote is one or two words, not full on sentences that provide the proper context to Democrat’s lies. But hey, Democrats don’t even need quotes, they just make stuff up.
Did Trump call Mexicans rapists? No.
Did Trump try to ban all Muslims? No.
Did Trump tell Putin to hack Hillary? No.
Is there any issue where Democrats accurately quote or portray anything Trump has said or done? Nope.
You said it had no links. Now you have a qualifier that shows your own selfish bias, because you can’t admit you are wrong. Which is to say you behave just like a troll.
Leland, I said “a link to the source material”, in response to Wodun’s call for links to the source material.
I agree they should have put a link in the description to the transcript. They didn’t use a microquote though. They used put the quote Democrats lie about in the context of the relevant part of the speech the quote came from.
What I was referring to was news media in the form of the written word, where it is far easier to include a link than from inside of a video.
The video you linked says its the job of the individual to check up on what the media says. This is true but also impossible to fact check everything we read due to the volume of media we consume. We always have to trust the media at some basic level. But what we are seeing is journalism of the worst form, that doesn’t simply get something wrong but intentionally crafts a deceit to turn reality on its head.
So much of what Democrats believe about Trump and Republicans isn’t based on objective reality but on the crazy conspiracy theories, bigoted stereotypes, and carefully crafted deceits inculcated in them by the Democrat party and their propaganda wing of NBC, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Vox, Vice, PBS, and many other media outfits in conjunction with the censorious marxist Technocrats that run social media companies, financial services, and other corporations.
I thought that by “microquote” you meant one or two sentences that failed to provide the full context for the quote. But whether it is a few words or a few sentences, I bet we can agree that it is all too easy to quote out of context.
Sure. Misquoting is easy and it isn’t just done by Democrats.
I suggest we not trust the media at all. For example, NPR has been systematically telling listeners that the current naval phony war with Iran was begun by the US and UK.
I ran across a hilarious look at the press trying to stop Tulsi Gabbard
I’m also pretty sure no conservatives are involved at any level in that video. It’s just blue-on-blue goodness that should convince quite a few progressives that Trump is right when he rails about fake news and fake journalism.
They muted her mic at the first debate so she couldn’t jump in on questions that weren’t directly asked to her didn’t they? Or was that just Yang and Hippy Dippy?
It amazes me that Democrats know their party rigs primaries and still supports their leadership and then tells Republicans voter fraud is impossible.