Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 177: Still In Our Mom's Basement

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

Corrik posted...

I am saying that there is a bunch of comments that you could apply as racist sure if you wanted to. But, I do not see any comments which have ever been definitively racist. And after 70 years if you can have recordings of him talking about females, I would think surely something exists at some point in his life. Someone would have trapped him by now.

I actually agree with this that's why I am of the "he's probably racist but" mindset but there are more than enough racist leaning statements from the guy that it's totally reasonable to think he is

If you think it is reasonable, that is your choice. If you think anyone who disagrees is a fucking piece of shit not worth your time then I think that is not a reasonable stance to take. I don't toss labels like that unless I am positive of it. I feel it is possible but I have seen nothing definitively to apply that label.
---

Lopen posted...

I actually agree with this

how the fuck is trump's judge curiel comment not definitively racist?

apparently corrik is now just ignoring me when i keep bringing it up (after mentioning the irrelevant-to-the-discussion abraham lincoln thing), so perhaps you can shed some light on this.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lopen posted...

I actually agree with this

how the fuck is trump's judge curiel comment not definitively racist?

apparently corrik is now just ignoring me when i keep bringing it up (after mentioning the irrelevant-to-the-discussion abraham lincoln thing), so perhaps you can shed some light on this.

I am not ignoring you. I just don't agree it is definitive. I think you can take it that way if you wish to. You obviously wish to. I don't see it as definitive.
---

Corrik posted...

I am not ignoring you. I just don't agree it is definitive. I think you can take it that way if you wish to. You obviously wish to. I don't see it as definitive.

but why?

saying "i don't see it as definitive" repeatedly is not an argument.
---

Let me help you Lasa

Corriks argument was that, possibly, Trump could just be willing to APPEAR racist to try to discredit a judge he doesnt like.
---

Like, his apparent racism isnt ever based in malice or prejudice, its all just shrewd politically.

Some of it probably is, even! Which says a lot about our country IMO
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

I am not ignoring you. I just don't agree it is definitive. I think you can take it that way if you wish to. You obviously wish to. I don't see it as definitive.

but why?

saying "i don't see it as definitive" repeatedly is not an argument.

I think there is moving parts on that comment and motives in regards to it.

I think he specifically was just trying to get a more sympathetic judge or instill the thought of bias in order for an appeal in a case he thought he could lose with that judge.

I do not think he said you are a fucking Mexican your kind isn't able to oversee court cases. He was specifically pointing to a bias with it.

Like I said, he is likely wrong about the bias due to heritage. If anything most court bias is from political party which does say something about our court system.

But, I do not think he was saying he was incapable on an ability level to see a case. I think he was just referring to bias. Saying a person could be biased isn't a racist comment.

For example, if I say a Mexican woman would be biased in thinking that illegal mexican immigrants should be granted amnesty. I think that is an assessment that is able to be made without being racist, whether true or not.

We see situations like this in sports. A college basketball administrator has to recuse himself in the selection process regarding his school due to bias.

Granted the weird part about this is that this is in reference to his own comments prior. It isn't the situation I initially thought I remembered about it being about immigration. But, end of the day. Racism should be cut and dry. It shouldn't be need to be explained or be debatable. I wouldn't call a single one of you a racist without concrete clandestine proof of it. Nor would I call Trump it.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lopen posted...

I actually agree with this

how the fuck is trump's judge curiel comment not definitively racist?

Trump has a history of

1. Trying to win arguments at any cost
2. Not fully considering the ramifications of what he says

Don't get me wrong it's not a good look but it literally could be "he is flailing for any sort of argument that he thinks will convince people" and I wouldn't be completely surprised. If he was trying to discredit a white judge it's at least possible he could say something similar in the heat of an argument, which makes it not a racist thing to say.

The fact that this is an argument that comes natural to him and his history makes me think he is a racist but I only think it's definitively racist if we can read a bit better into Trump's psyche or if it's in a different setting.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corriks argument was that, possibly, Trump could just be willing to APPEAR racist to try to discredit a judge he doesnt like.

i get that but the comment itself is definitively racist, and corrik is saying that it isn't. (note that it's possible that trump isn't a racist, even though he made a comment that is 100% racist. that's a different discussion.)
---

Lopen posted...

if we can read a bit better into Trump's psyche

Inside Trumps Head

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hbu.h-cdn.co/assets/16/19/4000x2609/gallery-1462816039-donald-trump-1.jpg?resize=768:*
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Corriks argument was that, possibly, Trump could just be willing to APPEAR racist to try to discredit a judge he doesnt like.

i get that but the comment itself is definitively racist, and corrik is saying that it isn't. (note that it's possible that trump isn't a racist, even though he made a comment that is 100% racist. that's a different discussion.)

How is saying a person could be biased based on ethnicity a racist comment? It could be wrong, but it doesn't make it racist.

I think Argentinians could be biased when debating who has a better soccer team between Argentina and Brazil and incapable to look past their bias to assess the teams properly.

Am I being racist against Argentinians?
---

Corrik posted...

Saying a person could be biased isn't a racist comment.

it isn't, but that's not what trump was saying. he wasn't saying curiel "could" be biased, he's saying he WAS biased because of his heritage and therefore he shouldn't be allowed to handle trump's case. that's racist.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Saying a person could be biased isn't a racist comment.

it isn't, but that's not what trump was saying. he wasn't saying curiel "could" be biased, he's saying he WAS biased because of his heritage and therefore he shouldn't be allowed to handle trump's case. that's racist.

Welcome to Trump speak. Lol. He uses hyperbole all the time and is always aggrandizing his statements.
---

Lopen posted...

Trump has a history of

1. Trying to win arguments at any cost
2. Not fully considering the ramifications of what he says

Don't get me wrong it's not a good look but it literally could be "he is flailing for any sort of argument that he thinks will convince people" and I wouldn't be completely surprised. If he was trying to discredit a white judge it's at least possible he could say something similar in the heat of an argument, which makes it not a racist thing to say.

The fact that this is an argument that comes natural to him and his history makes me think he is a racist but I only think it's definitively racist if we can read a bit better into Trump's psyche or if it's in a different setting.

yeah, this goes back to what i was saying to jakyl. trump isn't necessarily racist. the comment definitively is.
---

Corrik posted...

Welcome to Trump speak. Lol. He uses hyperbole all the time and is always aggrandizing his statements.

ok, then he said something racist because he was using "trump speak."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Welcome to Trump speak. Lol. He uses hyperbole all the time and is always aggrandizing his statements.

ok, then he said something racist because he was using "trump speak."

Still don't see it definitively racist. Was my Argentinian comment racist?
---

I'll put another way

If a friend of mine said that about that judge I'd be like "come again?" and explain how the statement doesn't really make sense unless you're saying no judge can be unbiased and ask for clarification more than necessarily say "dude that's racist as hell"

Racist statement, but not imo definitively racist because in a normal conversation I'm thinking the person isn't fully considering what they said more than they're necessarily racist.
---

Corrik posted...

Was my Argentinian comment racist?

no, because you said "could be," rather than "is."

if a sports television show has an argentinian soccer expert on to comment on an argentina - brazil match and you go "lol he should be replaced by a different commentator because all argentinians are biased in favor of argentina" then that's definitively racist (or discriminatory), yes.
---

Lopen posted...

Racist statement, but not imo definitively racist because in a normal conversation I'm thinking the person isn't fully considering what they said more than they're necessarily racist.

again, you're conflating a comment being racist with a person being racist (this is an error that's often made in these types of dicussions, unfortunately). trump isn't necessarily racist but the comment defintively is.

i'll use my example from earlier - if i say "black people suck" because i'm drunk or i'm trying to be funny or whatever, would you say the comment is not defintively racist just because i'm not a racist person?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Lopen posted...

Racist statement, but not imo definitively racist because in a normal conversation I'm thinking the person isn't fully considering what they said more than they're necessarily racist.

again, you're conflating a comment being racist with a person being racist (this is an error that's often made in these types of dicussions, unfortunately). trump isn't necessarily racist but the comment defintively is.

i'll use my example from earlier - if i say "black people suck" because i'm drunk or i'm trying to be funny or whatever, would you say the comment is not defintively racist just because i'm not a racist person?

How can an inadvertent racist comment be a definitive racist comment either? I don't get that.
---

If it's a joke and presented as such then no it's not racist in any sense forget definitively or not it's just not straight up.

If you're drunk and say it completely straight, yeah that's racist. Being drunk isn't really an excuse.

But like he didn't say anything as straightforward as that. He said a judge of a race cannot be unbiased when regarding a guy they perceive to be racist against their race. That isn't necessarily racist taken on its face. It's only Trump's history that has you think it probably is, which isn't unfair either for the record.
---

Corrik posted...

How can an inadvertent racist comment be a definitive racist comment either? I don't get that.

why can't it be?

what's the difference between a vanilla racist comment and a defintive racist comment?
---

Well hey, if there's no way to be sure Trump is a racist, that judge doesn't necessarily think Trump is racist, so there's no reason to choose someone else, right?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what's the difference between a vanilla racist comment and a defintive racist comment?

Lopen posted...

If a friend of mine said that about that judge I'd be like "come again?" and explain how the statement doesn't really make sense unless you're saying no judge can be unbiased and ask for clarification more than necessarily say "dude that's racist as hell"

To me if the reaction is the latter then it's a definite racist comment. If anything Trump's Wall is more racist to me than that judge thing
---

Lopen posted...

He said a judge of a race cannot be unbiased when regarding a guy they perceive to be racist against their race. That isn't necessarily racist taken on its face.

why not?

you're saying a judge is a negative thing ("biased to the point of not being able to do their job") by default because of his race. how is that not the textbook definition of racist?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

So republicans might have closed the generic ballot but on an individual level?

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/05/29/joe-manchin-patrick-morrisey-west-virginia-poll-610385

Ouch.

Democratic poll: Manchin up double digits in West Virginia

This is sadly largely meaningless. 538 had a good article recently on why you should never trust internal polling.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-don-blankenship-really-surging-in-west-virginia/

Also, if Manchin loses the Dems probably have lost 3 or so seats total in the senate.
---

also, uh...

Lopen posted...

Saying someone can't be impartial because their race is tangentially involved is definitely racist unless you cite some examples of them holding white guy to the same standard or there is evidence other than the race of the judge presented.

did you just do a complete 180 on this out of nowhere?
---

I'm actually surprised Corrik is okay with it, because if accepted it would set a really bad precedent for the rule of law. If you think a judge will rule against you, just attack their racial heritage and then demand they recuse themselves. You could do it with juries too. See 8 white people on the jury? Get on the stand and say you hate white people, then demand that a mistrial be declared.
---

So a Manchin win definitely wouldn't surprise me, but we want to wait for some non-biased polling to come out before we get excited. He's a great candidate for WV, but that state is getting redder and redder at even the local level. It should be a close race.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

So republicans might have closed the generic ballot but on an individual level?

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/05/29/joe-manchin-patrick-morrisey-west-virginia-poll-610385

Ouch.

Democratic poll: Manchin up double digits in West Virginia

This is sadly largely meaningless. 538 had a good article recently on why you should never trust internal polling.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-don-blankenship-really-surging-in-west-virginia/

Also, if Manchin loses the Dems probably have lost 3 or so seats total in the senate.

The poll before it was +2 Morrisey. But it was from Gravis. They skew R supposedly.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I'm actually surprised Corrik is okay with it, because if accepted it would set a really bad precedent for the rule of law. If you think a judge will rule against you, just attack their racial heritage and then demand they recuse themselves. You could do it with juries too. See 8 white people on the jury? Get on the stand and say you hate white people, then demand that a mistrial be declared.

I didn't say the judge should recuse himself. I said he said it hoping to get a more sympathetic judge by trying to insert bias as an argument or have a basis for appeal.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

you're saying a judge is a negative thing ("biased to the point of not being to do their job") by default because of his race.

It's not because of his race.

It's because of his race relative to Trump's feelings on that race.

That's what gives him some wiggle room. It's a racist comment but not something that when said automatically makes me think the guy is racist.

Keep in mind I'm not supporting what Trump said or anything and I do believe it comes from a racist mindset cause to me it's not a natural argument to make, but until we know for sure Trump wouldn't say something like that about a white dude that had shown some vocal love for Mexico or whatever then it's not rock solid conclusive. It's something I would ask Trump to explain were I having a conversation with him.
---

Let me put it this way. Let's attack this from another angle here.

Do you think Trump would have said that in regards to a Hispanic judge if the judge was expected to rule in his favor?
---

Lopen posted...

It's something I would ask Trump to explain were I having a conversation with him.

i mean, the CNN interviewer DID ask trump to explain. he just kept saying "well, i'm gonna build a wall" and "he's very proud of his mexican heritage."
---

The hilarious thing is that when Judge Curiel later DID encounter a Trump case dealing with Hispanic issues...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/27/politics/border-wall-ruling-curiel/index.html
---

Corrik posted...

Do you think Trump would have said that in regards to a Hispanic judge if the judge was expected to rule in his favor?

probably not.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The hilarious thing is that when Judge Curiel later DID encounter a Trump case dealing with Hispanic issues...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/27/politics/border-wall-ruling-curiel/index.html

Lol
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

did you just do a complete 180 on this out of nowhere?

Not exactly. The goalposts were shifted out from under me when comparing the statement to "black people suck" which that it is not. Keep in mind I said it was "definitely racist" when it was not defined in this way.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Do you think Trump would have said that in regards to a Hispanic judge if the judge was expected to rule in his favor?

probably not.

Doesn't that defeat your racist argument of it and speak moreso to what I am saying his intent was?
---

Corrik posted...

Doesn't that defeat your racist argument of it and speak moreso to what I am saying his intent was?

his intent wasn't necessarily racist but i still think the comment is.

let's agree to disagree, we're not getting anwhere and this topic is almost done. i'm sure everyone waiting for this topic to fill up will greatly appreciate this, too.
---

That's all I'm doing. Helping the topic to fill so it can get the politics tag and I can easily ignore it again
---

Yes, don't forget that politics flair!
---

Lopen posted...

That's all I'm doing. Helping the topic to fill so it can get the politics tag and I can easily ignore it again

= ( Shoulda played mafia.
---

Just to clarify one last time before the topic closes since I won't be here to talk about it

1. I think it's a racist thing to say
2. I think it's reasonable thing to contribute to thinking Trump is racist for
3. I don't think it alone should be sufficient evidence to think Trump is racist

I disagree with Corrik on 1 and 2 but agree with him on 3
---

Lopen posted...

1. I think it's a racist thing to say
2. I think it's reasonable thing to contribute to thinking Trump is racist for
3. I don't think it alone should be sufficient evidence to think Trump is racist

i agree with all three of these. what a nice ending!
---

Holy shit this topic went by fast.
---

Lopen posted...

Just to clarify one last time before the topic closes since I won't be here to talk about it

1. I think it's a racist thing to say
2. I think it's reasonable thing to contribute to thinking Trump is racist for
3. I don't think it alone should be sufficient evidence to think Trump is racist

I disagree with Corrik on 1 and 2 but agree with him on 3

I don't know I necessarily disagree with 2.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Maybe the real cruel and unusual punishment was the friends we made along the way.

---

The
---

End
---